₦airaland Forum

FBS: Chelsea Academy product Nathaniel Chalobah has been named the England Men's Youth Player of the Year.

Well. . . Mate, I saw that coming.
I've been scouting the internet for his performances and managed to watch one or two games on TV and mehn, if we don't blow it, like we usually do, we have a gem.

Ibime: Oh now, finally you are admitting Emenalo makes signings and is responsible for squad building. I thought he was just the toilet washer at Cobhams.

How come he couldn't see the deficiencies in midfield?

He must be as stoopid as Nateevs.

Thanks for listing Emenalo's signings. Now at least we have gotten past the nonsense you were chatting about him perhaps not being responsible for signing anyone and absolving him from creating his squad. He is a GOOD SCOUT as I have always maintained, but has been abysmally poor as Director of Football this season. Read your friend below. . .

WTF do you mean by finally? Have you been reading at all? Even Debo and Coogar understand where I stand.
Comprehension mate! No part of my posts claims that Emenalo is powerless. What we disagree on is the extent of his powers. I know I still have to state this 100 times after this post.

What deficiencies by the way? The fragment of your imagination? The only deficiency I see is that of squad size. Not deficiency in quality.

Ibime: You are a dishonest guy. You claim not to know Emenalo's true role, yet cannot explain how he found tens of millions for loan players but no midfield. Did Roman sign De Bruyne. Has Roman heard of Thibault Courtois or Lucas Paizon?

This is the proof that Emenalo has money to spend but cannot see the deficiencies in the squad, or places too much faith in Ramires (another Emenalo signing) and Mikel.

How come Benitez is begging Emenalo for signings? "In quotes". . . before any eediot start talking about DailyMail.

Meanwhile, why are you bugging Ibime on Chelsea thread. Why are you not lying in Wellington hospital with your colleagues from In Amenas?

"Ramires . . . another Emenalo signing" This here pretty much sums up the premise behind your posts.
We don't hear Mata, Hazard, Oscar, De Bryune, Courtouis, Lukaku, good young players with potential - many of Emenalo's signings. Instead we are constantly reminded where it went sour.

Find me a technical director who gets all signings right. Mention one.

Hehehehehe. You have provided enough links? You dare lie again? Which phucking links? Daliymail? Goal.com? The Sun? Those are links? You should be ashamed of yourself. You flipping phat phucked faced liar. RDM was mandated to play Torres weekly how? By having a gun to his head? If he refused what would have happened? Would they have blown him to pieces? Shameless bag of fat.




I gave credit to Emenalo for signing the players because he heads the scouting network and he is the technical director. This we can prove. However, like always, simple comprehension eludes you as the bone of contention is whether Emenalo, solely and purposely created an under-strength squad (what you dingbat calls an unbalanced squad). That we cannot prove. I gave you scenarios explaining that perhaps he handed a list in and the board overruled him. Perhaps he had more players he wanted to bring in and he was asked to worked with what he has. Perhaps he was working on deals that never materialized, we cannot say. You however, take on the mantle of judge and jury and profess as though you have inside info about what goes on. And this is simply not true. I even stressed that Chelsea is a complicated case where finance affects everything and as such, it cannot be Emenalo's sole decision on who goes and who stays. The club was bent to make a profit. Every pound mattered.

Instead of a session of thorough understanding, you rush to a conclusion saying I claim Emenalo signed players yet has no power. You should be ashamed of yourself. Another show of horror.

I will not entertain you with any more nonsense. We all remember how you spazzed out like an EEDIOT when RDM won the Champions League after being made to look a FOOL YET AGAIN.

You phucking phat jackass. A few minutes ago, you found it convenient to throw in the point that we won the CL throwing 10 men behind the ball when it suited you. Exactly what I said after the CL final, now you are claiming I spazzed out when all I did was criticise the manner in which we won. Apparently, you feel the same. You just waited 8 months to say the same, except, only when it suited your argument. You see how silly you look?

An eediot who told us at season start that Chelsea have too many defensive midfielders yet spent the whole season trying to find a solution to a midfield problem. A fool who continues to insist that we don't have enough MaZaCars in our squad when our obvious fault lies in conceding goals, not scoring them.

Yet again, you lie! Find the link where I stated we have too many defensive midfielders. You will not find it. Also I have not "continued to state" we don't have enough MaZaCars. You lie, yet again. You live on falsehood. I stated once that I am concerned that if Mata gets injured, we don't have a midfield player who brings to the game, what Mata does.

