About fair...We'd want that much for Kaka...and cumulative performance over the past two seasons has been better for Cristiano than Kaka.

Amount of English players starting, per team, per game. If you get what I mean!

Haha, I know, it's just if Walcott was starting its half a player anyway... ah nevermind it's late and I should stop trying to be harsh on 'Arsene'al 

Ooohhh, you were taking the p!ss? That one went way past me! Think I should stop staying up this late!

The Daily Miror has reported that Avram Grant rejected a lucrative offer from Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich to go back to being the club's director of football.

Grant was in charge of the team at Stamford Bridge for eight months following the departure of Jose Mourinho last September, but lost his job on Saturday after a three-hour meeting with Abramovich, reports the Mirror.

The newspaper says Grant did not like what Abramovich was saying, because he felt he had earned the right to build his own team instead of having to work with the players inherited from Mourinho.

But it claims the meeting ended amicably with a drink and a joke, Grant believing he be remembered as the man who built the platform for what Chelsea can go on to achieve.

The Israeli coach would have received a huge pay rise if he had taken the opportunity to return to his former job as director of football on £4million per year.

But he preferred to walk out with his head held high and a pay-off nearer £1million.

Pride mattered more to Grant than the cash. He was proud of his achievements at Chelsea and proud that his reign ended in a Champions League final in front of some 20,000 Chelsea fans who never previously experienced such an occasion.

They were, after all, just a kick away from winning the biggest prize in European club football.

Grant, who received a lot of farewell texts from his players over the weekend, has returned to Israel before going to the United States on holiday.

But the Mirror quoted 'close friends' of his as saying: "It is ridiculous to say that Avram was angry. It's just not right. Roman rang him and asked him to come to his house for a meeting. When he got there, he was asked to go back to being director of football, for a huge pay rise.

"The conversation was pleasant. It was not a negative atmosphere at all. Roman tried to persuade Avram to stay at the club, reminding him how much he loved Chelsea, and that he hadn't come to the club to be manager in the first place.

"But Avram has always believed that you have to be true and honest to yourself, that you have to keep your integrity. If you lose that, you cannot stay anywhere. For Avram, he had to leave."

The newspaper added that Grant feels the decision that finally terminated his tenure as Chelsea manager was not sending on Andriy Shevchenko during extra-time in the Champions League final, especially when the substitute he did nominate, Nicolas Anelka, missed the decisive penalty

good (or even great) news for those who like arsenal or those good-natured
milanfan members...Eduardo da Silva has started training after his hard injury, it's just easy running though, but it's a great improvment !!

good (or even great) news for those who like arsenal or those good-natured
milanfan members...Eduardo da Silva has started training after his hard injury, it's just easy running though, but it's a great improvment !!

Following the dismissals of Jose Mourinho, Avram Grant and Roberto Mancini this season, Graham Lister considers the imperatives and tensions at Stamford Bridge and the San Siro, and wonders what defines success for a big club these days…


A Tale Of Three Managers

The experiences of Jose Mourinho, Avram Grant and Roberto Mancini during the last eight months - and in particular the last eight days - provide an illuminating if somewhat chilling commentary on what constitutes success in modern top-level football.

All three men were sacked despite delivering results that most other managers would die for - or at least be delighted to have achieved. Yet they were deemed to be not good enough by their respective employers, Chelsea and Internazionale.

In the surreal world of football club management, one of the men Chelsea discarded - Mourinho - is set to be installed as the new messiah at San Siro, while Inter's sacked coach Mancini is being linked with the Chelsea job, though it remains far from certain that it will be offered to him. As for Grant, he has headed off on holiday to the United States to reflect on the nature of loyalty and integrity in the beautiful game.

