Is Maureen Seriously Pissed-off?

mike65 · 02-09-2006 07:15PM #1

Loads of reports/speculation about Jose and Peter Kenyon not seeing eye to eye about the recent transfer dealings.

Chelsea consider legal action after reports of Mourinho-Kenyan row
16:12 Saturday September 2nd 2006

Chelsea are in discussion with lawyers after reports of a bust-up between manager Jose Mourinho and chief executive Peter Kenyon.

It has been suggested that the pair fell out after William Gallas joined Arsenal as part of the move which saw Ashley Cole move to Stamford Bridge.

It was claimed that Mourinho wanted the French international to rot in the Chelsea reserves this season.

However, the club insists the pair still have a strong relationship

here

Jose Mourinho was reportedly involved in a 'furious' bust-up with Chelski chief executive Peter Kenyon over William Gallas' move to Arsenal in a swap deal for Ashley Cole.

According to The Daily Mirror, Mourinho felt 'undermined by Kenyon's decision to allow Gallas to join their bitter Premiership rivals against his wishes' and 'was unhappy at the way he believes the French defender bullied Chelsea into letting him go.'

The rows were reputedly so heated that they put 'Mourinho's long-term future at Chelsea in serious doubt.'

Gallas went AWOL during the summer after growing disenchanted with life at Stamford Bridge. While Kenyon believes that the capture of Cole in return for Gallas plus £5m represents a coup on Chelski's behalf, Mourinho was palpably less enthused by Gallas's departure on the same day that Robert Huth's move to Middlesbrough was finally sanctioned.

An injury to either John Terry or Ricardo Carvalho would leave the Premiership champions severely stretched in the centre of defence, and Mourinho's mood is unlikely to have been improved by the realisation that not only has Gallas' arrival solved Arsenal's defensive crisis but his proposed partnership with Kolo Toure is set to be one of the most formidable in the league.

According to The Daily Mail, Mourinho and Kenyon had several rows throughout the day as the midnight transfer deadline loomed on Thursday.

The paper claims that 'Mourinho did not want Huth to be sold before Cole was signed, and the pair also clashed over the proposed sale of Wayne Bridge to Newcastle. Bridge believed Chelsea had agreed to sell him after talks with Kenyon, but Mourinho wanted to keep him as cover for Cole.'

Anything in this beyond a dissagreement? Or is Kenyon in league with Roman with the latter willing to see Mourinho leave if neccessary?

Mike.

el rabitos · 02-09-2006 07:18PM

chelsea are where they are because of mourinho, they would be stupid to ever do anything to rock the boat with him

bigger and better teams have been far less succesfull than chelsea

futuredeath · 02-09-2006 07:20PM

chelsea are where they are because of roman.

el rabitos · 02-09-2006 07:27PM

does roman manage the team?

could roman manage a good but average porto to the champions league?

could rick parry guide an averge liverpool to the champions league?

no

Huggles · 02-09-2006 07:28PM

Chelsea are where they are because of Romans Millions

The Muppet · 02-09-2006 07:32PM

Mourinho is not the type of person to allow himself be publically ridiculed,I don't believe he would be happy to have Kenyon interfere with his team. I would not be surprised to see Mourinho walk particulaly if a few results were to go against him. As i said in another post recently it might be worth a flutter to back him to be the first managerial casulty of this season.

valor · 02-09-2006 07:49PM

Chelsea are where they are because of BOTH Abromovich and Mourinho

RE*AC*TOR · 02-09-2006 08:29PM

I stand by my assertion, that with the amount of stolen russian money being spent, Graeme Souness could have taken Chelsea to where they are.

El Rabitos - Rick Parry doesn't own Liverpool. David Moores does. Liverpool don't spend the kind of money Chelsea have. In fact, no one does, not even Real Madrid.

el rabitos · 02-09-2006 09:05PM

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

I stand by my assertion, that with the amount of stolen russian money being spent, Graeme Souness could have taken Chelsea to where they are.

El Rabitos - Rick Parry doesn't own Liverpool. David Moores does. Liverpool don't spend the kind of money Chelsea have. In fact, no one does, not even Real Madrid.

i'm aware of who owns the club i support

greame souness and his uselessness (sorry jiven turkey) are for another thread

ranieri couldnt win the league for chelsea

milan have spent massive amounts of money in the 90's, davids, baggio, weah, kluivert were all on the same team for godsake, as ive said, better teams have won less

real madrid have never let money be an issue either, theyve had awsome talent and massive money at their dissposel and have produced wasters over the years

give mourinho credit, its him behind chelseas success, the money and talent at his disposel are far more than he actually needs in order to have a team that could win the premiership. he's the best motivator around and the best manager around for building a team unity, imo.

evilhomer · 02-09-2006 10:18PM

TheGooner wrote:

Chelsea are where they are because of Romans Millions

Chelsea would have gotten where they are now eventually with Morunhio as manager, without the masses of money they have been able to spend.