The point of the matter is chat all you want about RDM, Stamford Bridge already holds him blameless and a legend, and just like your positions on Lampard, AVB, Torres, Scolari and Drogba, you are on the wrong side of what all us fans know. . . and EVER THE FOOL!!!

Now you've gone from me hating them to much milder, "your positions on them". What were my positions on them? You lie yet again? Stamford Bridge does not hold RDM blameless. You don't go to the bridge. Don't act like you know what goes on. The same SB where fights break out between RDM clappers and the ones who are bored of it all. There's only perceived solidarity on the RDM case because Roman employed Benitez. If Roman brought back JM, no one will remember to clap.

Nobody is buying your evasive tactics. Everything you write is a lie. Nateevs is this, Nateevs is that. Phucking obese liar. When boxed into a corner is when he starts to remember what Nateevs did or did not say.
Nateevs hated Sturridge but RDM never played him. Phat phool cannot explain why.
Emenalo is responsible for this and that, oya show us how you know, you can't prove anything. He ran away yet again.

You build a case on lies, falsehood and at the very best paper-thin conjecture and you attempt to present it as facts. When called out to produce facts, you can't find one single link. You back track and attempt to spin the argument into what Nateevs said in the 1900s. What's that got to do with proving that Emenalo makes sole decisions at Chelsea? What's it got to do with proving that Emenalo instructed RDM not to play Sturridge?

You claim Emenalo had a budget of £73m but you cannot prove it. You claim Emenalo instructed RDM to play Torres, you read it in the papers. You claim Emenalo sent players on loan but you cannot prove it. You create story after story. Lately, you even claim Emenalo hired Benitez but you it's only another round of conjecture lifted from The Sun. You are one big, fat, walking lie.


You can't prove I was Scolari's biggest fan. You can't prove I hate Lamaprd. You can't prove I hate RDM. You can't prove I hate Drogba. You can't prove I hate Sturridge. You are just phucking phat liar - a prophet and proponent of falsehood.

Ibime: As usual, the eediot is bleating, Someone who nearly had a heart attack criticizing one of Sturridges 10 minute cameo performances just so he can propagate the dud further.

The eediot is always trying to throw dirt on RDMs reign but when I get home I will quote the eediot said Benitez would prove about RDM. An eediot who knows that RDM would even prefer Hazard as a striker when push comes to shove is asking why RDM persisted with his beloved shekpe keeper even though it's well known fact that RDM hated shekpe keeper and was forced to play him until he said enough is enough. And who was the guy who clashed with RDM weekly over his failure to get the dud firing? You guessed it? Our friend Emenalo,

It is surprising that this fool is even allowed to post on this thread anymore given the no of times he's been proven to be a fool, whether supporting Torres, Scolari, AVB or hating on RDM, Lampard or Sturridge. At the end of every season the little fool is always shown up as a confirmed eediot.

How did we go from hailing Emenalos work to claiming there is no proof he is allowed to use the gents at Cobham, just to dissociate the TECHNICAL DIRECTOR from the failure of his poorly put together squad and the failure of the manager who he thought most understands his vision. Suddenly, Roman is responsible for loan policy when Emenalo was in Hawthorns the other week assuring them he has no plans to recall Lukaku. Yet the same man is absolutely powerless according to Nateevs, whilst praising the same man in time past for signing players "Roman scouted on youtube "

STFU. You have a problem with comprehension. A major mental impediment.

You claim I hated Sturridge. You lie. You phucking liar. You claim I ripped him apart in a 10 minute cameo. So bloody what? Does that mean I hate him? You have to lie. It's part of you. Who cares if RDM did or did not like Torres? Does that explain why RDM did not play Sturridge? No stories you cook up can defend that. Are you claiming RDM was not a man of himself to state categorically that he doesn't have to explain his team selection? Now Sturridge crosses over to Liverpool and you think RDM has nothing to do with it.

I have told you, every of your argument is structured to absolve RDM of any blame. The same guy who blames Emenalo for giving RDM an unbalanced squad is the guy claiming that one of the players who could have made a significant difference was prevented from playing by Emenalo. Yet he gave him an unbalanced squad.

Listen to this numpty for too long and he could convince you that the reason RDM never selected Sturridge was because Emenalo didn't allow him to. SMH.