What has been highlighted in West London and Milan, yet again, is how thin the dividing line is between success and failure. Discounting national FA and League Cup competitions (as the biggest clubs increasingly do), there are only two genuinely 'major' prizes that any club can win each season: their national domestic league championship; and the Champions League. Manchester United won both those jewels this season; Inter Milan, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich won their respective domestic titles. Does that mean that every other club in England, Italy, Spain and Germany endured a campaign of failure? Certainly by the criteria that Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich applies, they did. Daft and unrealistic though it is, that is how rarefied the atmosphere is becoming.

It's Roman's Empire

Mourinho was fired after bringing Chelsea their first domestic title in 50 years, then repeating the feat, adding domestic cups along the way and reaching two Champions League semi-finals. But by not conquering Europe as he had done with Porto, by giving priority to winning rather than winning prettily, and by resisting interference from above in matters of team selection, he fell foul of the Russian billionaire who regards Chelsea as his personal plaything.

So in this particular Toy Story, Mourinho's Woody was displaced by Avram Grant's Buzz Lightyear. He guided the Blues from sixth to second in the Premier League with a 22-8-2  W-D-L record and nearly overtook Manchester United in the final furlong. He also led Chelsea to two cup finals - including, for the first time in their history, the Champions League final which they lost by the width of a post in a dramatic shoot-out. But Grant was still told to buzz off.

Peter Kenyon, the Machiavellian chief executive at Stamford Bridge, explained that Grant's record - bettered only by Manchester United - was "not acceptable" for "a club like Chelsea."

But then what exactly is a club like Chelsea? Their recent trophy haul is impressive; but the emphasis here is on recent. They do not have a heritage of  harvesting silverware on an annual basis; their traditions are more modest. Vaulting ambition can be commendable, but it needs to be tempered by perspective or it tips over into arrogant pretension. Isn't football less about instant fixes than solid development that bears fruit over time? Chelsea have the big-club swagger; but by the words and actions of the Stamford Bridge hierarchy they sometimes betray a small-club mentality. Kenyon implies that Chelsea now see themselves in a unique category where anything less than the Premier League title and/or European Cup on the sideboard in any one season constitutes failure - requiring the removal and replacement of the manager.

Good Enough For Most?

Chelsea's record over the last five seasons has been phenomenal by most measures, but especially by their own standards during the preceding 97 years. In 2003-04, Claudio Ranieri took them to their highest league finish for 49 years and might well have won the title but for Arsenal's remarkable unbeaten campaign. He also took them further in the Champions League than they'd ever been before. Mourinho bettered that with a bang, winning back-to-back titles, two League Cups, the FA Cup and also making it to the Champions League semi-finals twice. And while Grant was in charge, his record in Premier League matches was actually better than that of Sir Alex Ferguson, Arsene Wenger and Rafael Benitez. The Blues also lined up in their first ever Champions League final.

Yet few were surprised that Grant was sacked. Like Ranieri and Mourinho before him, he was unable to spare Abramovich the "embarrassment" of not winning the Champions League, so he had to go.

However, it is likely that even if John Terry's spot-kick had hit the net rather than the post and United had been the heartbroken ones in Moscow, Grant would still have been fired.

In the terms of that awful modern-day cliché, he just didn't tick all the boxes. He was persistently sniped at for his tactics and substitutions, and accused of lacking the big-match temperament. Notwithstanding Terry's slip on the Luzhniki turf, he surely nailed those criticisms during the last few weeks of the campaign. 

A Need To Be Loved

Yet it seems that the internal politics at Stamford Bridge were always undermining him. He had an 'image problem' from the start, which shouldn't be an issue but is. In that respect he was the complete antithesis of the dashing, media-savvy and manipulative Mourinho, so adored by the Chelsea fans who have grown accustomed to charismatic managers over the last decade (Ruud Gullit, Gianluca Vialli, Ranieri and Mourinho). But what Grant shared with the Special One was an inability to make Chelsea liked if not loved beyond Stamford Bridge.

And it seems that Abramovich craves this, as well as the glittering prizes, for his King's Road project. It has been revealed this week that Chelsea's next manager will be expected to change the public perception of the club and make them more popular among the public at large.

