CheLOLsea

[From Despair To Where?]

..and once again, he blames everyone and everything except his and his players' own fallibility.

[King of Sting]

Worst title defence ever. Chelsea are a little bit shit. Such a shame.

[Royalist]

Once again the sulky manager will deflect from how poor Chelsea actually are. That Liverpool side isn't great and yet they were able to boss Chelsea on their own turf.

I'm increasingly coming to the point of view he will see out the season and unless a good champions league run happens he'll move on to another 'project' in the summer.

[genome]

BT Sport reporter Des Kelly: Jose, a 3-1 defeat after a fabulous start to the game, the game just got away from you then?
Mourinho: I have nothing, nothing to say.
Kelly: Nothing to say about the game at all?
Mourinho: Nothing, nothing to say.
Kelly: Nothing to say about the Lucas (Leiva) decision that left him on the pitch?
Mourinho: Nothing to say, I have nothing to say.
Kelly: The Diego Costa clash?
Mourinho: Nothing to say, I am so sorry, I have nothing to say.
Kelly: Do you not think it's time to have a chat to the fans to give them some message, an indication of your thinking?
Mourinho: They are not stupid.
Kelly: We heard them chanting your name.
Mourinho: The fans are not stupid.
Kelly: You did say before this game that you were not worried, are you a little bit more worried now?
Mourinho: Worried about what?
Kelly: Your future, your own position at the club, the backing of the board?
Mourinho: No.
Kelly: Nothing about the game at all?
Mourinho: No.
Kelly: No individual performance you would like to pick out?
Mourinho: No.
Kelly: Nothing about the performance going ahead?
Mourinho: Nothing.
Kelly: Nothing about the way we could fix it?
Mourinho: I cannot say.
Kelly: Thank you for your time Jose.

[Man Friday]

Just so unbelievably childish. Quite incredible. It's as though he hasn't progressed, maturity-wise, beyond an eleven year-old. Says childish things, behaves childishly. If they re-make "Big" he's a shoe-in.

[sandman]

"It's the FA, freedom of speech, yadda yadda yadda"

[From Despair To Where?]

Worst title defence ever. Chelsea are a little bit shit. Such a shame.

They've not quite sewn that one up yet, Manchester City got relegated the year after winning the title in the 30's. It's not all bad news, City finished second bottom so there's still something for Chelsea to aim for.

I'll stick my neck out though and predict that Chelsea will stay up.

I will stick up for Jose though, It is a conspiracy of JFK proportions because every week, sometimes twice a week even, it's someone new who's got it in for Chelsea because they can't possibly be this shit every week off their own back can they?

[King of Sting]

Fair point FDTW but... Chelsea fans believe football was only invented when SKY turned up so definitely worst tiitle defence since then.
I too will stick up for Mourinho to a certain extent (not that you did really) I think he is a childish arrogant tit. I also think he is a very good football manager.

[From Despair To Where?]

I don't really hate Chelsea, it's that arrogant, lying prick of a manage i detest with a passion. Doesn't matter how good a manager, he's still a toxic, objectionable pcunt that I wouldn't want anywhere near my club.

[Ian Royal]

Fair point FDTW but... Chelsea fans believe football was only invented when SKY turned up so definitely worst tiitle defence since then.
I too will stick up for Mourinho to a certain extent (not that you did really) I think he is a childish arrogant tit. I also think he was a very good football manager.

corrected for you

[genome]

I don't really hate Chelsea, it's that arrogant, lying prick of a manage i detest with a passion. Doesn't matter how good a manager, he's still a toxic, objectionable pcunt that I wouldn't want anywhere near my club.

'greed. Classless, blame-shifting individual. Gr8 to see him so rattLOLed

[AthleticoSpizz]

"Simply the best"

according to the banners (in front of the empty blue seats) today

[bobby1413]

Just so unbelievably childish. Quite incredible. It's as though he hasn't progressed, maturity-wise, beyond an eleven year-old. Says childish things, behaves childishly. If they re-make "Big" he's a shoe-in.

