Jump to content

Jose Mourinho


TRO

Recommended Posts

Must admit I was amazed this is their worst start in last 20 odd years, when they were finishing mid table or near bottom in the early years of Premier League, they never had as poor form as this?

Chelsea havent finished outside top 6 for 20 years. They were more than a decent team before Abramovich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Mourinho, I think he's very clever in the way he goes about using distraction and the media, in the difference between how he is and how he appears and in the way he's able to organise a football team - but I don't half enjoy seeing him flounder.

 

I used to feel this way but at some point he managed to cross a line with me. I think it was when he started encroaching onto the pitch every week and disappearing before full time. 

Fortunately he doesn't look so clever anymore. The excuses and distraction aren't working. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm absolutely sure he won't be in England next year, as José wants an open cheque book and Blanc under pressure at PSG, I'm tempted to place a few pennies on him rocking up in Paris next year.

 

David Luis does not like this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Interesting. This could mean Mourinho hasn't a leg to stand on.

Clickings
 

Jose Mourinho's attack on two key members of Chelsea's medical staff was little more than one of many talking points in the aftermath of Chelsea's 2-2 draw with Swansea on the first day of the season.

Doctor Eva Carneiro and physio Jon Fearn entered the field of play to treat Eden Hazard, thus ensuring Chelsea were momentarily down to nine men after the Belgian was forced to leave the pitch. Mourinho ranted on the sideline and then threw his medical team under the bus during the post match interview.

It was classic Mourinho, anyone but his players were at fault for a poor result. It would be news for a day or two and then it would be on to the next thing that came out of the Chelsea manager's mouth but then the decision was taken to effectively demote Carneiro and things changed.

If, as many have suggested, this is another example of Mourinho selecting a scapegoat to divert attention away from his players then he may well have gone too far this time. Carneiro hasn't been sacked but she will will no longer attend games, training sessions or enter the team hotel.

The reason for this is that neither she nor Fearn understood the rules of the game according to Mourinho. Except, the problem with that is that they do.

Footage of the incident has shown that referee Michael Oliver twice called for Chelsea's medical team to treat Hazard who appeared to be seriously injured. If Carneiro decides to follow a legal route on this, then this intervention from Oliver is all the proof she needs.

According to the independent.co.uk, the General Medical Council guidelines mean that under these circumstances, Carneiro was obliged to enter the field of play regardless of what Mourinho thought about it.

In light of this, if, as it appears, the club have gone along with Mourinho's assertion and demoted Carneiro, the Chelsea manager will have some serious questions to answer.

 

From the beeb: 

Former Chelsea doctor Eva Carneiro's lawyers have served notice of a claim of constructive dismissal against the club, the Press Association reports.

Legal papers have reportedly triggered a potential employment tribunal.

Carneiro was dropped from first-team duties after boss Jose Mourinho said she was "naive" for treating Eden Hazard during a draw with Swansea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must admit I was amazed this is their worst start in last 20 odd years, when they were finishing mid table or near bottom in the early years of Premier League, they never had as poor form as this?

 

Chelsea havent finished outside top 6 for 20 years. They were more than a decent team before Abramovich

Bit late (guess it shows how often I check this thread) but of course before Abramovich came along Chelsea were bankrolled by another sugar daddy, one Matthew Harding. It was his money which paid for guys like Ruud Gullit, Gianluca Vialli and Gianfranco Zola to come to Stamford Bridge.  It must be amazing to support a club who won the lottery, blew all the money and then won the lottery again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must admit I was amazed this is their worst start in last 20 odd years, when they were finishing mid table or near bottom in the early years of Premier League, they never had as poor form as this?

 

Chelsea havent finished outside top 6 for 20 years. They were more than a decent team before Abramovich

 

Bit late (guess it shows how often I check this thread) but of course before Abramovich came along Chelsea were bankrolled by another sugar daddy, one Matthew Harding. It was his money which paid for guys like Ruud Gullit, Gianluca Vialli and Gianfranco Zola to come to Stamford Bridge.  It must be amazing to support a club who won the lottery, blew all the money and then won the lottery again. 

They were also a team that spent beyond their means to achieve success, I think what Bates and Harding did well was realise that there was a likelihood that things would change, so they gambled, they put the existence of the club on the line and created debts of £80m (I think) which at the time was enough to suggest that had their been no Abramovich there would have been no Chelsea.  Their luck held. At the same time, we had a man who refused to let his staff get a coffee on expenses. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must admit I was amazed this is their worst start in last 20 odd years, when they were finishing mid table or near bottom in the early years of Premier League, they never had as poor form as this?

 

Chelsea havent finished outside top 6 for 20 years. They were more than a decent team before Abramovich

 

Bit late (guess it shows how often I check this thread) but of course before Abramovich came along Chelsea were bankrolled by another sugar daddy, one Matthew Harding. It was his money which paid for guys like Ruud Gullit, Gianluca Vialli and Gianfranco Zola to come to Stamford Bridge.  It must be amazing to support a club who won the lottery, blew all the money and then won the lottery again. 

They were also a team that spent beyond their means to achieve success, I think what Bates and Harding did well was realise that there was a likelihood that things would change, so they gambled, they put the existence of the club on the line and created debts of £80m (I think) which at the time was enough to suggest that had their been no Abramovich there would have been no Chelsea.  Their luck held. At the same time, we had a man who refused to let his staff get a coffee on expenses. 

 

Their luck is even tighter than that. There's long been a belief that Abramovich would walk away if Chelsea didn't qualify for the 2003 Champions League, which went to the final day of the season, and they didn't win convincingly either. Gronkjaer and the 'billion pound goal'.

words removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must admit I was amazed this is their worst start in last 20 odd years, when they were finishing mid table or near bottom in the early years of Premier League, they never had as poor form as this?

 

Chelsea havent finished outside top 6 for 20 years. They were more than a decent team before Abramovich

 

Bit late (guess it shows how often I check this thread) but of course before Abramovich came along Chelsea were bankrolled by another sugar daddy, one Matthew Harding. It was his money which paid for guys like Ruud Gullit, Gianluca Vialli and Gianfranco Zola to come to Stamford Bridge.  It must be amazing to support a club who won the lottery, blew all the money and then won the lottery again. 

They were also a team that spent beyond their means to achieve success, I think what Bates and Harding did well was realise that there was a likelihood that things would change, so they gambled, they put the existence of the club on the line and created debts of £80m (I think) which at the time was enough to suggest that had their been no Abramovich there would have been no Chelsea.  Their luck held. At the same time, we had a man who refused to let his staff get a coffee on expenses. 

 

Their luck is even tighter than that. There's long been a belief that Abramovich would walk away if Chelsea didn't qualify for the 2003 Champions League, which went to the final day of the season, and they didn't win convincingly either. Gronkjaer and the 'billion pound goal'.

words removed.

We are the absolute opposite of them with luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â