To change the club's image, Chelsea must first understand why current perceptions of the club are as they are. For any club, the normal state of affairs is that they are worshipped (though not uncritically) by their own loyal fan-base, hated by their traditional rivals and mostly tolerated by everyone else as an object of curiosity, amusement or indifference. In Chelsea's case, the tolerance is lower and the hatred, or at least negativity, higher than the vanity of the club's hierarchy can stand. Unlike Millwall, whose fans famously and defiantly made a virtue of their unpopularity by singing, "No-one likes us, we don't care," Chelsea clearly DO care. So why the negativity towards them?

Reasons To Be Unpopular

Firstly, they are the epitome of the nouveau-riche. And it is a fact of life that while lottery winners and others who come into big money without a history of handling wealth have no problem attracting hangers-on, the typical reaction towards them is envy, turning quickly to jealousy and resentment - especially if they indulge in conspicuous consumption. And Chelsea's spending has certainly been conspicuous. They are perceived by many to have bought their trophies in recent years. It is a trite criticism, because it takes a lot more than a collection of galacticos to make a successful team. But perception can be a powerful thing.

Secondly, some of the Chelsea players are perceived to be too big for their handsomely endorsed boots. Player-power, whether real or imagined, is rarely seen as attractive these days. The tendency of Terry and Frank Lampard to question every decision against their team, or indeed to want to referee the match as well as play in it, irks many people. Haranguing officials like indignant shop-stewards, encouraging others like Ashley Cole and Didier Drogba to follow suit, is not endearing. As for Drogba, leaving aside the notorious theatricals, he undermined team unity all season with indiscreet utterances to the media about leaving, then staying, then leaving again. He certainly did nothing to bolster Grant's position.

Thirdly, Chelsea's style of play is criticised by many (fuelled by the media) for being dull and boring. They are certainly a more pragmatic proposition than say Arsenal; but the card that they are not entertaining has been heavily over-played. Chelsea are capable of excellent football; and they are very hard to beat. But again, the perception is that they lack the 'wow' factor. Tellingly, that seems to be what Abramovich thinks, too.

Fourthly, the Russian oligarch’s club and its main mouthpiece, Kenyon, are accused of acting disrespectfully and lacking 'class'. There is an element of snobbery in the accusation but their treatment of their own managers (and of assistant first-team coach Henk ten Cate, sacked on Thursday after being told on Saturday his position was safe) hardly strengthens the case for the defence. 

Under Mourinho, the goading of rival managers, the histrionic railing against Anders Fisk and Frank Rijkaard, and the tapping-up of Ashley Cole, earned him kudos among his own fans, but elsewhere? Not really.  
  
So the task of polishing Chelsea's image will not be an easy one. It will be an additional challenge for whoever becomes the new manager. It is being said that those on the short-list will be sceptical about accepting the job in view of what has happened to the last three incumbents. But this is the real world and the managers in the frame are in a win-win situation. If they deliver trophies to Abramovich they will enhance both their bank balances and reputations. If they fail, they will be compensated with a lavish pay-off, and find their job prospects in no way diminished, because football manager is one profession where getting sacked is not so much a career set-back as an invitation to another club to take you on.  That's why Inter are lining up Mourinho; and why Mancini and Rijkaard and Deschamps are thought to be possibilities for Chelsea.

Inter Active

The case of Mancini, of course, underlines the earlier point about the narrow margins between success and failure. A hat-trick of Scudettos should be enough to keep anyone in a job, but not Mancio at Inter. Why?

Firstly, he has been denied much of the credit for the first two of those titles by calciopoli and its subsequent fall-out. The 2005-06 championship was stripped from Juventus and given to runners-up Inter. The 2006-07 title was won with Juve in Serie B and AC Milan hobbled by a points deduction, so although Inter's results were outstanding, the team were given a clear run, said the critics. Mancini's latest title was certainly achieved in a fully competitive Serie A, although since March the Nerazzurri were decidedly less convincing.

