Scolari sacked.....

[Cyberman]

Good to see that money can't always buy success... I hope Man City go the same way.

There's a slight irony in that comment because I would argue that Scolari has failed because Abramovich has stopped putting as much money into the club as he used to, thus Scolari only signed one guy, Queresmo in the transfer window, and he was on loan.

[Doggy Styles]

Good to see that money can't always buy success... I hope Man City go the same way.

Money bought Chelsea two league championships, the FA Cup and two league cups in three years under Mourinho.

Chelsea's BIG mistake was their hubris after that, when they squeezed out Mourinho because his successful football wasn't exciting enough. Evolution takes time. It took Ferguson 7 years to win the championship at United, despite them being the richest club at the time.

Chelsea are behaving like cheap day-traders.

[darmstadt]

I don't know why they appointed him in the first place, Grant was doing a reasonable job and actually provided better results than Scolari did. I think it was because Grant wasn't a big name with a big reputation (you have to admit, he didn't look that cool sitting on the bench and Chelsea has always been about being cool, sod the results) whereas Scolari had a bit of a name to him. Chelsea, waste of space and time, always have been, always will be

[FiveTimes]

Hiddink begins talks with Chelsea

link

[swamp]

Chelsea are just a Tottenham with money.

Abramovich has sacked four managers to date. Each manager has their own idea how to run a club so they'll want to change players, coaches and back room staff again. After an initial boost, any new manager will run into the same problems over control and the demand for instant results.

[Cyberman]

Money bought Chelsea two league championships, the FA Cup and two league cups in three years under Mourinho.

Chelsea's BIG mistake was their hubris after that, when they squeezed out Mourinho because his successful football wasn't exciting enough. Evolution takes time. It took Ferguson 7 years to win the championship at United, despite them being the richest club at the time.

Chelsea are behaving like cheap day-traders.

All the money in the world would not have achieved that success without Mourinho.

[Doggy Styles]

All the money in the world would not have achieved that success without Mourinho.

Or Blackburn's success without Dalglish.

That just demonstrates that, given a good club manager, money most definitely DOES buy success. Don't forget that:

* For all Ferguson's talents, Man Utd's successful team is as expensively assembled as Chelsea's.

* For all Wenger's talents, his team stopped winning things when the money dried up.

[swamp]

[QUOTE=Doggy Styles;768102* For all Wenger's talents, his team stopped winning things when the money dried up.[/QUOTE]

Hmm. As an Arsenal fan I want to argue with this but... Arsenal have assembled their winning teams for a fraction of the cost of other sides. Wenger has never had big money; he just didn't have quite enough money last season to win the title.

[Pickle2]

* For all Ferguson's talents, Man Utd's successful team is as expensively assembled as Chelsea's.

How about his succesful Aberdeen team. Europeans cup winners cup and super cup, 3 scottish titles. Cant really argue with that.

[Rookie]

Hmm. As an Arsenal fan I want to argue with this but... Arsenal have assembled their winning teams for a fraction of the cost of other sides. Wenger has never had big money; he just didn't have quite enough money last season to win the title.

I'm not an Arsenal fun but I really rate Wenger as a manager. If he had been given the funds that Man Utd and Chelsea had to play with it would have been very interesting.