So what if Emenalo was at the Hawthornes? Piet De Visser was at Holland to monitor Kalas, Kakuta and Van Aanholt. What does it prove? That it was Emenalo's sole decision to let Lukaku stay on loan? You are a proper buffoon if you think we will swallow your daily-mail stories hook, line and sinker.

Just STFU!

Hehehe. Posts get shorter but the lies continue. Manufacturing stories on the fly. When the obese phat phool was asked why RDM didn't play Sturridge, he blamed it on Emenalo. Now he says we hated Sturridge. The phat pillock who cannot distinguish between our support for Torres and our criticism of Sturridge. If we hated Sturridge, why didn't RDM play him as well? Yeah, I know, Emenalo held a gun to his head.

As always it's you who sees and knows. Perhaps our criticism of Sturridge aligns with why RDM refused to play him last season and this season. Trust orobo, instead of focusing on why Sturridge didn't get games under RDM, he blames Nateevs for it. Jobless tool.

HAhahaha. The revisionist is back. This man here will revise the whole of history where possible all in a bid to find anything that aligns with your crazy points that can only be expressed at it's very best as moot. You don't have to hide it, your whole argument is built and properly structured at absolving RDM of any blame whatsoever. At least, I give you credit for that.


1. New style - This is your naivety. Phuck new style. Who started this new style? Emenalo? Mate please! There is no tactical imperative to play a 4-2-3-1. If it makes sense against ManU, it makes no sense against the likes of QPR, Reading and Southampton. This is where your constant rambling about balance is stoopid. Midfield with pace my phucking arsss. For years and especially in 2010, we played with a 4-3-3 with Lampard 31, Ballack 33 and Mikel in midfield. What's even worse, we had Terry in the heart of defense - one who is renowned for no pace of any kind. Also we played Alex and Terry at centreback. That's a midfield and defensive core totally devoid of pace yet we ruled the earth. I didn't see this mofo making noises about midfield with no pace. Now he is waxing lyrical as though it's going out of fashion. It was never about pace but positional discipline. Movement as a unit both in defense and midfield. We broke all records and conceded very few. Many times in play, Lamps and Ballack stroll forward to get a goal, leaving Terry, Alex and Mikel behind in a 4-3-3 and we protected leads. Less players, with no pace in the tactical set up and there wasn't talk about pace then. Now we have 2 players at DM, Alex has been replaced by Luiz and Cahill who are pacier and we concede more goals and this ninjah is cooking up some tactical gibberish about pace. STFU dude. No one is listening to you. Perhaps A-40 is.

Tell me which of Reading's 2 goals in mid-week was about pace. 3 goals in Turin? 4 goals at the Super Cup? It's all a bid to protect RDM and absolve him of any blame.


2. Tactical naivety my back side. So we are supposed to believe Emenalo mandates the implementation of a 4-2-3-1. Why couldn't RDM play a 4-3-3? Why can't Benitez play a 4-3-3? I argued that we had a good midfield in May and I stand by it now. The talk of balance, I repeat, is your imagination. Who should we have now that we miss so badly? No one. Show me one balanced squad. United? ManCity? Who else? How come they are not third? STFU mate! Tactical Organisation on the pitch is the key subject. Where were Lamps and Ramires for Newcastle's 2nd goal that left Oscar chasing the ball - a player whose natural tactical position is ahead of Lamps' and Ramires'? How dos Balance solve that? 3rd goal nko? How does balance avert that goal?


3. Hehehehe. I called for Luiz in midfield in September? I realized the midfield was inadequate? I was the first to scream balance? Can you prove all this? You are an irritable liar. You will cook up stories to make a point. The likes of FBS and I believed that the skillset of Luiz makes him a candidate for a midfield position. A move that if implemented, will give good rotation to the squad and give players in midfield good rest. Now you title this "calling for Luiz in midfield after realising midfield in inadequate". Hehehe. Phucking obese liar.

Simple rule of squad management. If the substitution of a main player reduces the potency of a team in general, it's an indication of poor squad depth. That's exactly what we see now. We cannot sit Mata down if we are serious about winning a game. That's a depth issue not balance. Hazard's been out for 3 straight games and we can already tell. Marin came in and did 5shit. Now we use Betrand. Both their abilities combined is not up to half of Hazard's output, that's an issue of depth and not balance. So we have to keep playing Mata and Hazard even at the brink of death because no deputy can produce even half their output. That's a depth issue, not balance. Please stop the sermon.