It just would have taken longer.

Morunhio has proven, with Porto that he can create a team of world beaters even with very little money. He won three portuguese titles, a UEFA Cup and a Champions league back to back. Hardly a poor manager.

Roman Abramovich just accelerated the process, of course they wouldn't have Morunhio without Abramovich's money, but lets just say they had gotten him anyway. They would still have had one of the shrewdest managers in world football.

kinaldo · 02-09-2006 11:00PM

Is it just my imagination or does JM appear to have aged about 15 years in his time at Chelsea? Working for Abramovich must be a lot of pressure so at least Kenyon doesn't have his hair to lose.

Mourinho is a good manager but if he fails to win the CL this year I think Roman Abramovich will dispense with him. I don't think the style of football Mourinho's team play has endeared him to many, which is surely something Abramovich would expect given the money he's injected into the team.

The only thing better than winning is winning with style, ala Barca / Madrid. Seemingly this is the only thing Abramovich cannot buy.

kinaldo · 02-09-2006 11:08PM

el rabitos wrote:

real madrid have never let money be an issue either, theyve had awsome talent and massive money at their dissposel and have produced wasters over the years

True to an extent but they also produced some great teams that won 3 Champions Leagues in 5 seasons not so long ago. Barca could be on the verge of something similar. (sorry way off topic)

gustavo · 03-09-2006 05:29PM

el rabitos wrote:

ranieri couldnt win the league for chelsea
.

Hardly fair , under Ranieri when Abramovich came he had Gronkjaer rather than Robben , Melchiot rather than Ferraira and an aging Desailly rather than Carvalho

Chucky the tree · 03-09-2006 06:09PM

According to the Daily Mirror

Superdub2 · 03-09-2006 07:24PM

el rabitos wrote:

chelsea are where they are because of mourinho, they would be stupid to ever do anything to rock the boat with him

bigger and better teams have been far less succesfull than chelsea

chelsea are equally indebted to Mourinho and Abramovich, as for big clubs, while not technically being a big club they have one of the biggest budgets in world football and that statement doesnt apply

Superdub2 · 03-09-2006 07:29PM

evilhomer wrote:

Chelsea would have gotten where they are now eventually with Morunhio as manager, without the masses of money they have been able to spend.

.

that is complete rubbish, Chelsea were not even close to being champions before Abrahamovich but Porto have been a big team in portugal for a while and while i think JM did a great job i think he got lucky in the champions league with Porto and i doubt they wud have repeated it.

If abrahamovich had not come they wudnt have won the league full stop because Jose would have never took the job and even if he did he wudnt have been able to pick and choose his players

Bateman · 03-09-2006 07:45PM

Superdub2 wrote:

i doubt they wud have repeated it.

How many teams have "repeated" winning the CL with the same players/management team?

Winning the CL = greatness. You don't have to "repeat" it to attain greatness.

The Muppet · 03-09-2006 10:04PM

Chelsea would have been bankrupt by now but for Romans Money (or someone elses money). Murinho would be managing Real Or Barca or some other top european team but for Romans money , he would most certainly not be managing Chelsea. It was Ranerie's buys that first won the league for Chelsea, they were likely to win it no matter who tha manager was (within reason).

futuredeath · 03-09-2006 10:22PM

ranieri before romans billions brought to club to the chamions league,
after roman came he bought a few and began to challenge and build,
didnt get a chance to finish what he started but mourinho did get to use what he had built plus more money and world stars to win the last 2 league's and his 1 carling cup.

Hobart · 03-09-2006 10:32PM

The Muppet wrote:

Chelsea would have been bankrupt by now but for Romans Money (or someone elses money). Murinho would be managing Real Or Barca or some other top european team but for Romans money , he would most certainly not be managing Chelsea. It was Ranerie's buys that first won the league for Chelsea, they were likely to win it no matter who tha manager was (within reason).

Pure speculation tbh. Ranieri was in charge when Roman bought the club. Wha did he win? SFA. Jose has brought a winning mentality to Stamford bridge, that has been his biggest contribution.

Yes, Romans billions have made a huge difference to the managers ability to bring in players as he see's fit. However, it could also be argued that arguably Chelsea's two best players are John Terry and Frank Lampard. One was a youtth team member and the other was bought before th arrival of Roman's money.

The contributing factor in all of this, has been the decline of Manu and Arsenal. Chelsea cannot be blamed for the fact tha Viera left, Keane got sacked, Giggs got old or Bergkamp retired. Manu and Arsenal just could not keep up, simple as.

