Soccer Chelsea F.C Super Thread

[Özil]

Looks like the Fat Spanish Waiter will be taking the Chel$ki job

Rafa: Make me an offer, Roman

RAFA BENITEZ has invited Chelsea to make him an offer he cannot refuse.

The former Liverpool boss is one of the favourites to replace sacked Andre Villas-Boas.

Spaniard Benitez is yet to hear from billionaire Blues owner Roman Abramovich — but is ready to talk.

He said: "As a manager with Champions League experience and experience in Spain and Italy, I am open to offers.

"How many managers have won trophies in three different countries, the Spanish title or the FIFA Club World Cup? I am a manager now waiting for a job, I can't stop speculation. I can't stop people talking.

"I have just to wait and see if something happens in the future.

"I'd like to challenge for trophies and have this option. I am open to these kinds of projects and have to analyse every offer."

Villas-Boas was booted out on Sunday, just 257 days after taking the job at Stamford Bridge.

And former Blues boss Felipe Scolari — sacked amid reports of a player revolt three years ago — called the job 'hell'.

Scolari said: "Chelsea's culture is very different.

"Some things are known, like the relations with the owner, who has the relationship with some players before the coach."

Benitez, 51, who still lives in England, shrugged off the turnover of seven managers in eight years.

He pointed to his record of winning the Champions League with Liverpool, the World Club Cup with Inter and La Liga with Valencia.

He said: "At top sides, the manager is always under pressure. I have experience in Spain and Italy — so I know."

 

[Özil]

AVRAM GRANT believes Chelsea's next manager will stroll into one of the easiest jobs in football.

Improving on the dismal reign of sacked Andre Villas Boas will not exactly be tough, claims the former Blues boss.

Grant also suffered at the impatience of owner Roman Abramovich when he was sacked after leading Chelsea to a first Champions League final and losing out on the Premier League title in the final game four years ago.

Ruthless Rom is now looking for his eighth new coach in eight years after axing AVB on Sunday, leaving the season in a mess.

Grant said: "Whoever takes over from Alex Ferguson at Manchester United, now that will be a tough job, almost impossible. But it will be much easier to take over Chelsea now than when I did.

"I had to replace Jose Mourinho. He was and still is a massive name at Chelsea — that was tough.

"The writing was on the wall for Villas Boas. Football is a game of results and I like to see managers given at least a year. But even after three or four months you can sense the direction in which the team is going.

"When you sign a coach you sign a philosophy. Under Mourinho the team got results. This time results were not good neither was the football and when they happen like that together there is only one outcome."

Elusive Russian Abramovich is widely criticised for his itchy trigger finger which has left a string of top managers on the dole for failing to deliver on the billionaire's ambitious demands.

Chelsea did not lose a single home game under Grant, who said: "Abramovich is a manager's dream.

"When he takes you on he gives you everything you want. He will spend whatever it takes on the facilities you require, he will sign whatever players he can for you.

"We went after Kaka when I was manager but it was impossible. The price was £80 million. He does not say it in words but when you work for him he will do everything for you.

"Everyone was surprised when Villas Boas got the job.I like him and worked with him when he was a scout at Chelsea with good ideas and methods.

"Chelsea it is not about training and playing games and then going home, it is about so much more than that.

"Abramovich does not like sacking managers. But he is passionate about football and as much as he wants stability, if he can see the club is not going in the direction he wants he will act.

"Even though Arsenal are not getting the best results the club is going in the right direction under Arsene Wenger. Game after game it was not good at Chelsea.

"But is Chelsea so much different to any other club? Look at Mick McCarthy at Wolves. He had proved himself there but still got sacked.

"All the other Chelsea managers have been sacked when results are on the way down. I was the only one who got sacked when results were improving and that made me very angry with Abramovich.

"But you could not ask for more support when you are the Chelsea manager. He is a positive person.

"I don't know what he will be deciding now. But every big name in football is possible to manage Chelsea - even Mourinho again."

Grant says two players went behind his back to put the boot into him when he was boss. Villas Boas had problems keeping the entire squad onside during his turbulent eight months in charge.

Grant, now coach at Partisan Belgrade, added: "It is dangerous for the owners to listen to the players. They talk when they are angry and there are always a couple of players who are not happy with the coach.

"At a club like Chelsea with 27 full internationals how do you keep everyone happy? I know of two players who criticised me, not because they were right but because they were angry with me. The owners should not listen to them.

"You have to respect the players but also know how to manage them - it's the same with my wife. It's not what you ask her but when you ask her that's important."