4. Mate, I did not "claim Emenalo handed a list" because I cannot prove it. Instead, I said for all we know, "HE MAY" have handed a list. The focus of the argument was about proof. Something you cannot provide. Instead, you fill our eyes with conjecture and attempt to present it as facts. Your insatiable desire to feel more important and the desire to be the self-appointed soothsayer now impedes your ability to draw a vivid line between what is and what could be.

Nobody knows. For all we know, maybe the scouts world-wide come back with a list of players and Roman goes, hey, I have seen this one play, and that one and that one, buy them. You have no phucking clue. Stop acting like you know more than us.

An eediot had a budget, he spent £73m on Oscar, Hazard, Marin and Moses. He was even buying the likes of Oscar to send him out on loan. If Emenalo had no control of his budget, how come he buys players unknown to Roman to send them out on loan and how come he could push through last minute deal for Moses. Yet some goof wants us to believe his hands are tied.

You cannot prove he had a budget of £73m. You cannot prove Emenalo has the sole decision to send players on loan. You cannot prove Emenalo's clout. You cannot prove his duties and responsibilities. You cannot prove the players are unknown to Roman. Maybe Roman watches you-tube, who knows? You know phuckall. Lay off the booze mate. Not even Emenalo knows all that goes on in Chelsea. Let alone this obese, self-obsessed liar.

Ibime: You talking absolute nonsense.

You "can see that he's signed good players " but "no evidence that he is responsible for an unbalanced squad "


What a mumu talk. Isnt the purpose of signing players to build a squad to compete?

To take it to the extreme, a technical director when given a budget can sign 10 Cristiano Ronaldos but have no midfield or defence, yet some eediots would be here to tell us he did a good job with his his budget "because he signed good players "

Were you not the same eediot hailing Emenalos signings in the summer and arguing with Ritchboy when he told you any balanced team would smash through your weak midfield? You and Emenalo are brothers in eediocy. Fantasists!

Call me an eediot all you like, it lends no more credence to your falsified position. My point was meant to emphasize a few things.

1. That you cannot prove Emenalo lacks the acumen to build a "balanced squad".
2. That Emenalo bought good players in the positions that needed revitalization and as such, the talk of an "unbalanced squad" is a fragment of your imagination.
3. That if any case can be made at all, it is a case of squad depth and not balance.
4. That it cannot be proved that Emenalo was or was not refused money to increase squad depth hence what you are telling us is a load of codswallop.


You've gone a step further by claiming Emenalo was given a budget and he squandered it on Hazard and Oscar when for all we know, he may have presented a list of players and Roman approves Eden and Oscar, deal is negotiated and money is released. You cannot prove anything, yet you profess with all authority and try to sound like you know what happens the behind closed doors. You don't!!

Plus your idea of an unbalanced squad is your idea. It doesn't mean it is true because you say it. This is the same defense and midfield that has won trophies between 2010 and now. Apart from Meireles and Essien, (both who didn't play a large parts in last season's eventual success) there's been no departure of consequence. We didn't hear this unbalanced squad 5h1t last season, this season it's a never ending tune.


The squad is not unbalanced, it just lacks depth.

Ibime: Of course you guys are making sense with all these.

Same guys went from hailing all Emenalos successes in the transfer market to claiming that Bruce Bruck was behind all of it. Happy to give credit fir the positive but absolve him from the failures. Why didn't Nateevs credit Bruce Bruck or Roman with the signing of De Bruyne and Belgian keeper, yet blame them for Emenalos complete and utterly catastrophic failure in balancing his squad. I told you guys, Emenalo is a scout, not a director. He is clueless tactically on how players strengths fit together.

At first it was RDM fault, but now it's all gone Pete Tong, it's Eugene Tennenbaum to blame. Although Benitez was supposed to "exonerate Emenalo" , but all of a sudden Ron Gourlay has appeared from nowhere to exonerate him under excuse of "we don't know the division of labour "

It's been pretty obvious for some time that Emenalo is a top shot caller. The amount of times Benitez referred to Emenalo's instruction in his press conference should let everyone know. With the exception of Torres, Emenalo has absolute say in who needs to be bought and which positions need filling. He is a failure.

We hail Emenalo's successes because we can see what he has done. He's signed good players. What we don't agree with is your claim that he refused to or lacks the acumen to build a balanced squad. A simple scenario as "having asked but being refused the opportunity to balance the squad" cannot be proven. Therefore, such opinion can only be expressed as just what it is "an Opinion" and should not be forced down our throats.