It's actually quite ignorant to believe the hype about Chelsea buying any league. If it just a case of economics, Newcastle would have been the dominant force in the 80's and Real would have claimed their 14th title in a row last year.

kinaldo · 03-09-2006 10:37PM

I think Ranieri's Chelsea signings were better than Mourinho's (Lampard, Duff, Gallas, Robben, Cole and Makalele to name a few). JM may be a better manager but he's not very good in the transfer market.

dcarroll · 04-09-2006 12:21AM

Does anyone think that Chelsea would have won the title twice in a row if Ken Bates stayed but hired Mourinho as manager?
Didn't think so

el rabitos · 04-09-2006 12:51AM

dcarroll wrote:

Does anyone think that Chelsea would have won the title twice in a row if Ken Bates stayed but hired Mourinho as manager?
Didn't think so

twice in a row? maybe not

would they have won it at least once, more than likely

Nalz · 04-09-2006 01:04AM

el rabitos wrote:

would they have won it at least once, more than likely

NO way is it more than likely. Mourinho Porto feats were extremely lucky. Easy run-in in the CL. Toughest Team they faced was United, whom where robbed at home by a muppet of a linesman (the person Mourinho can thank for his now Chelsea career). United would had won that game in OT 2-0 only for that situation. Lucky goal thanks to a poor United keeper and defence to see them through.

I wont take it all away from the man, he did well the previous year (even though the Uefa cup is nothing to go by, Middlesbro' territory).

But to say Mourinho would do a really good job at a not so wealthy Chelsea would not be more than likely. He'd need a lot of luck, a lot of time, and a lot of patience. I dont think he has the latter IMO

Gangsta · 04-09-2006 01:06AM

el rabitos wrote:

twice in a row? maybe not

would they have won it at least once, more than likely

with the squad they had? Haha not a chance.

el rabitos · 04-09-2006 01:06AM

Trilla wrote:

NO way is it more than likely. Mourinho Porto feats were extremely lucky. Easy run-in in the CL. Toughest Team they faced was United, whom where robbed at home by a muppet of a linesman (the person Mourinho can thank for his now Chelsea career). United would had won that game in OT 2-0 only for that situation. Lucky goal thanks to a poor United keeper and defence to see them through.

I wont take it all away from the man, he did well the previous year (even though the Uefa cup is nothing to go by, Middlesbro' territory).

But to say Mourinho would do a really good job at a not so wealthy Chelsea would not be more than likely. He'd need a lot of luck, a lot of time, and a lot of patience. I dont think he has the latter IMO

bitter much?

Nalz · 04-09-2006 01:08AM

el rabitos wrote:

bitter much?

off topic?

el rabitos · 04-09-2006 01:16AM

your opinion is off topic in that his average porto team beat a superior united team and that seems to affect ur opinion of the man

its all praise with a "but" following it

if ever there was a manager that needs little funds to get the most out of a team its mourinho, him and o'neil have that aspect of managing down to an art.

The Muppet · 04-09-2006 08:29AM

kinaldo wrote:

I think Ranieri's Chelsea signings were better than Mourinho's (Lampard, Duff, Gallas, Robben, Cole and Makalele to name a few). JM may be a better manager but he's not very good in the transfer market.

Thats true assuming the players being purchased are mourinho's choice . There is some doubt over that with Kenyon going over his head in the Cole deal and Romans son playing real life championship manager ,choosing some of their summer arrivals.

eirebhoy · 04-09-2006 09:28AM

el rabitos wrote:

your opinion is off topic in that his average porto team beat a superior united team and that seems to affect ur opinion of the man

its all praise with a "but" following it

if ever there was a manager that needs little funds to get the most out of a team its mourinho, him and o'neil have that aspect of managing down to an art.

7 of that Porto team that won the UEFA cup and CL were in the Portugal squad for the last world cup. I wouldn't say they were an average team.

astrofool · 04-09-2006 10:25AM

They also ended up having alot of money spent on most of their players when selling them, and most if not all having successful careers beyond Porto, bit like the Ajax team in the 90's.

Look at it this way, the difference between the Pool and Porto winning teams was that most of the pool players that moved on have gone downhill for little money. Would Mourinho have won the CL with that squad? And if the CL, why not the PL, which pool have still not won.

You also have to remember that Mourinho would have been off to Real or one of the big italian teams if it wasn't for Roman's millions. I think most in the game, while praising Mourinho, know it's the money that made Chelsea what they are, and even at that, they haven't won the cl (yet), and probably why Mourinho's ego won't let him stay at Chelsea for too long, he'll want to prove himself properly elsewhere.

Is Maureen Seriously Pissed-off?

Comments