That March turning point was precipitated by the second black mark against Mancini: another failure in the Champions League, where his overly defensive tactics against Liverpool were perceived as handing the initiative to the Reds.

Thirdly, Mancini's emotional response to elimination by Liverpool - to resign, then reverse his decision 24 hours later - raised question-marks about his temperament and also fatally damaged his standing with club owner Massimo Moratti. 

But fourthly and most damningly, Mancini's management style seems to have alienated too many key players in the Inter squad. It appears their opposition to the boss sounded the fatal death-knell to his reign. Player-power again, albeit in a rather more blatant and brutal fashion than Grant experienced.

The issue of compensation is delaying the announcement of Mourinho as Mancini's successor, while Mancini's agent is making a point of stressing his client's availability to Chelsea.

Whatever Next?

Whoever is managing at Stamford Bridge and San Siro next season, they will know what to expect. The bar has been set high and if they fall short they will be out with little ceremony.  Is that the best way to guarantee success? And how exactly is 'success' to be defined these days?

Interestingly, Mourinho used to taunt Arsene Wenger that the Arsenal boss didn't need to win trophies to keep his job. The Gunners have just completed a third successive season without silverware, but there was never a hint from the hierarchy at the Emirates that Wenger would be sacked. Has that made the man who has won seven trophies for Arsenal complacent, or is it the sort of support that helps build sustained long-term success? 60,000-plus sell-out crowds for every Arsenal home game suggest that the fans enjoy what they're seeing, though of course they'd prefer that elusive silver lining. Alex Ferguson famously needed nearly four fraught years to bring the first of his 22 trophies to Old Trafford. And in 1994-95, 1997-98, 2001-02 and 2004-05, Manchester United won nothing, but never threatened to pull the plug on Fergie. Chelsea and Inter have a less patient approach to management.

But which model is the best?

Me neither...I didn't think he was so crucial to Arsenal, that his injury cost them all three competitions.

it was actually his first season...remember kranjcar's last season, he was pretty average, while this season he was a big role in portsmouth side...and in my belief, eduardo was to many times played in wrong position, he's not a great winger, he played it decent, but when he was played as a striker he showed his special abilities...he scores two goals from one good chance...if you think of what he might bring to arsenal if he was there, adebayor wasn't enough, van persie & rosicky wasn't prepared whole season, so appearntly, eduardo's injury was just too much...

Kranjcar was better last season than this one! He was the star of their midfield, this season only Muntari and Diop ever showed up.

Eduardo Targets July Return

The Brazilian-born Croatia striker suffered a broken leg and dislocated ankle during the February game against Birmingham, and had been expected to be out of commission until the end of the calendar year at the earliest.

Now, based on his highly encouraging progress while in rehab in Rio de Janeiro, the 25-year-old has issued a far more optimistic prognosis.

"I am returning to Europe from Brazil at the beginning of August, perhaps even the end of July," said Eduardo.

"Doctors tell me by then I will be fully recovered and able to play football again. I hope so too.

"I'm feeling well and my rehabilitation is going better than I would ever have hoped."

Eduardo has been reduced to cheerleading role for Euro 2008, but is backing Croatia to make waves in the tournament.

"I think the boys will play very well without me," he added.

"They'll get through the group and, after that, we'll have to wait and see."

Croatia are fancied to go through along with Germany in Group B, which also contains Poland and co-hosts Austria.

goal.com

Nobody knows yet, not even his wife apparently. He said he hasn't made the decision, and rumour is he's not actually going to. Villa want around £20m for him, if Liverpool pay it, they can have him, if not, then they can't. Though we may refuse to sell to them after the way they've gone about it - like United did with Heinze.

Geez bud.

That's what? 25-27 M/euros? You guys are nuts.

Geez bud.

That's what? 25-27 M/euros? You guys are nuts.

barry is class and very underrated.  His price tage undoubtedly is 25 million euro+

But he doesn't play for a top European club and doesn't have a name like Barrizinho, so he'll probably end up going for £15m.