You are hurt that we don't accept your opinions as facts. No one is absolving anyone of failure, we just ask you to provide undiputable proof that the failure lies at the feet of the accused. How hard is that if you are so sure?

It was RDM's fault that and no one is shifting the goal post. Now as we fail to consolidate on our position, it is Benitez's fault as well. That is consistency in argument.


As I have stated previously, if anything at all, any case that can be made is the case of squad depth, not balance. And the lack of squad depth is consequence of our refusal over the years of to include players from the academy, which if you ask me, is clearly not Emenalo's fault.

Unless you can prove with facts, whose job is what, with concrete evidence of autonomy of decisions, the point about Emenalo is moot. No one should act as though they have inside infomation. Not even fellas like Jason Cundy, Graeme Le Saux et al who have close ties to the club make claims in the media with certainty about who does what when it comes to Chelsea.

In times of disaster, people always look for others to blame. Repeat it a few times and others may start to believe. Unless absolute proof can be presented, no one should give the point of view a second look. It's another attempt at feeling more important.

And the Mikel argument continues. Long after he's gone. At a point in time, the absence of Mikel was used to justify solidity in defence. Now the argument is even if he's here, he still won't save the day.

Anyway, I am not throwing my toys of out the pram yet. We cannot under-estimate the absence of Mikel, Moses, Hazard, Romeu and Luiz. The first 11 needs a damn good rotation.

Is Roman going to break yet another record? One or two more results like this and . . . .

Hehehehe. This just gets better. We let a 2 goal lead slip in the last 5 mins?
Well, this season can come to an end quickly enough now.

FBS: Even Jack Butland has refused to come to Chelsea. Just saying.

So no backup goalie cos that guy from Middlesbrough..hmmm na keeper at all?

Courtoius wants to stay another season at Atleti meaning na only Cech dey. It is well.

It's an embarrassment at this point.
I can't blame the poor boy.
Most likely he will not play or will get sent on loan to other clubs.

We even have a bigger problem regarding Courtouis. Rumours flying around now that Barcelona want him.
We could be losing one of the finest young GKs around whilst still having only Turnbull.

Ibime: Mikel Obi being excoriated by Eurosport commentators. They are wondering his purpose on the pitch.

Ibime don come with exaggeration again. It was just the other guy who said "Mikel I don't get him" . .
He said a few other things but he commented generally on the Nigerian play.

[quote author=A-40]If managers would not be given time to function then running an academy is just "Oju Aye" to be honest[/quote]Absolutely. It is number one enemy of the academy and it's made me question it's purpose many times.
Until a time a manager is allowed to make mistakes on the job, injecting young players will always be something we "hope for".

I agree but only partly. Jefferey Bruma has gone backwards and the number of appearances does not always tell the true story of the performance of a defender. Talking about performances, Tomas Kalas is way ahead of any Chelsea defender on loan. Based on performance. The dilemma now is that Kalas has spent most of the season at RB as opposed to last season at CB. So we are currently confused about what should happen as we've bought Wallace Dos Santos who joins in the summer. Considering that we have Azpili and Ivanovic as RBs and now Wallace, Kalas will have to settle for CB where we have JT, Cahill, Luiz, Bran. What happens? perhaps another guy who will probably never play for Chelsea.


I believe there is good reason to Cortouis, Lukaku, DeBryune, Chalobah, McEachran going on loan. These five above every other players on loan have actually gone straight into their respective first teams and are important members of their sides. However minute, there's a portion of their game that evidently would have improved by virtue of the game time they are getting. Something they won't get here. At this point, I can say that apart from Mata, these five are just about good enough to give good competition for the spots they play. There's no way we establish this without them given that game time.


For instance, Watford fans will tell you how they love Chalobah. What they also tell you is that many times in expressing himself, he looses possession in dangerous places. The difference is, Zola sees it as Chalobah learning and then play him next game hoping he corrects his mistakes, Chelsea managers will be calling for his replacement with a more experienced player if his mistake cost us points.

