Man of Honour
Carlo Ancelotti is extremely ****ed off with you for getting his name wrong.
You'll be "of walked" shortly for some grammar lessons.
[Non-story]Ancelloti doesn't resign
- Thread starter The_One
- Start date
Carlo Ancelotti is extremely ****ed off with you for getting his name wrong.
You'll be "of walked" shortly for some grammar lessons.
Why do people ever think this means anything? Bookies have probably suspended betting because tons of stupid people on the internet have placed bets on an unsubstantiated twitter rumour.
Soldato
Supposedly Ancelotti tendered his resignation after Wilkins was sacked but the board refused it. This is all very reminiscent of how Jose ended up being kicked out, with a bunch of weird late night rumours coming out. I think in this case though Ancelotti will end up staying because it was a disaster for the team when Mourinho left at a similar stage in the season.
Caporegime
Nah I've heard he's coming back as a striker option for Fulham.
Associate
on the sun.co.uk if thats a source?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Its ridiculous, he would have also "not been in charge" last summer after he took over.
As the Sun mentions, he's used to it, AC Milan most transfers were done through the owner/board, same at Chelsea, this idea that being a manager is a very specific job description where a manager is somehow entitled to spend someone elses money as they please is laughable. Most managers don't get given 50mil to spend on whoever the like, why should they, likewise managers don't somehow have the ability to hire and fire whoever they want. The same in all businesses, I can understand being angry if you sign a contract that says you have control of transfers and later on, but if you sign a contract and take a job knowing your position upfront, its laughable to get angry about it later on.
Mourinho did appear to have control of transfer, or at least took credit for them and it did appear Abramovich took the power of transfers away from him, but with 8 or 9 out of 10 of his signings leaving after a year and being complete flops, thats not all that surprising. Mourinho's only successful signings was Carvalho, Essien, Drogba, thats about it, Carvalho he'd managed before, and the other two just about every top 4 club in Europe wanted, their ability was well known and weren't a risk.
As the Sun mentions, he's used to it, AC Milan most transfers were done through the owner/board, same at Chelsea, this idea that being a manager is a very specific job description where a manager is somehow entitled to spend someone elses money as they please is laughable. Most managers don't get given 50mil to spend on whoever the like, why should they, likewise managers don't somehow have the ability to hire and fire whoever they want. The same in all businesses, I can understand being angry if you sign a contract that says you have control of transfers and later on, but if you sign a contract and take a job knowing your position upfront, its laughable to get angry about it later on.
Mourinho did appear to have control of transfer, or at least took credit for them and it did appear Abramovich took the power of transfers away from him, but with 8 or 9 out of 10 of his signings leaving after a year and being complete flops, thats not all that surprising. Mourinho's only successful signings was Carvalho, Essien, Drogba, thats about it, Carvalho he'd managed before, and the other two just about every top 4 club in Europe wanted, their ability was well known and weren't a risk.
Associate
Robben, Ahsley cole, and Ballack on a free, not bad signings if you ask me. Robben was class for 2 seasons, Cole for 5M doesn't need explaining, and they got some solid years out of Ballack, Kalou has also come good. Mourinho built a very good team with what he had there when he arrived and his additions.
Obviously there have been noticeable flops like Shevchenko but I think he bought some decent players at a time when they were buying whatever they could get their hands on similar to City now. And if you compare both clubs there have been far more high profile flops at City than Chelsea. When your spending 30 mil on a player if he does anything other than light up a league then they are a bad signing, look at Kaka 70 million Euro bench warmer, before getting injured.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 620
I think he deserves a bit more credit than that. What about Cole, Malouda, Robben, Ferreira, Mikel? Hardly a bunch of flops.
