The Official Chelsea Thread [Vol 3]
Discussion
The Hypno-Toad said:
Ok so at least you aren’t going to have pay Poch off but whoever replaces him is going to want at least some cash to splash on the players he wants, every manager does. But some cash these days probably means 300 million? 100 for someone special, then maybe an 75, a couple of 50s and 25 for the wages of a couple of loan players? I will freely admit that wouldn’t know how it would work and that 300 probably isn’t enough but in 12 months tim, you might have to do it again when you sack the new boss?
That might be the model for most clubs but it’s not the new Chelsea model.The players have been bought . They were picked due to the potential and signed on long term contracts with the aim of progressing them together. Any new head coach (not manager - it’s not the same thing) will have to come in and work with the model. If Chelsea wanted a manager then , yes, they would expect that person to come in with demands but the head coach model is you work with whatever you are given.
I expect this summer will see very few signings with a positive balance sheet, I think we may bring in a couple of experienced players ( a la Silva) to help bring what we have further but there won’t be any marquee signings. The only exception would possibly be Toney coming in if we end up with Franks. I suspect this will also be the same for future transfer windows ( just keep the squad ticking over using the core of what we have and bring in the odd young one every so often).
jcremonini said:
Bit shocked and disappointed to be honest.
But why is everyone using the term “sacked” as if the club got rid of him ? It’s by “mutual consent”.
For a start, he won’t be getting any payout from the club which he would if it was not by mutual consent. Who in their right mind would agree with a mutual consent term if there was a contract to be paid out on ?
There are a number of reasons he may have gone. He may not have liked the direction the club were going in the summer so wanted out , he may have an offer already elsewhere, he may have indicated he was not going to continue beyond his two year contract so now was the time to go. The notion it’s the clubs decision only is completely wrong.
You would think that there will be a financial payment made to Poch. Might not be his full salary but would be a significant amount that both parties agreed on. But why is everyone using the term “sacked” as if the club got rid of him ? It’s by “mutual consent”.
For a start, he won’t be getting any payout from the club which he would if it was not by mutual consent. Who in their right mind would agree with a mutual consent term if there was a contract to be paid out on ?
There are a number of reasons he may have gone. He may not have liked the direction the club were going in the summer so wanted out , he may have an offer already elsewhere, he may have indicated he was not going to continue beyond his two year contract so now was the time to go. The notion it’s the clubs decision only is completely wrong.
Challo said:
jcremonini said:
Bit shocked and disappointed to be honest.
But why is everyone using the term “sacked” as if the club got rid of him ? It’s by “mutual consent”.
For a start, he won’t be getting any payout from the club which he would if it was not by mutual consent. Who in their right mind would agree with a mutual consent term if there was a contract to be paid out on ?
There are a number of reasons he may have gone. He may not have liked the direction the club were going in the summer so wanted out , he may have an offer already elsewhere, he may have indicated he was not going to continue beyond his two year contract so now was the time to go. The notion it’s the clubs decision only is completely wrong.
You would think that there will be a financial payment made to Poch. Might not be his full salary but would be a significant amount that both parties agreed on. But why is everyone using the term “sacked” as if the club got rid of him ? It’s by “mutual consent”.
For a start, he won’t be getting any payout from the club which he would if it was not by mutual consent. Who in their right mind would agree with a mutual consent term if there was a contract to be paid out on ?
There are a number of reasons he may have gone. He may not have liked the direction the club were going in the summer so wanted out , he may have an offer already elsewhere, he may have indicated he was not going to continue beyond his two year contract so now was the time to go. The notion it’s the clubs decision only is completely wrong.
tstorm of having to deal with Boehly's setup compared with the relationship and setup he's had with Benham at Brentford.jcremonini said:
Challo said:
jcremonini said:
Bit shocked and disappointed to be honest.
But why is everyone using the term “sacked” as if the club got rid of him ? It’s by “mutual consent”.