FBS: right decision to keep Torres? in whose books if I may ask? 99.999 % of folks will tell you it was as of today, a terrible decision. But hey, I don't want to get into another argument about FT. No. we've had enough of that already.
My point is this, I've watched Essien play for Madrid this season on several occasions and I thought, he is not at this moment playing any worse than our starting 11, heck even better than some.
Coupled with the fact that Rafa is complaining how light is squad is forgetting we have the likes of Lukaku, Essien, Josh, Piazon, Bryne etc out on loan. Even DM reported we have 22 players out on loan.
Even young players dont want to come back. Who the heck is running this club sef?

You talk of "as of today" - using benefit of hindsight - when in-fact the decision was made at the beginning of the season. (This is no an admission on my part that this decision is wrong). I too don't want to get into a Torres argument. I am only interested in defending the Essien situation and I hope I can without being dragged into an over flogged debate.

Essien earns over 5m a year. Madrid pays a fraction of that which the club has offloaded. Although I don't know how much of it they pay, one can say that considering months later, the club posted a profit for the first time in the Roman era, it was a justified decision. A decision that will help the club in the future as it's likely we post a trading loss again as a result of being kicked out early from the CL this season.




On having 22 players out on loan. It's not the first time and clearly a result of a failed system.

Firstly, our penchant for firing managers means that newly appointed ones will not give chance to experiment and youth players. The refusal of young players to come back did not start today. Many players could have played cameo roles in the past. they were never allowed.

The safe thing to do is to write the season off. Hopefully the players on loan are on loan for a good reason. I do not disagree with you on the squad size. It's a point I have stated on here many times. If it gives any consolation, Benayoun's back.


Meanwhile have you seen this video of Chalobah at Watford vs Brighton ?

[flash=425,444]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNiE5IlBTdM=en&fs=1[/flash]

FBS: effective management of a player. now, we are even short of players now abi no be so?
and oh we have a striker who is earning even more and aint performing. I guess he is worth keeping innit?

I don't understand. Are you using another player's situation to justify why a right decision was wrong?
Who pays over 100k a week for Essien as a squad player?
Effective management of players is topic for another day.
Your 100k plus a week players play most games.
The rotation players are in the lower earning bracket.
Not the other way round even if for effective squad management.


At the time the decision was made to move Essien on, it was the right one.
At the time it was decided to keep Torres, it was the right one.

What's your point?

sephia: And they refuse to give credit to Ba for the goal, instead praising a dead wood who was worthless till Ba came on.
If the dud had been the one fouled he wouldn't have made effort to complete the pass. Rafa is a fool for allowing Ba to stay on the bench so long when goals are needed.

So while not down-playing Ba's effort at getting the goal, are we not doing the same to Torres?
Or does Torres' effort not count because he's not satisfied our scoring expectations?

If I remember correctly, it was long ball in by Lampard and Torres skill-fully chests down to Ba for a return pass into space.
Instead, Ba loses control, albeit in the face of a slight nudge by the Brentford defender.
Credit to him for still being able to pass it whilst falling but Torres' initial instinct of finding Ba in that manner created the goal in my opinion.
The pass came back and it still had to be scored. And scored it was.

Why are we down-playing Torres effort? We might as well, not credit Lampard for the pass into the area.
There's no need to skew facts to side with our interests.

Ibime: I wonder who Cashley was grumbling about. . . . any guesses?



Brentford's Donaldson reveals Chelsea bickering during FA Cup clash

The Bees top scorer has said that Ashley Cole was constantly moaning about the Blues' attacking failings throughout the 2-2 draw, and hopes to exploit

Brentford striker Clayton Donaldson has revealed the on-field bickering between Chelsea players during their 2-2 FA Cup fourth-round draw on Sunday.

The Bees almost pulled off one of the shocks of the round when Harry Forrester gave his side the lead from the penalty spot 17 minutes from time, only for Fernando Torres to force a replay 10 minutes later with a fine shot from the edge of the area.

And Donaldson has publicised Ashley Cole’s constant dissatisfaction with his side's attacking movement and the lack of penetration from the strikers as the holders were held by the League One outfit.

"[Cole] was always mumbling something, always mumbling stuff quietly, but I could still hear what he was saying. He was just getting frustrated,” Donaldson told reporters.

"He was saying about the forward players not showing, saying things like 'He needs to be there' and pointing. You could just see straight away that he was getting frustrated. That was a good thing."

Ryan Bertrand?

FBS: You dont expect people to sleep on this thread or do you?

Meanwhile, Essien is playing like he is on some African pumped up juice. Dude is everywhere on the pitch for Real Madrid.

Why did RA and Co allow him out on a season long loan?

