Chelsea: Timeline invalidates Diego Costa’s role in Antonio Conte firing
By George Perry
Stenographers across the London media are creating a digital record for any lawsuits Chelsea may face or bring over Antonio Conte. The idea that the Diego Costa text is at the root of Conte’s firing is so absurd it could only be reported unquestioningly.
January 14, 2017. Ten days earlier, Tottenham ended Chelsea’s 13-game win streak. The Blues were in their eighth matchweek atop the Premier League. The Telegraph broke the news of the training ground row between Diego Costa, a fitness coach and Antonio Conte. Among other tensions, they noted Tianjian Quanjian’s £80 million interest in Costa.
June 7, 2017. Diego Costa shares with the world the text message Antonio Conte sent him. “Antonio Conte has told me by message that I do not follow at Chelsea and that’s it. Conte said he did not count on me for next season… I’ve already forwarded the message to Chelsea people to decide.”
July 18, 2017. Antonio Conte signs new terms to his contract. While he and the club did not agree to an extension, they increased his wages to over £9 million a year for the remaining term of the contract, through 2019.
July 13, 2018. We are asked to believe that Antonio Conte’s relationship with Diego Costa is a legally critical rationale for Chelsea breaking their contract with Conte.
The terms of Antonio Conte’s contract extension supersede not only the terms of the previous contract, but the intervening events. Chelsea agreed to pay Conte more money with the full knowledge of the training ground row and the text message with Diego Costa. To whatever extent that upset them at time, whether as a matter of finances or public relations, they settled the matter with the contract of 18 July 2017.
The club cannot claim a breach of Conte’s original contract, because that was superseded by the second. Nor can they claim a breach of contract on the second, because that was signed after the events under dispute.
Yet these events are a key component of the rationale the London media is putting forth for Antonio Conte’s sacking. The events surrounding Diego Costa are the most publicly-known and verifiable of the repeated Injuries and Usurpations charged against Conte. But they are also among the most incongruous with the story being presented.
So why this, why now and more importantly, how? How is this not passing the simplest of fact checks and prima facie plausibility tests in newsrooms?
Antonio Conte was never popular with the Chelsea media. He never dropped tantalizing hints about transfers or his thoughts on current players. He would not weigh in on the rumours du jour. Conte was the world’s worst source of click-bait headlines.
Worse, though, was his disdain for the media game. His biggest struggle in the media room was not his comfort or command with the English language. His biggest struggle was to care. He had no patience for the repetitive, entrapping questions. On a good day he could lighten the mood with a quip and a laugh. On other days he was visibly bored. He was underserved by his questioners, just as they felt he underserved them. A man who thought of little besides the highest reaches of football, and did so at the level of a genius, was sneered at for his inability to banter.
Little surprise, then, to see the alignment of interests between Chelsea FC and the media after the club sacked Antonio Conte. They can help each other bury the unsavory handling of a contentious relationship. At the same time, it reasserts the club’s leverage over the media.
These stories are a bidding war for the next round of access. Whoever can best justify the club’s actions and cast Antonio Conte in a negative light without drifting into Red Top territory will have a favour coming to them. After what we read this morning, we are quite interested in seeing who has the first exclusive interview with Maurizio Sarri.
The interaction between the club, the coach and the media is another absolutely toxic relationship at Chelsea (click that button below for a few more). Antonio Conte has more of a valid claim to complaining about “fake news” than most. If the club want to sack a coach that is their business. And if they want to justify it to themselves, the world and competing teams of lawyers, that, too, is their business. But no one should be a party to their dirty work unless their checks are coming from Stamford Bridge.
Next: Chelsea are out of do-overs: They must handle Maurizio Sarri perfectly
Sadly, it takes an overtly partisan just-a-blog to point this out.