Specialists should undoubtedly influence long-term decisions, such as recruitment. However, it feels like the hierarchy is trying to rid the manager of any involvement or say, which will likely create a disconnect or a lack of understanding between the two forces.
Managers | Days In charge | Win % |
|---|---|---|
Thomas Tuchel | 589 | 60% |
Graham Potter | 206 | 39% |
Mauricio Pochettino | 325 | 51% |
Secondly, it does not seem to encourage a collaborative environment that Clearlake was supposedly trying to instill two years ago. Of course, the primary vision should not be altered by a coach. However, it feels like the executives aim to micro-manage decisions, including training and tactics.
Thirdly, it blurs lines of performance indicators that evaluate managers. Without having total control of their coaching decisions, how much influence will the manager have on their team's outcome? If the hierarchy pitches in with how they believe the team should play or train and it contrasts with the manager's ideas, then at the end of the season, will he be judged on results or how well he fell in line with their constant demands and inputs?
All these points only touch the tip of the iceberg regarding the issues caused by the heavy shift in power dynamic the Chelsea owners are currently promoting. Whether it pays off or not can only be fairly concluded in a few years, but as of this moment, the Chelsea project looks disoriented.