10 appearances only in the league. 8 starts and 2 subs. I'll be surprised if he's not playing like he's on pumped juice.
He's a squad rotation player at best and not worth paying over 100k a week for.

The silence in here is deafening. Ninjah's only have things to say when nothing's working.


We were only a little better than Brentford.
Without Mata, we are simply devoid of any kind of creativity, no matter what anyone else tries to make you believe.
The first half was shocking although the pitch was not the best.
The introduction of Mata made us a little more purposeful upfront.

Ramires and Lampard gifted them goals. Turnbull? I don't know what to make of this dude.

------------------------------------------------

I wish we finished the game off as it's now one more game to play in a hectic schedule with an already painfully thin squad getting stretched even further.

Hazard, Luiz, Romeu, Mikel, Moses all out. Plus Rafa has now confirmed there will be no more additions to the squad.
It's a tough time ahead. Only if we are lucky to avoid a lot more suspensions and injury.

Here's hoping the FA don't screw us over regarding Hazard and yeah, Benayoun's back.

You know things have gone really bad when it raises the concern and posts of Somze.


----------------


I see that suddenly it is now okay to make a case for chances created rather than goals scored.

Everyone trying to argue for themselves. Chelsea would have qualified if Torres scored in the first leg.


Laugh no go kee me. Chelsea conceded 2 goals in the first leg. Even if Torres scored 2 goals in the first leg, we still would not have qualified based on today's results. . . but it's still Torres' fault.

Of course, if only the phucker scored a hat-trick in the first leg.

You know things have gone really bad when it raises the concern and posts of Somze.


----------------


I see that suddenly it is now okay to make a case for chances created rather than goals scored.

Everyone trying to argue for themselves. Chelsea would have qualified if Torres scored in the first leg.


Laugh no go kee me. Chelsea conceded 2 goals in the first leg. Even if Torres scored 2 goals in the first leg, we still would not have qualified based on today's results. . . but it's still Torres' fault.

Of course, if only the phucker scored a hat-trick in the first leg.

Hehehehe. Witch-hunting 2013.

@Ibime,

It's looking like your life is not the same without my presence here.
May I let you know that it is possible to justify your point of view without reference to what I have said.
If you feel your view is strong enough to be heard, then state it.
Quoting what Nateevs said and did not say does not lend any more credence to your views.

Leave Nateevs o!

After all his arguments came unstuck, best he can say is "all of you supported Roman's revolving door policy "

It's not about the best thing I can say. It's a point of view, totally independent of the Torres argument you so desperately want to suck me into.
You of all fans on here is a big supporter of the revolving door policy and I say it again.

Wise heads called for Scolari and AVB sacking, Nateevs defended their stupidity to the hilt. Their replacements immediately proved they were silly.

Tunnel vision. I believe in analysing how their replacements stabilised things. They didn't come with their own ideas. Instead, they fell back to ideas developed by Mourinho. While that is acceptable for the fans, in terms of long term stability, it's not immediate proof of AVB's inabilities. What is different here is that all the managers I supported came in with their ideas of how football should be played. Unfortunately it was in stark contradiction to the setup of personnel. I have stated this time and again. Their replacements in contrast, never imposed their ideas on the team. If they did, they would have suffered the same fate. The eventual fate of RDM would be determined by this same principle. If Hiddink had stayed, he would have suffered the same fate.

Wise heads rejected Di Matteos sacking. Nateevs was loving it and telling us why he deserved it, and how his replacement has the tactical experience. His replacement is now the worst performing manager in RAs reign.

Wise heads? Are you kidding me? RDM was sacked for the exact same reasons AVB and Scolari were fired. An intolerant owner. Secondly, I hate when you lie to make a point. My support for the sacking of RDM is not to be confused with the endorsement of Benitez. Where did I endorse Benitez as the rightful replacement of RDM? Your penchant for peddling false information is alarming.

I hope the revolving door in the strikers position is not affecting his sensibilities. Horrendous strikers are finally being revolved to the bench by fanpower. Maybe this is why Nateevs is disillusioned. Few weeks ago, he was jizzing himself over "vertical passes", the wonderful switchback tactics favoured by his favourite technical director and implemented by his lauded coach for his favourite striker. All three are failures who need to be revolved out of the club ASAP.

I see again you've returned with "repeat till fade" strategy. Now you saying Benitez is my lauded coach. . . Hehehehe. I struggle to see where you got that from.
Emenalo is my favourite Technical director. . . That's another one.

