Mauricio Pochettino leaves Chelsea by mutual consent

[Max Fowler]

1 hour ago, chara said:

@Max Fowler...good post  Max and I agree pretty much except for the probably "little burned out"

Not burnt out so much as his private life was in turmoil, the club was in turmoil and the USA tour was a disaster...that in itself should have raised red flags..TT really was finished at that stage..could he have recovered at Chelsea?..I doubt it but it was a perfect storm in so many tragic ways..I didn't call for TT to go but in hindsight it was the best thing for everyone concerned...then came the next stage which unfortunately just compounded the bad circumstances.

 

Thanks @chara. Obviously I disagree it was inevitable. The turmoil was more a reflection of the club than Tuchel. Even then it was nowhere near this bad. I repeat - Liverpool backed Klopp through a couple of seriously dodgy spells. We should have built the club around Tuchel.

[Sleeping Dave]

17 hours ago, Sleeping Dave said:

Exactly! That's a great breakdown. They score on a half chance while we miss chances that you'd expect players to score from. There is no excuse for our poor finishing, absolutely abysmal. We also make the wrong calls when we have the ball in the final third.  

I add an additional layer to this, I feel that Raheem Sterling is the biggest culprit in making those bad calls in the final third. For me, he was always a player who had pace and was direct. He was never the most intelligent player on the pitch. It really is noticeable now that he plays in a much poorer team - his weakness all of a sudden matters a lot. It never did at City. 

[Max Fowler]

1 hour ago, kev61 said:

I normally agree with you Chara but not on this occasion. I'll explain why.Tuchel could see we were in decline and could see the players were not responding to his instructions.

You could see his agitation  on the sidelines.If the new owners had given him another year and backed him to a fraction of what we have spent since he was sacked I think we would not be in the position we are in now.

It is a an opinion with honesty.

The biggest indictment of our decision is the fact that Bayern Munich sacked a highly successful manager with a 70% win record just to get Tuchel in and avoid him going to Real Madrid. Okay Tuchel has had a rocky start, but also did more in 6 months with us than Poch has done in his entire career. Suddenly after a spell of mixed results and performances we're too good for him? Clearly we're not too good for Tuchel, we'll be lucky to push the top echelons of managers again any time soon. 

The difference is - we should have given Tuchel time because he proved with us with a squad that everyone thought was garbage that he can compete for the highest honours. Poch has never proved he is a winner and is confirming our worst fears.

"Sacking Tuchel was inevitable". Imagine if we said this and we owned one of the top three players in the world - even say, a Hazard in his prime. "Letting him go was inevitable" even if say he didn't want to leave and we actually paid him to go after a bit of a dodgy run.

[Chelsea_Matt]

12 hours ago, Sleeping Dave said:

Yes, I think Pochs handling of Mudryk and Chilwell has been very, very odd. Personally, and I accept I may be very lonely thinking this, this season should be a season when we start phasing out Silva. We have one really good CB injured (Badiashile) and three good ones in Disasi, Chalobah and Colwill. I’m not saying don’t play him at all, I’m saying play him less. The mistake he did that led to Villas goal was amateurish. Really, really bad. 

Let him play every other game. I don’t see how he would start all our league games when. Badiashile and Chalobah are back from the treatment table. Badiashile is somewhat of a unit as well, lessening that lack of height this side has. Starting to lean towards this as a XI we should really look to cement;

                                Sanchez (1.97)

James-Disasi (1.90) - Badiashile (1.94)-Chilwell

                           Ugochukwu (1.91)

                               Enzo - Caicedo

        Nkunku          Jackson         Mudryk

Of course that doesn’t mean players like Gusto, Colwill, Lavia, Gallagher, Sterling and Madueke shouldn’t play. More that I like the profile of that side - strong and tall centre with Sanchez/Disasi/Badiashile/Ugochukwu and pace and creativity from the front four (with Enzo). Also a set of fullbacks that are great going forward. 

