Jose Mourinho's sudden departure from Chelsea last week "by mutual consent" seemed rather shocking when the news first broke, but of course it wasn't really a surprise at all (apart from the timing).
Last season there was a lot of speculation that he would be on his way, after apparently falling out with Roman Abramovich (the owner of the club), but then they apparently kissed and made up and all was well again. Or not, as it turned out.
Abramovich was clearly not satisfied with Chelsea's record under Mourinho. Yes, that would be an average of 2.33 points per game, two Premier League titles in three years, and an unbeaten home record in the Premier League over the same period. Not good enough - Abramovich wanted to win the Champions League, and he wanted entertaining football. Oh, and he wanted to interfere:
...despite Mourinho's success in claiming a second successive Premiership, the manager had lost control of transfers. In the 2006 summer window, Mourinho asked the board to buy Samuel Eto'o; they spent a UK record £30m on Shevchenko. Chelsea sold William Gallas to Arsenal against Mourinho's wishes, and forced the £7m Khalid Boulahrouz upon him, while Arnesen compounded the error of allowing Chelsea's most effective defender to leave the club by pulling the plug on the £5m purchase of Micah Richards. Inside a season Richards was a full England international, while Boulahrouz was stinking out the reserves until Chelsea paid Sevilla to take him off their hands.
That's from an article in The Observer ('Tears, hugs and two icy handshakes') that attempts to explain what happened. Of course, there are usually two sides to each story, and Mourinho has clearly been fairly stubborn himself, but he has also been very successful so he's probably earned that privilege.
I am always intrigued when a manager is described as leaving "by mutual consent". What is it supposed to mean? In the wider context it's probably true that Mourinho and Abramovich couldn't work together, but with regard to what happened this week it seems to be (as so often) a euphemism for 'being sacked'.
On Wednesday afternoon the board asked Mourinho to resign, citing his handling of Shevchenko, his attitude to authority and, crucially, his relationship with Terry as reasons why he should go. Mourinho refused to walk, and fought only to maximise his pay-off as Chelsea apparently threatened to call club employees to testify against him at any employment tribunal.
A £10.5m pay-off was agreed and the following morning Mourinho made a final trip to the training centre at Cobham to pick up his possessions and say goodbye to his squad. There was a message in each farewell. For most there was a Latin embrace and warm words of thanks. For Didier Drogba and Frank Lampard the emotions were so strong that both men were reduced to tears, Lampard retreating to the shower room in an attempt to hide his. For Shevchenko and Terry there was nothing but a handshake that, in the words of one observer, could have 'frozen a mug of tea'. No one was in any doubt about who he considered the true captains of his team.
And now Chelsea have Avram Grant as their manager. Weird...
Arsenal's long-standing chairman, Peter Hill-Wood, got it absolutely right when he called bulls*it on Chelsea, especially the execrable Peter Kenyon, for claiming they could be the biggest team in the game. With a commendable sense of reality and insight (lend some to your manager, please, Peter), H-W said that Manchester United and Liverpool were the biggest teams in England, and the only ones with a real global presence, noting that it takes 100 years, and not a billion roubles, to build a club's tradition.
Posted by: Ulaca | September 26, 2007 at 12:42 AM