These are the managers that have been at (and been sacked by) CFC, during the dictatorship of Abramovic. Claudio Ranieri: Sept 2000 - May 04 Jose Mourinho: May 04 - Sept 07 & June 13 - Present Avram Grant: Sept 07 - May 08 Luiz Felipe Scolari: July 08 - Feb 09 Ray Wilkins: Feb 09 Guus Hiddink: Feb 09 - May 09 Carlo Ancellotti: June 09 - May 11 Andre Villas-Boas: June 11 - March 12 Roberto Di Matteo: March 12 - Nov 12 Rafa Benitez: Nov 12 - May 13 By any standards, that is a lot of managers. In former days, when there used to be some pride left in English football, the way that Mad Dog has run his club would be considered an utter disgrace, but the fact, with today's game, is that football (and many clubs like Chelsea) would not have survived if it were not for sugar-daddy owners like The Dog, and questionable deals with banks and dealings on the stock exchange. So, where do you stand on this? Is the Mad Dog a complete and utter disgrace, or has he merely signaled how football will be dictated in the future (a future where a manager will be sacked if he does not deliver the impossible, ie. instant success)? Sensible and friendly debate, please - no wumming.
"dictatorship" "no pride" "mad dog" "sugar daddy" "questionable dealings with banks etc" and then ends with... "Sensible and friendly debate, please - no wumming" You should be charged with entrapment HIAG
Their fans seem okay with it but it was funny watching the attempts at protesting about club legend Di Matteo being sacked and the fat waiter being ushered in eventually fritter out as they realised the soul of their club is not as important to them as a few pieces of silver and a trophy. It's an odd club, that's for sure.
(a future where a manager will be sacked if he does not deliver the impossible, ie. instant success)? ------- Why is instant success impossible? With the kind of squad they have, and the money they have it should be a given. Finishing below us was a discrace.
They love it as he has bought them outstanding success. They all sold their souls to the Devil and they are all having one heck of a time. His tyrannical approach has worked just look at their trophy cabinet. As Guru says with their spending it's a given. As a club they are a small penis on a treble dose of Viagra . (not my quote)
I'd say they were a small penis with a massive strap on over the top. (Abramovitch is the strap on) Take it away and they are nothing.... However, he has changed his loans into shares and elliminated their debt. if (and its a big if) they can break even on wages and purchases then he will have elevated them to elite level with no side effects.
How can you judge Chelsea by comparing them to any other club which has to be run as a successful business? Chelsea are a rich man's play thing and Abramovich runs them as such.
Chelsea are being run in that uniquely Russian way - the first sign of failure you're out the door so fast you're practically going through it before they can open the damn thing (which is an improvement of being lined up against the wall and shot, as happened to a lot of Stalin's generals in WWII)
It's not actually that simple though SG. They are humans, which means theres too any variables and anything can happen. Spending millions doesn't gain instant success necessarily. There's too many other factors involved where time is often needed.
Plus, the most successful managers in the English game (such as Shankley, Paisley, Nicholson, Busby, Revie and Fergie, to name but a few) were all given time by their respective clubs, and their records speak for themselves. Those were the days when English football could be proud of itself, perhaps.
I read that Marshall Zhukov would call up his generals, tell them to win or die, and hang up. Some won. Some died. Some retreated. Zhukov shot the ones that retreated and promoted the winners. Pretty soon the Soviets had nothing but invincible generals. Too bad about the generals, but I'm glad Zhukov led the fight against Hitler. On topic, Abramovich is both a sign of degrading times and the wave of the future. I can see it getting to the point where there are only two kinds of owners of top teams: loopy billionaires and very unloopy corporations, both using the team as a kind of promotional flagship for their enterprises. To say I don't like Abramovich is putting it mildly. But what he seems to have done is spend money to make money. He's been successful because football players and football success, despite popular opinion, are undervalued and worth investing in.
Don't be a dick. Everyone knows that the protests died down after Rafa gave his feelings after the game at Boro. You're sometimes a reasonable poster but that's just a pile of ****.
Ruined the game. Chelsea were never going to be a title challenger until he showed up (same with £ity), a strong team, but never title challengers let alone winners... It's because of the likes of Roman, Sheikh Mansour etc that average player prices get bumped up too and so it makes it hard for other clubs to sign players they usually would've been able to afford. It's kind of like using a cheat in a video game. Instead playing the game for hours and eventually completing it, they've punched in a code and managed to complete the game in minimal time. Of course though if you're a Chelsea fan, he's the best thing since sliced bread which is understandable. But personally, I think sugar daddy's in football have just completely ruined it.
I agree. Throughout my childhood i thought the american draft system (where crap teams get pick of best players) was just a totally dumb way of doing it. Now i often wonder whether a similar thing would be good for football (eg, win the league - break even over summer + no prize money. 17th - can spend X amount over summer + prem prize money) The only issue is that clubs would be TRYING to come 17th rather than 10th. Hmmm. Does that happen in American sports?