Think that side has some real potential (even better if we can add a striker that has 15+ league goals in him). If we want to be more attacking, take out Caicedo, bring Enzo into a two-man midfield with Big Les and add one of Sterling/Madueke/Palmer into a three behind Jackson. 

Yes, I agree with all that. But it was our alleged forwards’ dreadful decision-making in the final third/box to which I was referring. 

[ROTG]

40 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

I add an additional layer to this, I feel that Raheem Sterling is the biggest culprit in making those bad calls in the final third. For me, he was always a player who had pace and was direct. He was never the most intelligent player on the pitch. It really is noticeable now that he plays in a much poorer team - his weakness all of a sudden matters a lot. It never did at City. 

He will probably end up the teams top scorer this season

[Dwmh]

2 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

These owners want to slash operating costs and are willing to forego instant success by finding the brightest young talents. That would have never worked for Tuchel, who is too hungry for instant results and aware of how much winning still matters in longer-term processes. Tuchel became party of our identity - he held our club together and now we are devoid of it.

This is a valid interpretation.  Not sure i agree with it, but it does fit the evidence.  

Rather disturbingly Newcastle actually seem to have worked out how to run a big budget club.  Start with steady improvement with proven good players rather than superstars.  Burn and Trippier.  While not destroying the value in current contracts.  For me going from static or in reverse to moving forward is always the hardest part of progress.  Newcastle are on a roll.  We are on a hillstart and slipping backwards at quite a pace.  Buying youth is the last thing you do when you are in trouble.

I wouldn't get too excited by the £100m off operating costs quote from an investment conference.  That is always the way to talk up an investment and they are (still I believe) trying to drum up some co-investors.

My real problem though is simple.  Long term contracts are hugely risky and what you save on some you are likely to lose on others.
Incentives built into contracts are not wrong but don't do enough to solve the problem.  I don't think the policy works,
For anyone who believes the FFP story, yes long term contracts can push costs5 or 6 years into the future rather than the 1-3 years of a normal contact.  But that just means we either break FFP in 5 years time or have to stop buying all new players completely.
Also note that the Cream Cakes are interested in buying another club - ie one  (like Brighton) will fit the buy young, contract long, sell high trading policy the traderholics want without having the expectations of having to win anything.  They already see the problem of doing it at Chelsea.

And how the hell did we persuade a WC winner to join us a few weeks later if the club is really in a deep cost pruning phase with its eyes on 2026 for a revival?  We didn't - we lied - either to Fernandez or to the investors conference.

 

2 hours ago, chara said:

@Max Fowler...good post  Max and I agree pretty much except for the probably "little burned out"

Not burnt out so much as his private life was in turmoil, the club was in turmoil and the USA tour was a disaster...that in itself should have raised red flags..TT really was finished at that stage..could he have recovered at Chelsea?..I doubt it but it was a perfect storm in so many tragic ways..I didn't call for TT to go but in hindsight it was the best thing for everyone concerned...then came the next stage which unfortunately just compounded the bad circumstances.

 

Interesting, I am catching up with this.
I suspect a stable club would have got through that though.  Part of the whole story.

[Max Fowler]

13 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

This is a valid interpretation.  Not sure i agree with it, but it does fit the evidence.  

Rather disturbingly Newcastle actually seem to have worked out how to run a big budget club.  Start with steady improvement with proven good players rather than superstars.  Burn and Trippier.  While not destroying the value in current contracts.  For me going from static or in reverse to moving forward is always the hardest part of progress.  Newcastle are on a roll.  We are on a hillstart and slipping backwards at quite a pace.  Buying youth is the last thing you do when you are in trouble.

I wouldn't get too excited by the £100m off operating costs quote from an investment conference.  That is always the way to talk up an investment and they are (still I believe) trying to drum up some co-investors.

My real problem though is simple.  Long term contracts are hugely risky and what you save on some you are likely to lose on others.
Incentives built into contracts are not wrong but don't do enough to solve the problem.  I don't think the policy works,
For anyone who believes the FFP story, yes long term contracts can push costs5 or 6 years into the future rather than the 1-3 years of a normal contact.  But that just means we either break FFP in 5 years time or have to stop buying all new players completely.
Also note that the Cream Cakes are interested in buying another club - ie one  (like Brighton) will fit the buy young, contract long, sell high trading policy the traderholics want without having the expectations of having to win anything.  They already see the problem of doing it at Chelsea.

