EPL Chelsea and managers

Foley

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
5,185
So Chelsea's accounts show that getting rid of Conte and his backroom staff (12 months left on his contract) cost £26m.
Since Abramovich has taken over the club has spent £90 m in paying off managers.
The world is going totally mad.
Meanwhile the PL clubs show less interest in the domestic Cups, Bury go bankrupt, Oxford play in a Stadium they cant afford to buy ...
 

Essexyellows

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
5,933
So Chelsea's accounts show that getting rid of Conte and his backroom staff (12 months left on his contract) cost £26m.
Since Abramovich has taken over the club has spent £90 m in paying off managers.
The world is going totally mad.
Meanwhile the PL clubs show less interest in the domestic Cups, Bury go bankrupt, Oxford play in a Stadium they cant afford to buy ...

Consumerism in a nutshell.
Managers don`t get "sacked" as the media keeps reporting, they get their contract paid off.
Fair play to their legal/contract writing teams though.
 

horseman

Well-known member
Joined
12 Dec 2017
Messages
1,768
whoever writes/offers the contract at their club should be paid off pretty damn quick..Chelsea have an awful history of firing managers before contract end so the biggest mystery is why they offer longer contracts knowing they will boot them out the door/pay them off well before the end date and after bringing success--Total Madness
 

ZeroTheHero

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
5,009
whoever writes/offers the contract at their club should be paid off pretty damn quick..Chelsea have an awful history of firing managers before contract end so the biggest mystery is why they offer longer contracts knowing they will boot them out the door/pay them off well before the end date and after bringing success--Total Madness
It is madness, but I suspect the very fact that Chelsea sack managers at the drop of a hat means that the people they approach to manage them insist on contracts that give them some sort of security - nominally in terms of a long contract but actually in terms of a payout when they get the inevitable boot. I wonder if Lampard's contract is less extravagant, given his lack of experience and past association with the club?
 

horseman

Well-known member
Joined
12 Dec 2017
Messages
1,768
It is madness, but I suspect the very fact that Chelsea sack managers at the drop of a hat means that the people they approach to manage them insist on contracts that give them some sort of security - nominally in terms of a long contract but actually in terms of a payout when they get the inevitable boot. I wonder if Lampard's contract is less extravagant, given his lack of experience and past association with the club?

indeed but you would think by now given all the evidence and wasted money they would go more for the upcoming manager (similar Lampard) as one suspects that those types would jump at such an opportunity and cost far less when the inevitable firing comes..Or perhaps they could do something extreme like actually allow those that brought success to continue and implement a long term strategy that they would keep to.
They've had some pretty decent managers over the years and have gone from title challengers to happy/having to settle for a scrap for 4th spot
 

tonyw

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
1,656
So Chelsea's accounts show that getting rid of Conte and his backroom staff (12 months left on his contract) cost £26m.

Crazy to say it - but even with the payoff, Conte won them a Premier League title so in the absurd world of PL football finance - this was probably a decent investment.

This list of players that Chelsea have spent more than 30m on includes the likes of Michy Batshuayi, Danny Drinkwater, Tiémoué Bakayoko & Álvaro Morata - none of whom did anything for them.

The big PL clubs throw away £26m+ on a depressingly regular basis.
 

Similar threads


Top Bottom