In case you never got it before, I will set it out straight now. I am not a fan of Benitez. I have never been. What I am, is understanding of what his strengths. Calling Emenalo my favourite Technical Director as well is rubbish. I have appreciation for what he's done so far considering how far we've come with Arnesen. Sure he can do better. What I cannot stand is your incessant running to the ground of the poor guy's input as though you have no understanding of the possible challenges of working with an obsessed billionaire owner.

So Pep joins Bayern. Congrats to him. I wasn't totally convinced he will join Chelsea anyway.
It's nice to know that even in the face of very tempting salaries that he must have been offered by Roman and City, he chose what was best for him.

Hehehehe.

For the first time since the sacking of Jose, it's funny to witness a consensus on Roman's excesses and firing of managers.
It's interesting to know that all those who said trophies first stability later and threw their weight behind the revolving door are now the ones staring into the horizon hoping for the next honourable man who will be stupid enough to take the Chelsea job.


Only one person on here reserves the right to criticise Roman's excesses regarding firing managers and that is FBS.

Ibime: As for Emenalo, he signs and he sells. He recommends and he puts prices on players heads in terms of transfer and wages. Thats the job description of a TD. Mikel is no personal favourite of Roman. Emenalo gave him 5 year contract.

Conjecture at best. This is the job description of a TD at a club with segregated duties. To expect the same from a club with a billionaire owner who's pumped over 1bn pounds of his personal money into it is really really stretching it.

Ibime: Its either you are ignorant, wilfully ignorant or lacking in education.
So the same Mikel you have been praising on here is "not your desire", just "reality" whilst the mumu TD that gave him a 5 year contract is doing a stellar job?

There's no need to be vile. Perhaps I could have expressed myself better.
By "Desire" I was referring to your desire to have a DMF for the sake of it.

If you want to make an argument now based on my statement "for the sake of it", then you are welcome.


------------------------------------------------

The reason I say for the sake of it is that, it is all well and good making a case on the premise of "wanting something better than what we have" but where exactly do you stop? I'll have Vidic over Cahill. Ramos over Ivanovic. Alonso over Ramires. Iniesta over Mata, Messi over Lamaprd, Ronaldo over Hazard, Falcao over Ba and Cavani over Torres. Exactly where do you draw the line? You will always find a better player in every position if you "desire" . . .

However, you and I know this is far from being "practical". Being "practical" is the "reality" I referred to. I am yet to be convinced that apart from your distaste for Mikel's style of play, that there is a pressing need to replace him. There can be a technical argument in wanting something better, it doesn't paint a true picture of the reality of things.

Mikel, if deployed correctly, is fine at want he does and there's no need to replace him. There is a reason why every manager since Mourinho has picked Mikel.


Regarding his contract

You are making an assumption that Emenalo has an overwhelming majority decision on who does and who doesn't get a contract. You either know the inside more than everyone else or you are guessing. Mate this is the UK. Can you go insinuate to your boss at work not to give a subordinate an extension in contract on the back of having a hunch that his birth certificate is fraudulent? What if word gets back to Mikel through the back door that Emenalo insinuated such? This is what you are asking Emenalo to do, on the assumption that

1. Emenalo has that much influence on who get what
2. Emenalo has a lot of influence who on who stays and who goes.


For all we know, maybe only 30% of his technical ideas are implemented by the board and Roman decides on everything else according to how he's done it on his Football Manager. Mate give it a rest.



On the who wants Mikel?

A few words, who wants Carrick? Who wants Fletcher? Who wants Zabaleta? The fact that rumours are floating around that United could give Lampard a contract does not mean that if Chelsea releases Mikel today, nobody will find a need for him. Not many players for big teams are desired while they are there. For Pete's sake, who wanted Kalou and Bosingwa? They've found a place. Just like no one wanted Brown and O Shea until United allowed them to join Sunderland.

This is no stick to beat Mikel with.



Regarding this, which you have said a few times before.

Even his own manager Benitez dont want him no more, preferring centrebacks and Spanish rookies.

There's no need to peddle false info. Mikel was banned for 3 games following the Clattenburg issue. It took immediate effect from Dec 6th.
He missed the Sunderland, Leeds and Aston Villa games from suspension. He came back for the Norwich game and I if I remember was subbed because he had injury.
Since Norwich, we've only played 3 games.