And how the hell did we persuade a WC winner to join us a few weeks later if the club is really in a deep cost pruning phase with its eyes on 2026 for a revival?  We didn't - we lied - either to Fernandez or to the investors conference.

 

Interesting, I am catching up with this.
I suspect a stable club would have got through that though.  Part of the whole story.

I assume this new model is predicated on being okay with selling some players on (ideally for profit) and making back some of that sweet FFP budget. As has been pointed out though, it's all well and good being a selling club when you're a Brighton or Southampton, but what about Chelsea? Who do we sell on to? Real Madrid? Man City?

Among many aspects the owners have underestimated is the cultural weight of the last twenty years. Seems bloody obvious but nothing fails to get past these disrupters. While Newcastle and Brighton are good models for success, they likely aren't for our club - for our expectant fanbase. Plus we didn't need to rebuild everything from scratch.

While Eddie Howe would fail at Chelsea, Newcastle are now tall, physical, and horrible to play against, just like we used to be. Tuchel understood the identity of our club and rebuilt us in his image, but now we're a remarkably weak side and the opposite of the Chelsea of recent years. All this cultural baggage and history really does make a difference.

I do believe, after some doubt, the new owners genuinely want us to be an 100-point team, as deluded as it sounds. But they also have a bee in their bonnet about losing players on short contracts and breaking the wage structure. Youngsters are, after all, much cheaper and have higher growth potential than the Koulibaly's and Kante's of this world.

They have spotted a gap in the market - streamline the wage bill by discovering the best data-backed kids around. Problem is - revenues have plummeted due to our disastrous league positions. Thank god for Tuchel's early points or we would have been relegated. We should have trusted the football people and Tuchel is one of them.

So is Poch, all things considered, but there are serious concerns about how much he can stand up to these owners. He wanted an experienced striker in the summer, tried to persuade L. Martinez to join. Made Gallagher captain while the owners tried to flog him on the side. Tuchel or Nagelsmann would have fallen out with them twice over by now.

[Mark Kelly]

1 hour ago, ROTG said:

He will probably end up the teams top scorer this season

With two. 

[Sleeping Dave]

1 hour ago, ROTG said:

He will probably end up the teams top scorer this season

On what? 5-6 league goals? The question we should ask ourselves is this; are we more likely to build a sustainable side without him in it, or should we value the few goals he scores for us at £350k/week and hampering Mudryk and Madueke? 

For me it’s an easy choice. 

[Mark Kelly]

15 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

I assume this new model is predicated on being okay with selling some players on (ideally for profit) and making back some of that sweet FFP budget. As has been pointed out though, it's all well and good being a selling club when you're a Brighton or Southampton, but what about Chelsea? Who do we sell on to? Real Madrid? Man City?

Among many aspects the owners have underestimated is the cultural weight of the last twenty years. Seems bloody obvious but nothing fails to get past these disrupters. While Newcastle and Brighton are good models for success, they likely aren't for our club - for our expectant fanbase. Plus we didn't need to rebuild everything from scratch.

While Eddie Howe would fail at Chelsea, Newcastle are now tall, physical, and horrible to play against, just like we used to be. Tuchel understood the identity of our club and rebuilt us in his image, but now we're a remarkably weak side and the opposite of the Chelsea of recent years. All this cultural baggage and history really does make a difference.

I do believe, after some doubt, the new owners genuinely want us to be an 100-point team, as deluded as it sounds. But they also have a bee in their bonnet about losing players on short contracts and breaking the wage structure. Youngsters are, after all, much cheaper and have higher growth potential than the Koulibaly's and Kante's of this world.

They have spotted a gap in the market - streamline the wage bill by discovering the best data-backed kids around. Problem is - revenues have plummeted due to our disastrous league positions. Thank god for Tuchel's early points or we would have been relegated. We should have trusted the football people and Tuchel is one of them.