+111

[frimmers3]

Wait till the media attention turns to Abromavich: now that is a poisonous reptile without equal. One can only assume people with power have a vested interest and have warned the press off.

[bobby1413]

It also shows just how fukcing thick Chelsea fans are.

If my team had won the league... And then started the season like Chelsea
And week-in, week-out had lost and played badly

... AND my manager gives rediculous interviews like today, blames everyone and says NOTHING of value, of substance or with any meaning

I would definitely not be chanting his name. I'd be demanding some actual words from him, not this petulant, childish, embarrassing behaviour.

[Royalist]

He buttered the ego of the fans up by saying "They are not stupid"

That will placate the average glory hunter who just uses football as a way to feel good about himself!

[Royal Rother]

Wait till the media attention turns to Abromavich: now that is a poisonous reptile without equal. One can only assume people with power have a vested interest and have warned the press off.

Matthew Syed's article this week.


It has been said that the antics of José Mourinho this season have brought shame upon Chelsea and their owner, Roman Abramovich. But let’s be frank: Mourinho couldn’t bring shame upon the Russian oligarch if he turned up to Stamford Bridge dressed in drag, proceeded to insult every football referee in history and then sacked 20 of the medical staff before breakfast.

I don’t wish to diminish the actions of the Portuguese manager — they have been shameful — but let us not compare them with one of the great, unfolding scandals in English football. The money that has bankrolled Chelsea these past 12 years, which has brought multiple trophies while sanitising the image of one of the most dubious individuals ever associated with British sport, was corruptly amassed. Don’t take my word for it: listen to the man himself. It was in the High Court, during his legal battle with Boris Berezovsky, his fellow oligarch, that Abramovich admitted what many had suspected but had been constrained by libel laws from stating. As Jonathan Sumption, his QC, put it with immaculate phrasing: there was “an agreement to sell media support to the president of Russia in return for privileged access to state-owned assets”. He described the auction process as “easy to rig and was in fact rigged”.

That is squalid quid pro quo that has funded Chelsea. Abramovich and his peers provided Boris Yeltsin (then trailing in the polls for the 1996 election) soft cash and free TV advertising in return for a rigged auction that would hand them the natural wealth of the Russian people at a knockdown price. Within months, Abramovich was richer than Croesus, purchasing super-yachts and luxury homes while his countrymen came close to starvation. “The largest single heist in corporate history,” said Paul Gregory, the economist. This is the elephant in the room. When Abramovich is shown in the directors’ box, commentators talk almost affectionately about his eccentricity, charming grin and beautiful young wife. He is portrayed as a lover of Chelsea. One newspaper once described him as “an astute businessman”.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. This is a manipulative and ruthless chancer whose money was gained through dubious means, and whose calculated purchase of Chelsea had nothing to do with love of football. He did it to shield himself from possible retribution from Vladimir Putin’s gangster state. He knew that it would be politically tricky, even for a man with as promiscuous an attitude to the rule of law as the Russian leader, to come after a man so closely associated with a high-profile British asset.
This wasn’t his only insurance policy, however, as Karen Dawisha, the Russia scholar, pointed out in her book, Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia? “Abramovich helped fund the purchase for $50 million [£32.7 million] of Putin’s first presidential yacht, the Olympia, fundraising for which preceded Putin’s being elected president,” she wrote. She also quotes Sergey Kolesnikov, the businessman turned whistleblower who said that Abramovich funnelled the first funds towards the construction of Putin’s palace in Gelendzhik.

It is a testament to how successfully Abramovich has been rehabilitated that he is talked about without a hint of irony as being undermined by the behaviour of Mourinho. The Chelsea board is reported to be worried about the “reputational effects” of the Portuguese’s actions. This is the grotesque fantasy land into which we have descended, lured into moral blindness by the grin of a man whose past is so often skirted around.
Perhaps the most extraordinary thing of all is that merely discussing the activities of Abramovich is considered “controversial”. Could there be anything more symbolic of how narrow the debate within football has become?