For a start, he won’t be getting any payout from the club which he would if it was not by mutual consent. Who in their right mind would agree with a mutual consent term if there was a contract to be paid out on ?
There are a number of reasons he may have gone. He may not have liked the direction the club were going in the summer so wanted out , he may have an offer already elsewhere, he may have indicated he was not going to continue beyond his two year contract so now was the time to go. The notion it’s the clubs decision only is completely wrong.
You would think that there will be a financial payment made to Poch. Might not be his full salary but would be a significant amount that both parties agreed on. But why is everyone using the term “sacked” as if the club got rid of him ? It’s by “mutual consent”.
For a start, he won’t be getting any payout from the club which he would if it was not by mutual consent. Who in their right mind would agree with a mutual consent term if there was a contract to be paid out on ?
There are a number of reasons he may have gone. He may not have liked the direction the club were going in the summer so wanted out , he may have an offer already elsewhere, he may have indicated he was not going to continue beyond his two year contract so now was the time to go. The notion it’s the clubs decision only is completely wrong.
jcremonini said:
Challo said:
jcremonini said:
Bit shocked and disappointed to be honest.
But why is everyone using the term “sacked” as if the club got rid of him ? It’s by “mutual consent”.
For a start, he won’t be getting any payout from the club which he would if it was not by mutual consent. Who in their right mind would agree with a mutual consent term if there was a contract to be paid out on ?
There are a number of reasons he may have gone. He may not have liked the direction the club were going in the summer so wanted out , he may have an offer already elsewhere, he may have indicated he was not going to continue beyond his two year contract so now was the time to go. The notion it’s the clubs decision only is completely wrong.
You would think that there will be a financial payment made to Poch. Might not be his full salary but would be a significant amount that both parties agreed on. But why is everyone using the term “sacked” as if the club got rid of him ? It’s by “mutual consent”.
For a start, he won’t be getting any payout from the club which he would if it was not by mutual consent. Who in their right mind would agree with a mutual consent term if there was a contract to be paid out on ?
There are a number of reasons he may have gone. He may not have liked the direction the club were going in the summer so wanted out , he may have an offer already elsewhere, he may have indicated he was not going to continue beyond his two year contract so now was the time to go. The notion it’s the clubs decision only is completely wrong.
jcremonini said:
The only exception would possibly be Toney coming in if we end up with Franks.
How are you going to pay for him, apparently Brentford want £50M, which doesn't seem crazy.Assuming the PL see through the laughable attempt at conning FFP:
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/news/chelsea-sell-trai...
...you need to make a a profit of c.£100m this year
jcremonini said:
That might be the model for most clubs but it’s not the new Chelsea model.
The players have been bought . They were picked due to the potential and signed on long term contracts with the aim of progressing them together. Any new head coach (not manager - it’s not the same thing) will have to come in and work with the model. If Chelsea wanted a manager then , yes, they would expect that person to come in with demands but the head coach model is you work with whatever you are given.
I expect this summer will see very few signings with a positive balance sheet, I think we may bring in a couple of experienced players ( a la Silva) to help bring what we have further but there won’t be any marquee signings. The only exception would possibly be Toney coming in if we end up with Franks. I suspect this will also be the same for future transfer windows ( just keep the squad ticking over using the core of what we have and bring in the odd young one every so often).
Franks? I hope not. I’m also not keen on De Zerbi, I hope Chelsea have learned about buying duds from Brighton.The players have been bought . They were picked due to the potential and signed on long term contracts with the aim of progressing them together. Any new head coach (not manager - it’s not the same thing) will have to come in and work with the model. If Chelsea wanted a manager then , yes, they would expect that person to come in with demands but the head coach model is you work with whatever you are given.
I expect this summer will see very few signings with a positive balance sheet, I think we may bring in a couple of experienced players ( a la Silva) to help bring what we have further but there won’t be any marquee signings. The only exception would possibly be Toney coming in if we end up with Franks. I suspect this will also be the same for future transfer windows ( just keep the squad ticking over using the core of what we have and bring in the odd young one every so often).