So is Poch, all things considered, but there are serious concerns about how much he can stand up to these owners. He wanted an experienced striker in the summer, tried to persuade L. Martinez to join. Made Gallagher captain while the owners tried to flog him on the side. Tuchel or Nagelsmann would have fallen out with them twice over by now.

I think something our owners also may have realised was going to happen before others did was the rise of the Saudi league. 

Whereas in the past a top notch player reaching the end of their time at the top might fancy a cheeky two year plus deal in the Premier league, like Gullit, Hierro, Veron etc they will now go for the bigger returns of Saudi Arabia. 

Which is possibly why they've gone with the youth angle. 

[ROTG]

28 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

On what? 5-6 league goals? The question we should ask ourselves is this; are we more likely to build a sustainable side without him in it, or should we value the few goals he scores for us at £350k/week and hampering Mudryk and Madueke? 

For me it’s an easy choice. 

Yes - he can go in the summer and be replaced by another mid table one hit wonder who will cost double in transfer fees

[Max Fowler]

41 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I think something our owners also may have realised was going to happen before others did was the rise of the Saudi league. 

Whereas in the past a top notch player reaching the end of their time at the top might fancy a cheeky two year plus deal in the Premier league, like Gullit, Hierro, Veron etc they will now go for the bigger returns of Saudi Arabia. 

Which is possibly why they've gone with the youth angle. 

With a bigger (Saudi) market for selling on experienced players though, it should be even less concerning to purchase players in their peak. Owners did well to get rid of players like KK to Saudi but actually he didn’t cost us very much as a result.

[Dwmh]

43 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Among many aspects the owners have underestimated is the cultural weight of the last twenty years. Seems bloody obvious but nothing fails to get past these disrupters. While Newcastle and Brighton are good models for success, they likely aren't for our club - for our expectant fanbase. Plus we didn't need to rebuild everything from scratch.

I think most, fans especially, always Overestimate the cultural weight of the last twenty years.  If we had a 70k stand, I'd worry about filling it.  Not so much a problem with 43k (and 40k for Europe... ... oh forget I said that)

But Mostly we didn't need to rebuild everything from scratch.

In fact Mount, James, Gallagher, Chabolah and Colwill, we were looking more set up for the future than ever.

44 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

I do believe, after some doubt, the new owners genuinely want us to be an 100-point team, as deluded as it sounds. But they also have a bee in their bonnet about losing players on short contracts and breaking the wage structure. Youngsters are, after all, much cheaper and have higher growth potential than the Koulibaly's and Kante's of this world.

Youngsters like Gallagher who hasn't missed a game through injury in his career and participated in some 90%, yes.
Youngsters like Fofana....  or even Mudryk who needs rotating in and out regularly.

45 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

They have spotted a gap in the market - streamline the wage bill by discovering the best data-backed kids around. Problem is - revenues have plummeted due to our disastrous league positions. Thank god for Tuchel's early points or we would have been relegated. We should have trusted the football people and Tuchel is one of them.

Trouble is that they are not the first to try this approach.  Half the Prem is doing it now.
Moreover the secret to this moneyball approach is to makesure you are always one step ahead of the competition, looking at stats or player sources that no one else is looking at.
Ergo the one policy doomed to failure is to hire the team of analysts who were the best 5 years ago and whose talented players are fetching top dollar today.  

46 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

So is Poch, all things considered, but there are serious concerns about how much he can stand up to these owners. He wanted an experienced striker in the summer, tried to persuade L. Martinez to join. Made Gallagher captain while the owners tried to flog him on the side. Tuchel or Nagelsmann would have fallen out with them twice over by now.

Really not sure about this Gallagher thing.
Seems there were plenty of offers, as you would expect, he is a fantastic mid-table prem player, the doubts are only at top 4 and CL level where everyone is motivated to play flat out.
So buying clubs and Gallagher's agent were all motivated to hint that Chelsea were considering offers.
That does not mean the club was leaking the same or would have sold for say <£50m.