Soldato
Cole (Cashley) has only really started looking like the player he was at Arsenal since Ancelloti took over
Malouda see above
Robben was already signed up before Mourinho took over
Ferreira? Nothing more than a dodgy squad player, always has been hence the amount of right backs they've gone through over the past 6 years or so
Mikel? Meh
Regardless of all that you only have to look at what Mourinho did for the existing players at Chelsea turning them into actual winners of which Ancelloti is benefiting from today. Also look what Mourinho did at Inter and the likes of Sneijder and where there are now under Rafa
Mourinho did have a few dodgy buys at Chelsea but that was his first big club and that added with an open check book you're gonna probably bring in some stinkers. His transfers since Chelsea have been much better Sneijder as I mentioned but also Ozil at Madrid
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
As said, Robben AND Cech were bought by Ranieri before he left, he had a fantastic team and it was largely that team which won the title. In the first title year it was also Gallas/Terry who played more than Carvalho if I recall.
Ferreira is literally crap, he barely plays and looks truly awful when he does, he has played more than Bogarde, but been paid probably 5 times as much, worst buy ever at Chelsea tbh.
Mikel, another player MANY clubs were after and he was hijacked after Utd bought him, Malouda was considered a great prospect by many clubs, he was utterly utterly woeful the entire time Mourinho was there, he only for really 6 games last year looked worth his price tag, he's been pathetic this year and in the past 5-6 games, again can only score when the team is playing well, he can't turn a game on his own, he can't be the difference, he can only perform if the other 10 players are already making the other team look bad.
Cole, wasn't exactly an unknown, and Mourinho rarely if ever got the best out of him, Ballack was one of the players consistantly given as a reason Mourinho left, as in Ballack was forced on him by Abramovich.
EDIT:+ Cole for 5mil doesn't need explaining? Cole for 5mil + gallas, their best defender at that stage, didn't Mourinho fail to win anything after Gallas left and Cole joined? Yup, Gallas involved in most games every season, they win the title 04/05, Gallas starts the 06/07 season at Arsenal and Chelsea didn't win the title that season until last year. So he took apart the best defence in the league, and failed to win anything afterwards, yes Cole is a great left back but Gallas was HUGE for Chelsea.
His list of successful buys, from several hundred million spent, is pitiful. With Real Madrid, very hard to know who was in charge of the deals, for 15 years + its been the boards decision who came in, they probably ask for some input, Carvalho is probably the only player he had real influence over.
Ferreira is literally crap, he barely plays and looks truly awful when he does, he has played more than Bogarde, but been paid probably 5 times as much, worst buy ever at Chelsea tbh.
Mikel, another player MANY clubs were after and he was hijacked after Utd bought him, Malouda was considered a great prospect by many clubs, he was utterly utterly woeful the entire time Mourinho was there, he only for really 6 games last year looked worth his price tag, he's been pathetic this year and in the past 5-6 games, again can only score when the team is playing well, he can't turn a game on his own, he can't be the difference, he can only perform if the other 10 players are already making the other team look bad.
Cole, wasn't exactly an unknown, and Mourinho rarely if ever got the best out of him, Ballack was one of the players consistantly given as a reason Mourinho left, as in Ballack was forced on him by Abramovich.
EDIT:+ Cole for 5mil doesn't need explaining? Cole for 5mil + gallas, their best defender at that stage, didn't Mourinho fail to win anything after Gallas left and Cole joined? Yup, Gallas involved in most games every season, they win the title 04/05, Gallas starts the 06/07 season at Arsenal and Chelsea didn't win the title that season until last year. So he took apart the best defence in the league, and failed to win anything afterwards, yes Cole is a great left back but Gallas was HUGE for Chelsea.
His list of successful buys, from several hundred million spent, is pitiful. With Real Madrid, very hard to know who was in charge of the deals, for 15 years + its been the boards decision who came in, they probably ask for some input, Carvalho is probably the only player he had real influence over.
Last edited:
Soldato
mistaken there mate, di maria was his request and so far he has been great.
Man of Honour
Caporegime
Yet again that Russkie Abramovich is meddling in the affairs of Chelsea...he did the same with the Moaning one...interfered with everything and the Moaning one left...and now im not nor will i be at least surprised if Ancelotti leaves as well.
Abramovich is a curse upon Chelsea imo...the guy is bad news.
Abramovich is a curse upon Chelsea imo...the guy is bad news.
Soldato
Caporegime
Daniel Taylor confirmed it wasn't true on Twitter last night.