Chelsea's Managerial Merry-Go-Round Is Getting Beyond a Joke
Claudio Villa/Getty Images
A few years ago, "get-rich-quick" schemes were popular across the globe, with many people signing up for a big slice of the money pie.
Unfortunately, the signee normally ended up anything but substantially rich.
In hindsight, the quickest way of making money was not to sign up to these schemes, but instead become a fully qualified UEFA coach and negotiate a five-year contract to manage Chelsea FC.
The amount of money you could bank when trigger-happy Roman Abramovich inevitably fires you just six months into your contract, would be enough to buy a financially stricken EU member state.
Abramovich acquired Chelsea in 2003 with his bottomless pit of Russian Rubles and has proved to be ruthless over the last nine years.
Claudio Ranieri was the first to go, Di Matteo certainly will not be the last.
Woe betide anybody who dares to irritate him. It is HIS club; the manager is merely an expendable pawn in a game of football chess. Chelsea have now had eight managers under Abramovich’s reign—something the League Manager’s Association called “a serious embarrassment to the owner, the club, the fans and the league.” Even the most ardent Chelsea supporters would surely share the LMA's concerns.
It was all smiles back in May, as Di Matteo guided Chelsea to historic FA Cup and, more importantly, Champions League victories.
But his smile turned into a deep frown as he failed to keep Chelsea’s early season momentum going. Two wins from eight games, including last night’s humbling defeat against Juventus in the Champions League, was only going to lead to one outcome.
Abramovich's had one plan to prevent Chelsea’s season going into free-fall; the manager had to go.
Did Di Matteo deserve more time to steady the ship—of course he did.
Are people surprised he got fired this morning? Dan Talintyre's analysis shows a resounding "no."
This whole situation is just history repeating itself, and it has led to Chelsea’s managerial role becoming almost untenable. Abramovich was apparently furious with “an unacceptable run of results,” but he seems to have completely ignored Chelsea’s improvement with Di Matteo at the helm.
Under Andre Villas-Boas, the club appeared beset by infighting and a distressing loss of moral. Di Matteo solved these issues, triumphed in the Champions League, spent wisely on young attacking talent in the transfer window and appeared to be guiding Chelsea through a much-needed transitional period.
However, one small setup back meant Di Matteo became part of the UK’s growing unemployment sector.
Who on earth would take the Chelsea manager's job when Abramovich rules with an iron fist, making rash decisions at the drop of the hat and causing unrest in the dressing room?
He is more changeable than England’s infamous, unpredictable weather.
But, considering managerial heavyweights Jose Mourinho and Carlo Ancelotti could not appease the volatile Russian—both being dismissed despite succeeding in the Premier League—why would anyone want the job?
Chelsea’s managerial merry-go-round is threatening to destabilize the club, and there is only one man to blame: Roman Abramovich.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?