 

[Dwmh]

51 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I think something our owners also may have realised was going to happen before others did was the rise of the Saudi league. 

Whereas in the past a top notch player reaching the end of their time at the top might fancy a cheeky two year plus deal in the Premier league, like Gullit, Hierro, Veron etc they will now go for the bigger returns of Saudi Arabia. 

Which is possibly why they've gone with the youth angle. 

Although as @Max Fowler hints at, what has actually happened is that the re-sale value for players bought aged 27-30 has gone up.

The first step then seems to have players who have won the CL or a couple of Prems with our club, then sell them.....
That would be a strategy i could get behind

[xceleryx]

19 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Although as @Max Fowler hints at, what has actually happened is that the re-sale value for players bought aged 27-30 has gone up.

The first step then seems to have players who have won the CL or a couple of Prems with our club, then sell them.....
That would be a strategy i could get behind

Maybe initially, yes. It's a means to dramatically increase the profile of the league and garner attention. Keeping in mind a lot of the big names were also Muslim. 

Will that be the case in the next 2-3 years though? I'm not so sure. 

Discussed this a little while back on here, but the demographic for transfers is getting younger. In fact, looking at the top 15 highest transfer fees paid each year since 2018/19, only 29 of the 90 transfers made in total have been players 25 years of age or older. The tide has changed and clubs are putting more money into younger players. And this includes the moves made this season - although maybe just before the window closed. 

There will of course be outliers, but value being retained in the sort of age bracket you've mentioned could very well be rather situational. 

[Sleeping Dave]

1 hour ago, ROTG said:

Yes - he can go in the summer and be replaced by another mid table one hit wonder who will cost double in transfer fees

Bit too simplistic mate, but I feel your irritation about the owners and their strategy. Generally I do agree with you more than I agree with their approach. But when it comes to Sterling I’m of the very strong opinion he isn’t someone you build your side around. You insert him into a side that’s already finished and let him focus on scoring goals only (often tap ins close to goal). 

Where we are at the moment, he feels the need to be the one sorting out the build up and let someone else finish. Problem is that he can’t build up anything. I’d say present time Mudryk is a better player in the build than what Sterling is. Either get him to understand his limitations or put him on the bench. I’m sick and tired of watching him trying to pull the strings. He can’t do it. Plain and simple. 

[Dwmh]

31 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

Maybe initially, yes. It's a means to dramatically increase the profile of the league and garner attention. Keeping in mind a lot of the big names were also Muslim. 

Will that be the case in the next 2-3 years though? I'm not so sure. 

Discussed this a little while back on here, but the demographic for transfers is getting younger. In fact, looking at the top 15 highest transfer fees paid each year since 2018/19, only 29 of the 90 transfers made in total have been players 25 years of age or older. The tide has changed and clubs are putting more money into younger players. And this includes the moves made this season - although maybe just before the window closed. 

There will of course be outliers, but value being retained in the sort of age bracket you've mentioned could very well be rather situational. 

Another way of looking at this is that a player is part owned by the club, part owned by himself (orsometimes in effect his agent - the decision maker!)

Long contract => large share owned by club but with commitment to pay current wages
Short contract => mostly self-owned by player

The trend over past 30 years or so is towards shorter contracts and more player freedom self-ownership.
Older players especially have moved to shorter contracts and almost pay as you play which cuts the injury risk from the club pov (not the player pov).  It also makes it easier to bring in older players as you are less reliant on an honest medical appraisal from the selling club (we can keep Silva now because we are the only people who can reasonably guess if he is up to another season)
Rising stars continue to find it easy to break contracts if they need to.

So ownership has been moving towards teh player.  The Chelsea strategy is to move it the other direction.
Is that a good idea?
 

[Sciatika]

It's a good idea if the player is successful because he increases his value in the contract. If the player wants to leave mid-contract, you can demand a return from the buyer. If the player plays out the contract as a success, this is good too. However, it is more problematic if the player is not as successful as you hope. In that case, you hope someone sees potential and is prepared to cover the remaining book value and wages. That might not happen and the player becomes a long-term liability.