We talk about tactics and the high jinks of the transfer market, debate managers blaming referees or getting shirty with each other in the dugout— this is part of the modern game and the soap opera it has become. It is all good, knockabout fare.
But how often do we talk about the wider context? How often do we debate the motives of Abramovich, or the strategic aspirations of Abu Dhabi’s ownership of Manchester City, or Qatar’s foray with Paris Saint-Germain? Football has become a pawn in some of the highest stakes games of all, political and strategic: isn’t this part of its meaning, too?
Many Chelsea fans bitterly regret the identity of their club’s owner; others tolerate his presence. But there are some who see it as a badge of honour to defend his past. “What about the owners of other clubs?” they say. “Are not all rich people at least a little dubious?” This is cognitive dissonance of a kind that even Leon Festinger, the sociologist, would have found comical. It is whataboutery on turbocharge, and it is pitiful to behold. There is nothing anti-Chelsea about condemning Abramovich. Indeed, many of those who love the club are the most outraged that it should have been tainted by him. Even if it is difficult to figure out how to obtain redress for the Russian people from the swindle they suffered in the 1990s, it is surely obligatory to resist the way that Abramovich has been so seamlessly integrated into British cultural life. Certainly, the fawning coverage has got to stop.

Berezovsky died on March 23, 2013, alone in a locked bathroom with a ligature around his neck. Professor Bernd Brinkmann, an expert in asphyxiation, told the coroner that the marks on his neck could not have been brought about by hanging and suggested that he had been strangled and then hanged from the shower rail in the bathroom. The coroner delivered an open verdict.

Was the oligarch yet another victim of the so-called aluminium wars? There has never been any suggestion that Abramovich was in any way involved. But it does seem symbolic of the violence that raged in Russia after the Yeltsin era as rival gangs fought for control of the recently privatised industries. What we do know for sure is that billions in state assets were handed over for a fraction of their true value to a select group of men, including Abramovich, who became rich beyond imagination.

It is not just the Russian people, who have endured so much over the centuries — at the hands of self-appointed elites of all political colours — who have the right to feel a sense of outrage.

[Platypuss]

I don't really hate Chelsea, it's that arrogant, lying prick of a manage i detest with a passion. Doesn't matter how good a manager, he's still a toxic, objectionable pcunt that I wouldn't want anywhere near my club.

'greed. Classless, blame-shifting individual. Gr8 to see him so rattLOLed

Be fair; Kes can raise the occasional funny.

[No Fixed Abode]

... AND my manager gives rediculous interviews like today, blames everyone and says NOTHING of value, of substance or with any meaning

The trouble is the FA stop freedom of speech. If Jose gives his opinion on the officials he's fined. So it's better to say nothing otherwise that dictatorship will come down on him like a tonne of bricks again.

(Team performance aside) This was another game where Jose's views on poor officiating came to fruition again.

Clattenberg had a poor game. Failure to send Lucas off was a very poor decision. Considering he has already committed 4 fouls in the about the first 10mins of the game - he should have seen a yellow card earlier.

Emre Can should also have seen two yellow cards. He cynically brought down Willian in the 1st half and surprisingly escaped a booking. It should have been a yellow card no question. He later picked up a yellow card for a totting up process of others fouls.

Obi-Mikel only committed one foul through the game and even the commentators said it was a harsh booking for such a soft foul. So by that definition of Clattenberg's officiating, Can and Lucas should definitely have seen two yellows each.

Then there is the Costa incident. Several weeks ago we played Arsenal. Gabriel was sent off for a kick out at Costa by Mike Dean. The FA decided to rescind the red card. So by the FA's own rules there is now no way they can give Costa any form of retrospective punishment for a kick out at Skrtel.

[Ian Royal]

The FA rightfully charge anyone who doesn't show sufficient respect to the officials, particularly those who are blaming them for things they've got right. Occaisionally they'll get the call wrong.

There is no reason why a manager can't express a reasonably held opinion that they've considered and tried to check. Unfortunately too many of them rant and rave totally one eyed like spoilt toddlers. And Jose is the absolute worst by a country mile.


He used to be using it as a tactic to build a string squad togetherness under siege mentality and influence future decisions. Sadly he's created his own reality where he believes his own bullshit and can't escape it.