WTF Drogba, in less than 24 hours your team will be playing the Champions League final and you prepare by blasting your manager?

Aston Villa will carry the name of a children's charity on their shirts next season after announcing a partnership with the West Midlands-based Acorns Children's Hospice. The charity's logo will feature on the club's shirt for free in the 2008-09 season after their lucrative sponsorship deal with internet gambling website 32RED.com came to an end.

Man City confirm Hughes as new manager

Manchester City have confirmed that Mark Hughes has been appointed as the club's new manager.

City parted company with Sven-Goran Eriksson on Monday and were immediately given permission to talk to Blackburn manager Hughes, 44, with a compensation package agreed yesterday.


Hughes was also believed to be interesting Chelsea after a successful four years at Rovers but has opted to move to Eastlands on a three-year deal.

City's new chief executive, Garry Cook, told the club's: 'I am delighted to welcome Mark on board. In our view he is the brightest young manager in the game and he was our number one target for the manager's job.'

Hughes, who will be presented to the media at a press conference tomorrow morning, agreed to the move after meeting Cook yesterday evening.

Cook himself has only just had his appointment confirmed by owner Thaksin Shinawatra and flew in from the USA to seal the deal.

Cook continued: 'He made it clear to us from the moment we met that he shared our vision and ambition to make Manchester City one of the top sides in the country.

'It's a privilege to join Dr Thaksin here at Manchester City. There is no better opportunity in world football.

'The club intends to invest in new players as well as securing the long-term services of key members of the current first-team squad.

'Mark has already identified some of the players and backroom staff that he wants to see here at City, and we will begin the process of recruiting them immediately.'

Hughes will take up his new position with immediate effect.

Hughes is expected to be followed to the City of Manchester Stadium by his assistants Mark Bowen and Eddie Niedzwiecki with compensation believed to be in the region of £5million.

Hughes began his managerial career with the Wales national team following his international retirement in 1999.

Wales were at a low ebb when Hughes took over but the former striker turned things round and, after beating Italy, they narrowly failed to reach Euro 2004 when they were beaten in a play-off by Russia.

Hughes left his Wales post in September 2004 to take over at Blackburn, who were struggling at the wrong end of the Premier League.

In his four years at Ewood Park, Hughes - a former Blackburn player - transformed the side into a top-six outfit, twice qualifying for the UEFA Cup.

Rovers also reached the semi-finals of the FA Cup twice and the last four of the Carling Cup, while Hughes has proved himself a canny operator in the transfer market, bringing in strikers Benni McCarthy and Roque Santa Cruz in cut-price deals.

Blackburn just missed out on European football for next season and, with City having qualified through the Fair Play League, that may have influenced Hughes' decision.

City owner Thaksin hailed the qualities of his new manager, telling the Daily Mail today: 'He's an outstanding manager who has achieved many things with Blackburn.'

Hughes was a legend at Manchester United during his playing days and has been tipped for the top job at Old Trafford when Sir Alex Ferguson retires.

Spalletti is faveourite for the Chelsea job according to the English press

  Actually, QPR's Lakshmi Mittal is by FAR the richest football president in the world. It's La Coruna's Amancio Ortega Gaona in second place and Abramovich "only" comes third!

I wonder how the situation in the EPL will be like if Mittal starts spending his money like Abramovich has been doing. Actually, where do QPR stand now? (Please answer in the EPL thread)

Someone should buy Leeds though, I really liked them when they reached the semis some years ago!

Someone should buy Leeds though, I really liked them when they reached the semis some years ago!

Is it sure he'll be going to Real? Some time ago he said he prefers Barcelona...

It works for me; one more reason and not to like them and they'll be playing better football... his tricks and flicks are perfect for the Madritista applauders! But somebody should warn him... he's going to have to face many unsporting tackles in Spain; it's either the man or the ball that goes through you in latin football: never both!