I thought Chelsea had turned a corner and were really making progress. The team have started to play well, look like confidence is growing and that you are a team rather than a set of individuals.
Poch is a good manager, has dealt with all of the back of house rubbish at Chelsea and seemed to be heading the right direction and then this news.
Sad to see modern football like this
Poch is a good manager, has dealt with all of the back of house rubbish at Chelsea and seemed to be heading the right direction and then this news.
Sad to see modern football like this
The jiffle king said:
I thought Chelsea had turned a corner and were really making progress. The team have started to play well, look like confidence is growing and that you are a team rather than a set of individuals.
Poch is a good manager, has dealt with all of the back of house rubbish at Chelsea and seemed to be heading the right direction and then this news.
Sad to see modern football like this
I agree with jiffle 3 more games & you were finishing above Spurs for sure , can't help thinking this is a mistake tbh , I still think Alonso will be coming to the premier league soon . Surely Chelsea will want a top manager to manage these higly paid athletes Poch is a good manager, has dealt with all of the back of house rubbish at Chelsea and seemed to be heading the right direction and then this news.
Sad to see modern football like this
TEKNOPUG said:
jcremonini said:
Challo said:
jcremonini said:
Bit shocked and disappointed to be honest.
But why is everyone using the term “sacked” as if the club got rid of him ? It’s by “mutual consent”.
For a start, he won’t be getting any payout from the club which he would if it was not by mutual consent. Who in their right mind would agree with a mutual consent term if there was a contract to be paid out on ?
There are a number of reasons he may have gone. He may not have liked the direction the club were going in the summer so wanted out , he may have an offer already elsewhere, he may have indicated he was not going to continue beyond his two year contract so now was the time to go. The notion it’s the clubs decision only is completely wrong.
You would think that there will be a financial payment made to Poch. Might not be his full salary but would be a significant amount that both parties agreed on. But why is everyone using the term “sacked” as if the club got rid of him ? It’s by “mutual consent”.
For a start, he won’t be getting any payout from the club which he would if it was not by mutual consent. Who in their right mind would agree with a mutual consent term if there was a contract to be paid out on ?
There are a number of reasons he may have gone. He may not have liked the direction the club were going in the summer so wanted out , he may have an offer already elsewhere, he may have indicated he was not going to continue beyond his two year contract so now was the time to go. The notion it’s the clubs decision only is completely wrong.
If he did not agree to leave then Chelsea would not have to sack him. They could have just put him on ‘gardening leave’ for the remainder of his contract which would have meant he could not take up another role until that time. Again, middle ground is often reached on these things to the mutual benefit of the club and the coach. That’s why the likes of Mourinho get sacked and walk into another club - because the parting club negotiate a termination of the contract on limited terms which means a smaller payout but a release from the contract and the freedom to seek employment elsewhere. When people hear of a coach getting x million in compensation this is usually never in the form of a lump sum - the club simply continues to pay his salary for the duration of the terms in the form of a new contract.
Mutual consent usually means both parties agreed to terminate the contract with no financial penalty for either,
968 said:
Not inspired by these managerial choices to be honest. Winning promotion to the premiership isn’t necessarily the same as creating a winning side in the premiership.
Maresca was a coach at Man City wasn't he and McKenna assistant manager under Mourinho at Utd. I'd imagine that both know what they're doing and fit the required profile of 'young manager coaching attacking football'Agree that it's going to be different as head coach trying to get a tune out of a load of Premiership egos though
968 said:
Not inspired by these managerial choices to be honest. Winning promotion to the premiership isn’t necessarily the same as creating a winning side in the premiership.
Maybe they’re anticipating expulsion from the Premiership after multiple FFP breaches, and are looking to employ a promotion specialist?Bigger problem for me was getting rid of a proven quality manager (perhaps not elite pep/klopp level but...) to replace him with an inexperienced manager at this level just when it was beginning to look like he was getting things together. Deserved another season at least. But hey, this is Chelsea....
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff