If it is to be Benitez, then this club is turning into something I no longer recognize. We're borrowing too many elements of Liverpool's recent successes and shortcomings (Meireles (who was actually pretty good), Torres, Rafa). This is not intended as a knock on Liverpool, but simply an assertion that we have our own character, and should not try to emulate others. Torres is a mercenary as long as he's here, and Benitez would be one as well - it's difficult for players and managers to change allegiances, especially if allegiance is to be switched to one's rival. The presence of mercenaries is bad for club morale, is not good for long-term stability, and is not the way to maximize one's chances of success.
If Benitez were to come, it would also be a strong indicator that we intend to keep Torres at least until the summer, which is troubling, as he has spurts of form which deceive fans into believing that he will be a reliable player for us, until it becomes apparent that his good form is ephemeral.
Redknapp, Guardiola, and perhaps even Grant, on a caretaker basis (brought in Anelka, was literally inches away from winning the ECL), would be all be better options than Benitez, and I'm sure that there are plenty of other candidates out there. Any suggestions to add to this list?
Let's not accommodate Torres any more by bringing in Benitez, let's not continue to promote the mercenary vibe, and let's develop our own history.
Enthusiasm waning
posted on 21/11/12
Sam >
I didn´t say that I was going to stop being a Chelsea fan.
I said that today´s events make me feel like considering it.
If people see that as an overreaction then so be it but that´s how I´m feeling today.
I just see a huge injustice in sacking DiMatteo and that is why I´m angry today.
What sort of people do we have in the Chelsea board ?
Faceless and apparently blameless idiots from what I can gather.
posted on 21/11/12
Im not sure you have grapsed what a mercenary is.....
mer·ce·nar·y (mûrs-nr)
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
My point would be that Anelka has moved many times to gain a fee for his agent/brothers and himself and currently he plies his trade wherever he can gain the most money...but you are right he really wanted to play for you...
oh and you do realise the Anelka also played for us at one time dont you??
-----------------------------------------
I'm not sure that you grasp that terms have a meaning which is dependant on context. In a footballing context, a mercenary is someone with no loyalty to the club, but is only motivated by money. All footballers at the top level are motivated by money, so the only relevant part of that definition is that a mercenary footballer has no loyalty to the club. The above context-dependent definition is compatible with your dictionary definition as long as you don't overlook the word "solely" in the dictionary definition. If that is over your head, have somebody with a working grasp of English semantics and the nuances of language elaborate it for you in terms that you find comprehensible.
Yes, I know that Anelka played for Liverpool, but his roots there were not deep at all, and his Liverpool experience was separated from his Chelsea experience by years.
There's nothing wrong with trying to maximize your earnings - given the length of footballers' primes, it would be silly not to attempt to do so. But Anelka enjoyed being here, and his enthusiasm for the club showed in his actions on the field, so don't give me the argument that he was a mercenary, as he was not motivated solely by money. I wouldn't class Meireles as a mercenary for the same reasons.
posted on 21/11/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 21/11/12
Like I have mentioned in the past, I always expected RDM to get the sack and Pep to come in. However I am surprised that RDM got the sack this early on. Unless Pep comes out of his rest to take over today, the only thing that I can think of for the reason behind RDM's sacking is that he had a massive fight with Abrom.
Regarding the continous sackings, I don't get too hung up on that. Just the way it is, I look at the bigger picture, as long as we keep on progressing I'll be happy.
posted on 21/11/12
ps, he gets a reported 250k a week at min.... to play ina far flung league that is vconsedered very lowly on the world stage...
------------------------------------
So your argument is that because he's playing only for money now, he was playing only for money at Chelsea? Again, I have to put things in simple terms for you: imagine somebody has a job they like, but they make a medium salary; then, they move to a job they don't like, where they make a high salary. In the first job, the person was not a mercenary, but in the second they are. The fact that he's acting as a mercenary in the second job has no bearing on his status in the first. That person may move on to yet another job, in which they may or may not be acting in a capacity as the proverbial mercenary. Understand how that works? Please try to figure these things out on your own before proceeding to waste yet more of my energy.
posted on 21/11/12
Superb from what Buck has said recently Abramovich makes all the decisions pretty much unilaterally. The board are his enforcers. So really Abramovich makes these calls.
----------------------------------------------------------
Gazza I was referring to the Chelsea board more in terms of how they appear to be the ones in charge of transfer activity and how they made a mess of our transfer activity in the summer.
If the board has geunine ambitions of winning the title or the CL this season then Robbie was doomed to fail with this current squad which is totally unbalanced and embarassingly limited in key areas.
Who´s idea was it for us to go into this season with just one recognised striker in the entire squad ?
Who´s idea was it to not replace Drogba ?
Who´s idea was it to let go of both Meireles and Essien without replacing them ?
I´m pretty sure it wasn´t Robbie´s as we know how little say the manager has in transfer activity at Chelsea these days.
Robbie´s been sold down the river by the Chelsea board.
posted on 21/11/12
Being an English teacher I have a full grasp of both the meaning and the semantic nuances that are attached to this use of term.
My point would also be about the context and how you made the leap from your own perceived understanding of Anelka's motivations whilst at your club to discussing this as a fact...
You seem to have spoken directly to the man where he has assured you that he was motivated by a desire to see your club progress and not a personal desire of monetary gain.
I’m just am unsure of how you can make this assumption?
Also your patronising tone does not give you the moral high ground and has been proven over time as a writers 'crutch' used in times of weakness to assist their own confidence issues when discussing a certain subject.
posted on 21/11/12
So your argument is that because he's playing only for money now, he was playing only for money at Chelsea? Again, I have to put things in simple terms for you: imagine somebody has a job they like, but they make a medium salary; then, they move to a job they don't like, where they make a high salary. In the first job, the person was not a mercenary, but in the second they are. The fact that he's acting as a mercenary in the second job has no bearing on his status in the first. That person may move on to yet another job, in which they may or may not be acting in a capacity as the proverbial mercenary. Understand how that works? Please try to figure these things out on your own before proceeding to waste yet more of my energy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this in relation to Anelka's situation?? again my question would be how do you know that he felt this way when playing for your club? I can only assume you have spoke to him directly about this...??
I would welcome some details on the conversation??
posted on 21/11/12
"Robbie´s been sold down the river by the Chelsea board."
Man you have taken this sacking so badly. Yes it is extremely unfair that Roman didn't give RDM the chance to turn it around, but this sacking is not as terrible for RDM as you think.
1. He won a CL with us, which he might have not won anywhere has Roman not appointed him.
2. His place is our history was already cemented. He will never be forgotten.
3. He probably has enough money now to plan for his future. Earning more money is of course not RDM's purpose but financial security is great for anyone.
At the end of the day Roman is investing millions to rebuild our team and playing style and if he doesn't trust RDM to be the one who deliver this then he has the right to opt for other managers. Roman's only wrongdoing in this case is the timing and the manner of the sacking.
posted on 21/11/12
scouse-heart: If you are indeed an English teacher, the students have my sympathies, but putting that aside, obviously, I'm not privy to Anelka's feelings on any matter (aside from what comes out in carefully staged interviews), and I have to settle for making inferences based on what players show on the field. Of course, nobody can make these inferences with complete accuracy. However, when you assert that he was only at Chelsea for the money, you are making an inference as well. It basically comes down to my opinion vs. yours, and whose opinion has a more solid foundation in things that are tangible.
My patronizing tone is not a crutch, and I'm not sure why you assumed that I was speaking from a position of weakness. It was a direct response to your own patronizing tone (maybe you perceived weakness in your own arguments) when you presented the dictionary definition of a mercenary, in spite of the fact that you had overlooked a crucial aspect of that definition, illustrating that you were the one who did not comprehend the term, "mercenary." The only incontestable point you made is that I have no direct access to Anelka; it took ages for you to reach that point.
As I said, based on actions on the field, and based on interview statements (often not reliable), I do not believe Anelka was a mercenary. He conceded his favored position to Drogba, but still attempted to contribute to the team. He was not the player he was in earlier years, but seemed to put in an effort. This is in contrast to Torres, who generally looks like he'd rather be somewhere else.
Now tell me honestly - are you merely pursuing this argument because you perceive that your club and certain personalities associated with it are being berated on this thread?