The Stamford Bridge Managerial Merry-Go-Round!

Discussion started by Edward Rangsi , on Monday, 05 March 2012 12:25

Well, it’s Andre Villas-Boas becomes the eighth manager in nine years to make his way out of Stamford Bridge. That could be another £10m "exceptional" charge in this year’s books, to add to the £64m of similar expenses in the last four years.

Also, earlier this year, the club announced it lost almost £68million pounds in the year ending June 30 2011.

On the back of David Moyes wanting to make the game affordable for the regular fan, the amount of money Chelsea have spent on their ever-revolving managerial cycle could have funded a 25% ticket price cut for four years.

With financial fair play around the corner, what next?

 

Latest Discussion
Iain Taker
Football these days is without doubt a game with a short memory, the previous season's success can actually be the undoing of a manager as expectations are set and fans and the management see failure as unacceptable. The merry go round is often counter intuitive and managers must be allowed to establish themselves at a club and bring in their own backroom staff. AVB was by all reports brought in to reshape the team and create a team for the next generation, which he has begun by bringing in players like Mata. The issue at Chelsea is that the dressing room is more powerful than the manager which is completely wrong and a recipe for disaster. When Roy Keane was adjuged to have stepped out of line at Man Utd he was removed as was Paul Ince.

The end of the season will see a further clear out at Chelsea but what would have been more sensible would have been to let AVB do this and to select his team. The Chelsea team is in need of a significant overhaul and if you were being honest how many players would get in the Man City team at the moment?

People will compare the possibility of Chelsea not making the Champions League to the possibility of teams such as Wolves being relegated but change is only good where the replacement is a better alternative than the present manager. A great example of this is with Sunderland who replaced Bruce with O'Neil but too often teams do not hold faith with a manager who has the ability and is given time. At respective times there has been calls for David Moyes to be sacked by Everton and the Stoke fans were up in arms when Tony Pulis was appointed neither set of fans is likely to feel the same now!!

I agree that long term planning is great but sport is ultimately driven by short term success, but if you have a plan then why not see it through? One of the most difficult things for a manager to do is to dismantle a previously successful team and to rebuild it but all that is likely to happen is that another manager will do what AVB was brought in to do and that with the FFPRs coming into place the money spent on sacking AVB (£8m) plus hiring someone new could well have been spent more effectively elsewhere.
443 days ago
 
Michael Cunnah
Everyone wants to plan and build for the long term, the only problem is that the short term gets in the way!

I am sure that The Chelsea board would love to have the same manager for the next fifteen years but when it is clearly not working something has to change.

When I worked at The FA Howard Wilkinson used to say that after a few years at a football club you either have to change the manager or the players otherwise it all goes stale. "The players have heard all of the manager's one-liners" he used to say. It is easy to understand this philosophy which is directed towards keeping the atmosphere around the playing squad as fresh as possible.

In the Chelsea situation it became clear that even after only a few months either the players or the manager had to change as they didn't appear to want to work together - or at least the players didn't. Once a club reaches this position it will always be the manager that goes because there is literally too much invested in the players. However this exacerbates and prolongs a short term approach to building the club.

Long term planning is okay but only when all of the elements are in place for the long term.

444 days ago
 
Colin Robinson
Having paid a large sum to buy Villas-Boas out of his contract at Porto and given him a three-year contract, it seemed that the club was going to allow him to build his own team and give him time to do so.

However, I expect the clubs directors believe the team ought to be, or even has to be, in the Champions League. It seems possible that Chelsea will not qualify despite the club's vast resource and strong squad, which is enough to justify doubts about the manager's ability.

Having to pay compensation to another manager won't please club's owner, putting Di Matteo in charge until the end of the season gives Chelsea time to think carefully about the next decision. This situation of constant managerial changes cannot continue.

It is hard not to wonder whether Roman Abramovich will reconsider his ownership of the club. Having invested vast amounts of money since 2003, he has witnessed 3 Premier League titles and 3 FA Cup wins in 9 years. I think he may have expected more.
444 days ago