 

[Darbas]

Who wouldn't take the job? Work 6 months and get paid out for your 5 year contract

 

[chris_e_fresh]

you wouldnt get paid for 5 years - there would be prefermance clauses in the contract - eg. finish in top 4 make fa cup 1/4 finals

 

[chris_e_fresh]

in saying this chelsea need to realise you can build a new team over night - same will happen to united when fergie goes

 

[Hansta]

in saying this chelsea need to realise you can build a new team over night - same will happen to united when fergie goes

well if the great one joins us then it might not be the most difficult transition.

SAF did say when he retires he still wants to be at the club one way or another, presuming to help the coach if need be.

 

[Özil]

Chelsea's fans match dilemma

 

[Özil]

£2billion – shock cost of Rom’s Chelsea reign

IF Jesper Gronkjaer's beautiful curling shot had not found the corner of Liverpool's net on May 11, 2003, then Roman Abramovich might never have bought Chelsea.

The final-day winner changed Chelsea's destiny, earning them a place in the Champions League and convincing the Russian tycoon to sink his pot of roubles into SW6.

But nine seasons later the Blues are back where they were under Claudio Ranieri, scrambling desperately for the Premier League's top four.

And as the latest crisis drew towards the usual climax of a manager being sacked, the meter of spending ticked past £2billion.

Abramovich is said to have told his under-performing, bolshy players last week that they would follow latest scapegoat Andre Villas-Boas out the door if they did not improve their performances. And that astonishing figure is why.

All sorts of accusations can be thrown at the enigmatic Russian — but scrimping on wages and transfers is not one of them.

In his eight completed seasons in charge, Chelsea spent an incredible £642,584,000 on buying players — and then a mindboggling £1,170,591,000 on paying them. That makes an eye-watering total of £1,813,175,000.

Add a further £66m lavished on the likes of Juan Mata last year, a little more on Gary Cahill in January and wages so far this season and — hey presto — £2bn has gone on a club who could end up this term in a worse position than before the Chelski revolution began.

Of course, in between times, Chelsea have enjoyed the most successful period in their history.

Three Premier League titles, three FA Cups, two Carling Cups and that oh-so-near Champions League final in, of all places, Moscow have given the fans joy and excitement they could never have imagined possible.

But despite all that money, the current Chelsea side are becoming also-rans at home and abroad.

Why? Well, sacking your manager on a regular basis has never been a winning philosophy — but Chelsea just keep on doing it.

According to their own figures, Chelsea had paid more than £66m to hire and fire head coaches and their backroom staff during the Abramovich years BEFORE Villas-Boas copped a goodbye gift of between £9m and £11m.

Man City are catching up fast in the obscene spending stakes. Both they and Chelsea, with losses of £67.7m and £194.8m respectively last season, seem to have little chance of meeting UEFA's Financial Fair Play regulations which will limit deficits to a total of 45m euros (£37.8m) over THREE seasons.

Although City sugar daddy Sheik Mansour could soon face the same accusations of mis-spending billions, the fact remains that Chelsea managers under Abramovich have had unprecedented power to attract the best players and pay them the highest wages.

But their wage bill of £189,539,000 — the highest in the Premier League — and the £112,179,000 spent on players was not enough to stop Chelsea losing their title and Carlo Ancelotti losing his job last season.

Our table of pounds per Premier League point between 2003-04 and 2010-11 shows that Chelsea paid way more in wages and transfers than some of their leading competitors. Manchester United are the yardstick by which every other wannabe successful English club has to be judged.

And United convert cash into silverware like no one else.

Say what you like about the Glazers, but they are good payers with the United wage bill now growing faster than their ever-increasing income.

And £152,915,000 of wages, 20 per cent less than Chelsea's bill, was enough last season to coax another title out of what was supposedly one of the weakest squads of Alex Ferguson's reign.

For a combined total of £1,196,032,000 in wages and transfers from 2003 to 2011, the Scot brought home four Premier League titles, an FA Cup, three League Cups and the trophy which Abramovich covets above all others, the Champions League.

As the brooding billionaire ponders the possibility of not even qualifying for that competition next season, he could maybe take some comfort from the plight of the side defeated all those years ago by Gronkjaer's goal.

Liverpool are heading for their third year of exile from the elite and are undeniably worse off on the pitch than they were in 2003.

The Anfield faithful — and the current owners — would cite the disastrous period under Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

But Abramovich can blame only himself, the sole survivor in a soap opera which has cost £2bn but is no better than it was nine years ago.

 

[Özil]

Chavs beat Napoli 5-4 on aggregate to advance to the Qtr Finals of the CL

I blame Dossena for Napoli's loss

 

[Magic Arrow]

£2billion – shock cost of Rom’s Chelsea reign IF Jesper Gronkjaer's beautiful curling shot had not found the corner of Liverpool's net on May 11, 2003, then Roman Abramovich might never have bought Chelsea.The final-day winner changed Chelsea's destiny, earning them a place in the Champions League and convincing the Russian tycoon to sink his pot of roubles into SW6.But nine seasons later the Blues are back where they were under Claudio Ranieri, scrambling desperately for the Premier League's top four.And as the latest crisis drew towards the usual climax of a manager being sacked, the meter of spending ticked past £2billion.Abramovich is said to have told his under-performing, bolshy players last week that they would follow latest scapegoat Andre Villas-Boas out the door if they did not improve their performances. And that astonishing figure is why.All sorts of accusations can be thrown at the enigmatic Russian — but scrimping on wages and transfers is not one of them.In his eight completed seasons in charge, Chelsea spent an incredible £642,584,000 on buying players — and then a mindboggling £1,170,591,000 on paying them. That makes an eye-watering total of £1,813,175,000.Add a further £66m lavished on the likes of Juan Mata last year, a little more on Gary Cahill in January and wages so far this season and — hey presto — £2bn has gone on a club who could end up this term in a worse position than before the Chelski revolution began.Of course, in between times, Chelsea have enjoyed the most successful period in their history.Three Premier League titles, three FA Cups, two Carling Cups and that oh-so-near Champions League final in, of all places, Moscow have given the fans joy and excitement they could never have imagined possible.But despite all that money, the current Chelsea side are becoming also-rans at home and abroad.Why? Well, sacking your manager on a regular basis has never been a winning philosophy — but Chelsea just keep on doing it.According to their own figures, Chelsea had paid more than £66m to hire and fire head coaches and their backroom staff during the Abramovich years BEFORE Villas-Boas copped a goodbye gift of between £9m and £11m.Man City are catching up fast in the obscene spending stakes. Both they and Chelsea, with losses of £67.7m and £194.8m respectively last season, seem to have little chance of meeting UEFA's Financial Fair Play regulations which will limit deficits to a total of 45m euros (£37.8m) over THREE seasons.Although City sugar daddy Sheik Mansour could soon face the same accusations of mis-spending billions, the fact remains that Chelsea managers under Abramovich have had unprecedented power to attract the best players and pay them the highest wages.But their wage bill of £189,539,000 — the highest in the Premier League — and the £112,179,000 spent on players was not enough to stop Chelsea losing their title and Carlo Ancelotti losing his job last season.Our table of pounds per Premier League point between 2003-04 and 2010-11 shows that Chelsea paid way more in wages and transfers than some of their leading competitors. Manchester United are the yardstick by which every other wannabe successful English club has to be judged.And United convert cash into silverware like no one else.Say what you like about the Glazers, but they are good payers with the United wage bill now growing faster than their ever-increasing income.And £152,915,000 of wages, 20 per cent less than Chelsea's bill, was enough last season to coax another title out of what was supposedly one of the weakest squads of Alex Ferguson's reign.For a combined total of £1,196,032,000 in wages and transfers from 2003 to 2011, the Scot brought home four Premier League titles, an FA Cup, three League Cups and the trophy which Abramovich covets above all others, the Champions League.As the brooding billionaire ponders the possibility of not even qualifying for that competition next season, he could maybe take some comfort from the plight of the side defeated all those years ago by Gronkjaer's goal.Liverpool are heading for their third year of exile from the elite and are undeniably worse off on the pitch than they were in 2003.The Anfield faithful — and the current owners — would cite the disastrous period under Tom Hicks and George Gillett.But Abramovich can blame only himself, the sole survivor in a soap opera which has cost £2bn but is no better than it was nine years ago.

Who wrote this piece of ****?Why don't they include figures of income, it's not like he pays money and gets nothing back?And lol at this line "£2bn has gone on a club who could end up this term in a worse position than before the Chelski revolution began." Chelsea won enough silverware since Abramovic took over.Obvious Man U supporter is obvious.

 

[MeskBrah]

****in bottlers

 

[bulldawg]

chokers!!!!!!!

 

[Moronic Musings]

torres double, sturridge screamer and a typical JT header. 4-0 at half time vintage chelsea

 

[Özil]

MARK MY WORDS

Chelsea will smash Liverpool in the FA Cup final.

 

[Chrisaaar]

I hope so mate!

 

[Özil]

Good game to watch

Congrats on finally winning the CL.

 

[Paint.]

WE DID ITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!i!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Darbas]

Does this settle the argument over which league is the best in the world? Team finishes sixth and wins the Champions League.

 

[Abdul..]

Does this settle the argument over which league is the best in the world? Team finishes sixth and wins the Champions League.

To be fair, they played Barca at their worst in years. But yes, week after week, EPL is the best league in the world.

 

[Magic Arrow]

Does this settle the argument over which league is the best in the world? Team finishes sixth and wins the Champions League.

Lol and the top two teams got eliminated from the group stages and then lost their round of 16 games in Europa. What exactly does it prove?