Thursday, February 19, 2009

ABRAMOVICH, SCOLARI, HIDDINK, CHELSEA FUTURE, inChelsea magazine Feb 09

SOMETHING'S ROTTEN IN THE STATE OF SW6.
That is for certain after the events of the last couple of weeks.
How can a club that has aspirations to be one of the biggest in the world have a caretaker manager at the most crucial part of the season?
However talented Guus Hiddink is, the situation is farcical, a slight on the history of Chelsea FC and their loyal fans.
Put it this way...could you imagine Manchester United taking on Hiddink as a caretaker?
Of course not.
They would have told the big Dutchman: We are bigger than you, we are a huge football club...you do the job full-time if you want the job, otherwise you don't do it all.
We are doing you a favour, not the other way around as Hiddink has claimed.
And as far as I understand it, a favour means for free - not for £2.5MILLION for FOUR MONTHS' WORK!
Yet if the appointment of Hiddink as a caretaker undermines Chelsea's credibility, so does the disgraceful way they dispensed with Luiz Felipe Scolari's services.
Put simply: the man who won the highest honour in world football (the World Cup with the poorest Brazilian squad in memory) and more trophies than Hiddink could dream of was never given a chance to turn around a faltering, ageing, divided squad of players.
He never had the backing in terms of transfer money or authority to carry out his mission.
As I understand it, the Chelsea board failed him when he needed them most and it cost the club dear.
Big Phil wanted to reduce the age of the squad by bringing in the likes of Robinho, but that deal fell through.
He also wanted to weed some divisive, negative influences out of the dressing room, but again was thwarted.
And he lost his key coach - Steve Clarke - to West Ham, with the board bringing in Ray Wilkins as his replacement. Now don't get me wrong: Ray is a lovely man but, in my opinion, is not in the same league as Clarkey as a coach.
For proof look at Chelsea's results after Steve left - and West Ham's renaissance under him.
Big Phil had the carpet pulled from under him - how was he expected to turn Chelsea around when he had both hands tied behind his back? Don’t be surprised if Scolari comes back to haunt Abramovich at Manchester City – a move that would keep Robinho in Manchester and encourage other top Brazilians and Portuguese to join City instead of the Blues.
Now we get to the heart of the problem: Roman Abramovich.
The owner threw his toys out of the pram by getting rid of Big Phil: he wanted to show he was still the man in charge and the man to be reckoned with. He also wanted his man in: Hiddink, a pal.
He did not fancy the revolution Scolari outlined.
So Chelsea are left with the same problems and Hiddink at the helm.
In sacking Scolari, they have picked at the scab but not treated its underlying causes.
Yet while Roman is the problem, he is, of course, also the solution.
Without him Chelsea would not have prospered since 2003.
It is a tricky situation: if he were to walk would the club be back to the days of the last caretaker manager?
David Webb...who took over, let's not forget, after the disastrous Ian Porterfield era.
These are crucial times for Chelsea FC: the club could go one way or the other.
If it is to avoid meltdown, Roman needs to give Hiddink everything Big Phil was denied.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Guus will stay for the long-haul if he can get assurances that he will be the man in control.
That means he needs a transfer budget so he can revitalise the team - and he needs to be left alone to sort out the bad eggs, to sift them out and replace them.
Roman must let the man he entrusts as his football manager to do just that: to manage, if he wants to make up lost ground both on and off the pitch to Manchester United.
He would not have been my choice to replace Big Phil. Again, think of Man Utd. Who would you bet on being their next boss? Whoever it is should have been the man Chelsea should have approached now. My view is that the next United chief will be Jose Mourinho or Martin O’Neill – and given that Jose’s return to the Bridge was hardly feasible in February 2009, I would have gone all out to bring in O’Neill.
Peter Kenyon often bleats on about the Chelsea business model and how he plans to conquer the world with it.
But the frightening thing is that Chelsea's model of late is more Newcastle United than Manchester United!
They too have a caretaker in Joe Kinnear and owner Mike Ashley has made several poor management decisions.
Now Hiddink is here, let him at least have a proper chance at success, unlike Big Phil.
And put in motion plans for the future - a future that, unless Mourinho were to return or O’Neill brought in, would surely see the dream team of Zola and Clarkey return to the Bridge in triumph in say three to five years.
The club needs stability and diligent forward planning, not constant change and upheaval and only one man can decide whether that will happen.
It’s your call, Roman...