[Max Fowler]

For me it’s as simple as this - no young player can truly “grow his value” without the support of at least some experienced players around him. There may be a trend of buying young, but teams like Man City also don’t sell all their experienced players all at once. The likes of Doku slot in so seamlessly because Pep spent all summer persuading Bernardo and Walker to stay.

We meanwhile cashed in on Kovacic while we could. Fine, but we never replaced his profile, nor Kante’s, Jorghino’s, Mount’s… the list goes on. They may have let us down last season (I think this is overstated) but we also opted out of moving for Rice, Brozovic, Milinkovic-Savic, etc. Pick your experienced characters - contrary to popular opinion on here, they still do exist and offer value.

Our board looked closely at Arsenal last season but two of the highest impact players were Gabriel Jesus and Zinchenko. Hardly Jackson and Ugochukwu. Their presence helped grow rather than hinder the many young players in the squad. We need similar additions and quickly. Poch knows that but is he even capable of persuading our hard-headed owners?

[chara]

8 hours ago, kev61 said:

I normally agree with you Chara but not on this occasion. 

It is a an opinion with honesty.

As ever kev...

Edited September 27, 2023 by chara

[chara]

7 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

Thanks @chara. Obviously I disagree it was inevitable. The turmoil was more a reflection of the club than Tuchel. Even then it was nowhere near this bad. I repeat - Liverpool backed Klopp through a couple of seriously dodgy spells. We should have built the club around Tuchel.

Thanks Max...it's all about debate and exchange of views....I don't read the Forums of other clubs but I doubt that so much thought and diverse points of view appear elsewhere as we have had here of late.

Pleasure to catch up first thing in my morning!

[Guest mrsm81]

I'd give pots time. He's a proven PL manager and he's been landed with a youth team .

He deserves the season, more influence over transfers (shocked this wasn't the case hence the hold up getting him in the first place) and get some key injuries back. 

The overhaul at our club has been dramatic and tbh you can't expect us to come out firing. The results have been poor, but I still see potential. In parts we ve played very well. 

I agree certain things don't look good, like colwill lb for example but the whole coaching team I'm sure are fairly impartial when making decisions. 

What I'd personally like to see is round pegs, round holes and to play at tempo. I really don't understand why the players come out lethargic at times. We ve done this for years not just under pots. Lesser teams are beating us through commitment, tempo. 

I've watched our last few games back and honestly its not finishing we should worry about, its choices in the last third. ALWAYS  the wrong choice of pass.  We talk about mudryk but he's been free for a tap in a few times and we ve chosen to go back to no one. Imagine what a couple of goals could do for him. 

I don't know,  we're all flailing in the wind a bit but keep the faith. 

[Ham]

1 hour ago, mrsm81 said:

I'd give pots time. He's a proven PL manager and he's been landed with a youth team .

 

He deserves the season, more influence over transfers (shocked this wasn't the case hence the hold up getting him in the first place) and get some key injuries back. 

 

The overhaul at our club has been dramatic and tbh you can't expect us to come out firing. The results have been poor, but I still see potential. In parts we ve played very well. 

 

I agree certain things don't look good, like colwill lb for example but the whole coaching team I'm sure are fairly impartial when making decisions. 

 

What I'd personally like to see is round pegs, round holes and to play at tempo. I really don't understand why the players come out lethargic at times. We ve done this for years not just under pots. Lesser teams are beating us through commitment, tempo. 

I've watched our last few games back and honestly its not finishing we should worry about, its choices in the last third. ALWAYS  the wrong choice of pass.  We talk about mudryk but he's been free for a tap in a few times and we ve chosen to go back to no one. Imagine what a couple of goals could do for him. 

I don't know,  we're all flailing in the wind a bit but keep the faith. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed...... and welcome to the forum 👍

[Guest mrsm81]

Thank you. I've lurked for years. Always enjoyed the sensible debate, though I am totally guilty of the passion taking over too!

[Sciatika]

@mrsm81 Minor thing but losing all the blank lines at the end of your posts would help.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Sciatika