Football Daily - Monday Night Club: Amorim sacked — tactics or politics? More Celtic chaos and Chelsea’s latest gamble

Episode Date: January 5, 2026

Were tactics, results or politics to blame for Ruben Amorim’s sacking?And are there similarities between Manchester United’s situation and that at Celtic, where Wilfried Nancy has been dismissed just 33 days into his tenure. His replacement? Martin O’Neill, the interim who he succeeded!Former-United defender Phil Jones joins Izzy Christiansen, Rory Smith and Chris Sutton with Mark Chapman to discuss where it went wrong for Amorim at Old Trafford.They explore the role of the sporting director in Britain compared to in European football, and why the relationship between the ‘head coach’ has been at fault for several recent departures.Simon Stone, BBC Chief Football News Reporter, gives an insight into the behind-the-scenes rows that led to Amorim’s dismissal, while Jones explains what it’s like to try and learn a three-man defensive system.Later in the show, BBC Scotland’s Tom English explains how Nancy’s arrival and departure demonstrates a larger complacency at Celtic.And the panel consider how Strasbourg boss Liam Rosenior, a friend of the show, could fare at Chelsea and why this managerial move might represent something more significant in world football.Timecodes: 00:15 Why was Amorim sacked — tactics, results or politics? 17:45 Can any coach have just one plan or system? And did United's pursuit of Semenyo show Amorim was willing to change? 20:45 What's next for United — an interim manager? How can they do it again? 26:06 How much criticism do INEOS have to take for their decisions since the partial takeover? 31:07 Why do sporting directors work less well in England than abroad?  36:50 Celtic sack Wilfried Nancy after just 33 days — what went wrong? 43:35 Who was to blame at board level for Celtic? With BBC Sport Scotland's Chief Sports Writer Tom English 46:20 Is there any kind of big-picture view at Celtic? 49:12 Who are favourites for the Scottish Premiership title now? 51:00 Friend of the MNC Liam Rosenior set to become Chelsea manager — what did we learn when he was on? 54:10 What sort of club are Chelsea showing themselves to be with this process? 55:50 Rory Smith on the 'disgrace' of Chelsea and Strasbourg's relationship

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. The Dakar Rally is the ultimate off-road challenge, perfect for the ultimate defender. The high-performance defender, Octa, 626 horsepower twin turbo V8 engine and intelligent 6D dynamics air suspension. Learn more at landrover.ca. Welcome to the Monday night club. Roy Smith, Izzy Christensen and Chris Sutton are all here. Celtic later, Manchester United First. Ruben Amram sacked after 14 months in charge this morning.

He's got the lowest win percentage by some distance of any permanent Manchester United manager. The statement from the club said, Ruman Amram has departed his role as head coach. The club leadership has reluctantly made the decision that is the right time to make a change. This will give the team the best. opportunity of the highest possible Premier League finish. However, I'm going to go to you, Chris, first of all, on what I read on the athletic earlier from Nick Miller, which isn't quite the club statement. This is his thought. The lesson here is that you can go for over a year, barely

winning any games, finish 16th, alienate beloved homegrown players, stubbornly stick with an unsuitable formation, then change it for some nebulous reason, and you're fine. But if you mildly questioned Jason Wilcox's authority dot, dot, dot, dot. Fair? I mean, that's, yeah, I think maybe so. I do have sympathy for Ruben Amrin. I do because of, you know, listening to Stoney earlier, when he was appointed, the timing of it, what he went into,

and they knew the type of coach he was and the type of formation, which he was going to play. And the argument is, did they ever give him that personnel to get the best out of his way of playing. And I think he just became packed off with the fact that he couldn't do it entirely his way. And maybe the results were part of that as well, the fact they weren't doing

as well as he would have liked. Let's hear what Amarim said yesterday in what proved to be his final press conference when he basically did what is now known as a Moreska after the draw at Leeds. To stop with that

and I noticed that you receive selective information about everything. I came here to be the manager of Manchester United, not to be the coach of Manchester United. And that is clear. I know that my name is not Tushel, is not Conte, it's not Morino,

but I'm the manager of Manchester United. And it's going to be like this for 18 months or when the board decided to change. So that was my point. I want to finish with that. I'm not going to quit. I will do my job. until other guy is coming here to replace me.

I just want to say that I'm going to be the manager of this team, not just the coach. And I was really clear on that. And that is going to finish in 18 months. And then everyone is going to move on. That was the deal. That is my job not to be a coach. If people cannot handle the Gary Nevels

and the criticism of everything, we need to change the club. change the club. I came here to be the manager of Manchester United, not to be the coach. And every department, the scouting department, the sport director needs to do their job. I will do mine for 18 months and then we move on. Let's bring in BBC Sports Chief Football News reporter Simon Stone. Did the performances worry the United hierarchy? Is that where this has all started with the Wool's performance?

If we would just wind back, Amarim made a point about selective information. He then referenced the head of recruitment and the director of football. The head of recruitment, Christopher Vivell, after a game against Fulham, right at the start of the season, which finished one-one, but Manchester United were lucky to get away with a draw. Markov Silver came into the press conference and I was there, and he detailed what he had done to turn that game around

and explained how you play against three at the back, wing backs, the holes in midfield, and he went through it. My understanding is that day Christopher Vavelle was sent these quotes and then forwarded them on to the leadership group. As I understand it, he didn't offer any opinion, but he just forwarded them on. So that means that within football,

there was an understanding, basically, of how you counteract the system that Amarim was wedded to. We go through the season, Amarim says, I'm not changing, I'm not changing. Even the Pope couldn't persuade me to change. then we get to Newcastle on Boxing Day and he changes and he goes to four at the back he's without eight players

four at the back midfield door go on the right and they win it wasn't brilliant it was a scrappy performance 30% possession but they win then four days later he plays against wolves bottom of the league two points all season and goes to a five at the back and I think that night the people running the football

Club Thor, we think that this system is not brilliant. We understand that Amarim is going to change this system but he's not going to change his system. He's going to stick with it and he's stuck with it again against Leeds and I think his comment after the game

basically made his position untenable but I think we're going a long way back to find the roots of the irritation. Has his bring Rory in and Phil Jones is with us as well as well as Izzy and Chris Has his off-field behaviour affected those higher up? Because he has been increasingly agitated

and has cut at times an incredibly forlorn, tempestuous, stroppy into what? Word of the day. Yeah, thank you very much, Phil. Thanks. I don't come up with them very often. But, you know, I've been reading my thesaurus today. But he has, hasn't it? He's cut that kind of, he has cut that, individual at times? Yeah, he's usually really bouncy and his press conferences are usually

quite lively. I wrote a piece about him on his year anniversary saying the thing that marks him out is he's always got a smile. Occasionally he doesn't have a smile. And he also, he started kind of dropping little hints, we call them. He didn't, doesn't say something overtly, but he leads you down a path that leads to a conclusion. And that's what he did after the Newcastle game when he started talking about recruitment shouldn't just be about the manager and doing what the manager wants, but the manager can't be ignored because the manager knows what he wants. So that led us into a conversation on Friday

when he was asked about whether the parameters had changed around the job. And he said, I don't want to talk about it. He said it three times to Jamie Jackson of The Guardian. I don't want to talk about it. And then at the end of the answer, as we're moving on, he said, but you're a smite guy. In other words, you can work out for yourself

what has happened. That has been a change. And then we go to Leeds, and he's asked to clarify again, and that is what led to this outburst. And I can only assume that Manchester night, they're looking at that, thinking we've got a very difficult position here.

There's a press conference tomorrow, Tuesday, to look ahead to this game against Burnley. We don't want to be in a position where we're having to deal with the fallout of another Ruben Amar in press conference when we don't know what he's going to say. From a playing position, Phil and Izzy, and you go first, Phil here, if you had been in that squad at times, would you have thought, for crying out loud, will you shut up?

For example, you know, they're the worst Manchester United. His words, the worst Manchester United team in history. Yeah, look, I want to echo what Chris said. It's never ever nice for a man. to lose his job. But listen, it was, we talked about the games previously, and we know that he was employed, we know he had a big success rate at a sport in Lisbon.

He was brought in. He was the new guy on the block. He was the new young manager who was confident, who was going to transition into Man United and take the club forward. It's been very, very difficult at times to watch. I think the Wolves game for me was sort of the final nail in the coffin, if you like.

I think one of the pitchers, I mean, I watched the game back the other day. I think one of the pitchers, one of the stills that I was picking out was after nine minutes, ten minutes in the game wolves are kicking away at the Stretford end, Man United are in like a 5-4-1 position and I think at Old Trafford you expect

speed, it's fast, it's furious it's intense, it's aggressive it's you know we should be sustaining attacks in the wolves in the wolf's half cycling the ball, they can't get out you know, crosses shots but there just wasn't any of that and for me that was the final nail in the coffin and then obviously against

leads at the weekend I thought we was okay. I agree. I don't think it was great, but I thought it was okay. But obviously there's been a breakdown in communication. I think that's very, very evident. And the comments, I don't think you can come back from them. I think the standout moment for me yesterday at Leeds was, and I know you can probably go back and pick on so many different moments, you know, where Manchester United had been so inconsistent. There's been spells where they've been, you know, exciting to watch. And then there's been spells where they've been so poor to watch. And I think a moment I saw yesterday in the Leeds game in the first half, Lenny Yorro,

under not intense pressure from a Leeds player, but he was near the edge of the pitch, and he didn't know what to do with the balls, so he passed it out of play. And it was in front of the dugouts, and Amarin clapped him and gave him sort of positive body length, and I get it, you have to be positive, you have to be shown to support the players,

but I was thinking to myself, he's clapping a player who's passed the ball out of play, who wasn't under severe pressure, and this is a Premier League football that we're talking about because you're asking Lenny Yoro to play in this system that you believe in so much. And I was thinking to tell him, seems a little bit counterintuitive because and for me that was a moment where I was like

that's not right. That is not right because if you're a Premier League centreback and you've not got severe pressure on you on the ball, you should know how to find a teammate with the ball and you pass the ball out of play. I'd like it to be more player-led in terms of you know, you're setting up before a game like boys, how do you feel? What do you feel like jumping on that moment? Do you feel comfortable jumping there or should we stay? And the players get involved. We had it under Van Gogal. I know people say what they want about Van Gogal but going into the game I felt I knew exactly there was ultimate

ultimate clarity on my position what I needed to do in that formation did I like playing three at the bat? No because there was massive spaces to cover and I wasn't comfortable covering those spaces but there was ultimate clarity I think it should be more player led and did he ask you in those situations? Yeah we so

we'd have little breakout games so we'd have like a period of I don't know you'll do it in training now you'll have a period of it'll be 11 11 and it'd be a period of 8 minutes and you'll be working on different things in those eight minutes and on time into when you jump or do we squeeze the back line or different attacking transitions and we'd get together after eight minutes and it'd be like right how did we feel of that one players chipping in right well no i couldn't get around quick

enough so maybe we need to tweak things a little bit and it would be player led and going into the game everyone had absolute ultimate clarity on what we were doing and i think that's probably poses the question about modern coaching as well well do you know what doesn't that open up everything with Amarim, but also with noncy, with what's happened with Moreska, but also a whole bundle load of other head coaches, managers. It opens the subjects of wider than one specific or two specific individuals. Well, I don't think Amarim, I mean, Phil just alluded to it then. Manchester United appointed a manager who was young, energetic, vibrant, you know, smiley,

like you mentioned, Simon, you know, all of these positive kind of body language actions. I hope you're listening to this, Chris. But I think that they thought with that they're going to have a manager who really resonates and connects with the players on a really close basis but I believe massively and I don't know why I'm saying this

but I'm old school and I think managers and players there should be a distinct gap between them in terms of personable relationships and I think you know you think about a motorway and you have those two chevrons I think that's management and that's players and I think Amram to me from the outside

always appeared one of the players a little bit you know a little bit personal ball. The players liked him a lot which is always a good thing, but I'm always like, do you need to like your manager or do you need to trust and believe in them and believe in the processes that they're asking you to do? I always liked to have a relationship with the manager

because I remember Marino, knocking on I think it was, we'd play two games in quick concession after Christmas Day and then on Boxing Day or whatever it was. And remember he came, he knocked on my door, and this was at the Titanic Hotel, we were playing Liverpool away. And he knocked on my door, I opened the door, I opened the door, at 9 o'clock in the evening, thinking everyone was going to bed.

And he just sat on the edge of my bed. And I was like, this is really. awkward, like is he going to speak or and he just said, are you ready? Are you fit tomorrow? You're ready? You're not going to be scared or playing at Amfield. I was like, no boss, I'm good, I'm good. And that was it and he walked out. But as death as it sounds,

as weird as that sounds, like it was the sort of relationship that you knew what he was trying to get at, you knew what he was trying to do and it worked and I don't know whether the manager had that relationship with the players, I'm not so sure. But I think it's absolutely vital that managers these

days have relationships with the players and and can understand them on a personal level. I agree in that connection, but I just think the best managers find a safe distance. I wonder whether, and Simon, you're probably best to answer this because you've seen them in operation, whether he flitted between a few different kind of personalities of that with the players.

Maybe he would have wanted to be quite close to them at times, but then also quite disparaging about them as well. And that left huge confusion, which comes back to this point, you know. remember interviewing him when he joined and thinking, God, what a real charismatic individual he is. He seems to be exactly the person that United want. And yet, then you watch him in the technical area and all the, maybe that's what Manchester United does to you, but all the joy had gone out of him. I mean, I think it's intense and that can't be underestimated. He,

it was interesting last season when they were in Europe. He would start the session or the session would start and it's only rondo and warm-ups. But he would be like 40 yards away from the players just observing alone in his own thoughts and trying to kind of decide what he's going to do. But it's interesting, you mentioned

earlier on about his demeanour and clearly we're not seeing him in a dressing room. We're not hearing what he's got to say before games or half-time whenever he did go in at half-time, which wasn't often. But even press conferences, he would usually

come in. Hi guys, hi guys, you okay. Didn't really interact, but he would be this joviality. Friday, he'd had this kind of argument with Jason Wilcox, technical director, or not an argument, but a discussion. And a blow-up was how it was described to me in terms of his reaction of what is felt to be kind of constructive feedback. But, you know, one person's constructive feedback is someone else's criticism or interference, and he came in and his face was down and he didn't really engage like that. And suppose he's the same, he's under the same pressures as any other manager in that sense. If that meeting, evening Rory by the way, how are you? Hi yeah. If Rory, that meeting was about formation and have we looked better playing a different

way, that is also on the United hierarchy here. Because they knew. what they were getting from the moment they approached him, particularly if you go back, as you have mentioned before, that Liverpool didn't go with him because they decided that that formation would not work with their players. Yeah, Liverpool seemed to have taken him his word. And Simon alluded to it. There's a really fascinating line in Sam Wallace's,

I think Sam Wallace and James Duckers' account of what's happened over the last few days in the Telegraph, which kind of picks up on that, saying that at that meeting, what seems to have happened, I think it was meant to be about recruitment for the summer window, and there seems to have been a little, sorry, for the winter window, this one. And there seems to have been a little bit of a contra-tomp, a little bit of a to-do about kind of whether there'd be a lot of money to spend

if the right sort of opportunity arose in the next few weeks. And that is, Stoney will tell you, that's par for the course. Managers wants money to spend, and sometimes clubs don't want to give it to them. And that is a, you know, part of doing business. But what seems to have happened is that Wilcox has said to Amarim that we thought, you know, maybe by this stage you'd be starting to change your formation and maybe looking at, you know, shifting it around a little bit, getting, you know, working with the players we've got. And I get that. But at the same time, have you not been listening?

Have you not been paying attention? Like this man has, whatever you think of Amarim, and I'm sure, I mean, I've not done as many press conferences with him as Simon has, but I've always kind of got the impression he'd quite like Manchester United to sack him. But whatever you think of him, he's told you all of. the time. He's not changing his formation. And he did against Newcastle. And I have never, I've seen a lot of Manchester United Games in the last 17 years. I've seen them when they're good. I've seen them when they're bad. And I've never seen them dominated like Newcastle dominated them. That game, that entire second half was played in the Manchester United half. It was when seven minutes of injury time went up, Old Trafford groaned. Newcastle were

ninth at the time, I think. The mid-table team. Newcastle are good, don't know me wrong. But for Old Trafford to be like, oh no, we can't hold on to this lead against Newcastle is really damning. They weren't great with four at the back. But Amorim, I think it's weird he switched. But he's been telling you throughout he's not changing. So to be honest, I kind of take his side on that one. If Jason Wilcox has said to him, we thought you'd be changing, why? Why would you think that? I'll come on to recruitment in a moment in January, Simon.

From a coaching point of view, from both of you, Izzy and Phil, from doing your badges, can you understand any manager, not even just in the modern era, actually, just any manager, any coach, only having one plan and one system. When Amram first said he will die with that system, I thought he was already in trouble with that. Because I've played in that system before at Everton under a new manager. It gave me very sort of similar feelings as to how it happened when a new manager came in, completely flipped the system from a back four three three into a three four three. And it was so difficult to learn how to play it.

So difficult to understand it, the concepts, what he wanted. And it was almost like the manager started to not believe in it. And I see that with Manchester United. but because he'd said it so often how he was so stuck to that system, it was almost like he was digging a deeper hole for himself. But it worked for him, is he, at Sporting Lisbon, didn't it? But that's a totally different league, Chris. But it's, well, it's a totally different league.

But the fact is he still got that team superbly organised playing the 343. That was his way. I think he, you know, he has to be more adaptable. And I get all that, but I'm totally with Rory on this. Manchester United knew what they were getting. when he came in and his argument will be you haven't given me the personnel in this situation and I just

wonder and you know Simon will be probably best first to answer this where you know there came a point when Ineos just I think we'd all probably think this just got fed up the fact that he was so inflexible and that's when there seemed to be falling out of sorts but they employed him and they

gave him the job halfway through a season you know they were begging him to come in there was a now or never so he comes in and then all of a sudden, what, 14 months down the line, they're thinking, well, you know, surely he can do things a bit different, but that wasn't the agreement, was it? I think yes and no, because I, people that have spoken to at United today say that they did feel as though the conversations they'd had with Amarim were that he would evolve and it would become a different system. Now Ruben Amarim has not responded to that, so we don't know

whether that's right. I've been told that as part of the attempt, failed attempt, try and sign Antoine Semenio from Bournemouth, that Ruben Amarim said you're not going to play at left wing back, you are going to play at left wing. Well, Ruben Abarim's team, as it usually sets up, doesn't play with a left winger. So if you're going to make that promise or you're going to make that pitch to a player, you either don't believe there's any chance of that player coming,

so it's an empty promise. You don't imagine that that is what has happened. Or he's offering a vision of a future that is different to the existence of what is now. Just a quick one, then we'll let you go because you've probably got plenty of other things to do as well. What are they going to do? Look for an interim for six months

until the World Cup finishes and then all hell breaks loose with all the managers who are available. Well, yeah, my impression is that Darren Fletcher is going to be in charge for Burnley on Wednesday and the FA Cup tie against Brighton on Sunday and then there will be an interim, a kind of temporary manager in place

until the end of the season and then at the end of the season someone with Premier League experience is the kind of template that they're looking for to come in. So you're right. So they're going to go down the Ralph Ragnet model again. Well, it's Ralph Ragnick or Oliguna Solshar depending on how you want to view that situation.

But what I would say, and it's the same with any managerial situation is, the guy who's in the seat, it's his to lose. If Darren Fletcher wins against Burnley and wins against Brighton, well, are Manchester United going to risk making a change when they're playing Manchester City and an asshole? And if they do, and somebody stays in charge until the end of the season and does what Solshard does or did or wins the FA Cup or whatever, Well, is he in with a chance of getting the job?

And these are unanswered questions. The other point is, and I can think of one immediately, there are plenty of managers with Premier League experience who are at the World Cup, who may be available when the World Cup's over. But that is reducing the amount of time you've got to work with players in preseason. Simon, thank you. Simon Stein, BBC's Chief Football News reporter with us on the Monday Night Club. So it's exactly the same pattern, Rory. Yeah, this is what I've written about this today, actually.

It is striking that what happens is whenever the present gets a little bit too much for Manchester United, and I say this with due deference and respect, because Phil is present. But it's like, well, who remembers Sir Alex Ferguson? Who might give him a call? And Darren Fletcher, whenever I've seen him as a pundit, I don't they never encountered him particularly as a player. I don't think I interviewed him or anything like that, but he's done some stuff with you, chap, as I think. He seems really bright, really articulate, very astute. I suspect he's a brilliant coach

he seems like the sort of person you'd respect if we're talking about if Amarim struggled to win over the players or to convince the players then I don't think Darren Fletcher will have that problem especially because two of them in the squad at the moment are his sons Yeah do you know what I was really proud of myself

it does feel a little bit like they've run out of volunteers to be manager and they've just got one of the dads to do it do you know what I'm a PTA Do you know what I agree but what I would say is at this current and present time what you need is somebody and just for the next two games what I'm talking about

you need somebody who understands and I know I'm going all cliche here but the DNA of the club understands what it takes and the standards that you need to represent Man United as a football club he knows the players because he's been involved in that in the past couple of years he knows how it works he knows he's a good coach

he's a great coach he's still learning he's getting better and I think you know you need some sort of stability in the next year game and I think he can offer that and the other thing that would say sorry Right. The other thing that I would just throw in on that is when they gave him the role of technical director, when they didn't really look from the outside, like they gave him this role, but then didn't really give him a job description of what to do, he ended up actually working with a lot of the current first team players as a coach as well. And the players respect him as well.

Yeah. He is exactly the right appointment in terms of kind of who's around, who's available, who ticks all those criteria. But I think that where it reflects badly on United is that they've done. it again. They did it, you know, Ryan Gidd's took charge after Moise went. Carrot took charge after Marino. Solstir was himself. In fact, was Solstier after Marino. I didn't lose track. Solstier was after one of them. Carrots had a spell there. Van Nistleroy, obviously. Solstier then got it permanently. It's this constant kind of right. This hasn't worked out. Let's get someone who reminds us a bit of what it used to be like. They'll kind of steady the ship. Because they're the people who were in place to steady the ship. And then we'll build again.

I mean, Simon says, you know, he'll be, he'll get Burnley and Brighton. I think if he doesn't lose those embarrassingly. I don't see why you'd go and appoint Ralph Ragnick, for example, as an interim. I think if Darren Fletcher looks like the players want to play for him, then I suspect he will be in charge until the end of the season, to be honest. And that is the sensible thing to do. But you think about the potential contenders and the two names that have come out quickest are Glasner and Tuchel. Simon, quite right, Tuchel will be hoping that he's involved in the World Cup for quite a long time. Glasna plays three at the back. So are you thinking this through. All the money that's been spent in the summer, and Cunea and Buemo are good

signings, that money was spent because they wanted to make Amarim system work. So, do you need to do that again? Is that money that you're just writing that money off? Are you assuming that they can adapt? They probably can. Where's the recruitment strategy? Where's the kind of joined-up thinking? And it just seems to me that every time something goes wrong, United go all the way back and say, right, this reminds us of when it was good. We'll start from there and we'll try something else. And I still don't think there's any real evidence that this new regime has got any more of a clue than the last regime. And the strange thing there is that Amarim seems we've lost his job for all the points about coaching. He's not lost his job because the

player's mutinied as far as we know. He's lost his job because he lost a power battle with Jason Wilcox. Rory there, Chris, talks about the new owners since Radcliffe came in. Ineos and Radcliffe repeatedly spoken about best-in-class decision-making since they took minority ownership. Their major football in decisions since then, Ten Haag after FA Cup final win after being unable to find a successor gave him 200 million pounds to spend changed the backroom staff then sacked him in October

appointed a sporting director at great cost then sacked him very soon after appointed a manager with a fixed style of play that didn't suit the squad kept that manager after they finished 15th signed players mainly for the long term reportedly against the manager's wishes back the manager publicly repeatedly

then asked him to change his approach then sacked him yeah I mean that's not good listening is it if you're a man United fan. Who signs the players at Manchester United? Was Amram getting his picks? Because, I mean, I spoke to Stapman Dave today, who's an avid Manchester United fan, watches every game. He always, he always felt that there's an imbalance on that left-hand side, left wingback. He said, he said, Ahmad eventually became a fit in that right wing-back role. But on that left-hand

side, you know, that, that has become, that was a problem for Amrim. So can we understand his sort of perspective with this and his frustrations? I think, You look at like Patrick Dorgue on the left wing back and then Diogodal on the other side, two top players, but their first initial reaction when they lose possession

and defensive transition is to sink back into a five not to go the other way and counterpress. And that's the biggest thing that I've seen in the last few games, especially against Wolves. The first thing when they lost the ball

was to sink back into, which I get to be fair because we don't want to concede elite goals, but surely at Old Trafford, the first initial reaction should be to hunt the ball down. The best teams in the world

are at City, Liverpool, you watched them in the, well, Liverpool last couple of seasons under clot. When they lose the ball, I guarantee you nine times out of ten, within five or six seconds, bang, they've won the ball back. I think the other issue that Amram had that Fletcher will have if he's in charge for six months, whoever comes in next season will have, is that Manchester United have got 20 to 25 really, really good footballers, like high level, Patrick Dougu is an amazing footballer. But the teams who they're trying to catch have got footballers who are just a little bit better, and they'll keep having footballers who are just a little bit better.

bit better. And that is a really difficult position for United, like Spurs, say, to find themselves in because they will look through their squad and they will think we should be able to compete. But the fact is you're just that tiny little fraction off. And those teams ahead of you keep going. They keep getting better. They strengthen every year. Okay. But wasn't that the case five, wasn't that the case five years ago when, when Arsenal were a little bit behind? Or eight years, not eight years, I don't know, 10 years ago when Liverpool were behind. Yeah, and you look at both of those, those are perfect examples, but look at how long it took

Artetta to get Arsenal into a position where they were ready to challenge for the Premier League was probably three, two and a half, three years. So could you say that then about if, let's say an example, Arsenal, don't win the league this year and City Pit them at the last minute, could you say that about the Arsenal players that they're just not quite as good as the City players? You could, yeah, you could probably make that case, I'm not sure I would because I think at that at that point it comes down to such fine margins that it's the bounce of a ball, it's a, it's an offside toe.

Do you know what I mean? You could be separated by tiny, tiny bits of luck in the same way as whatever season it was where they just got done, Arsenal just got done by injury, and it costs them. I think with United, it's more structural. And I think that's the hardest thing in football is for those, those teams who do have those sorts of ambitions, to look at a team that is good enough to say finish fourth, even if it's an unconvincing fourth, and think, right, we actually need to, in a world in which we finish first, it may be that only two of these players are here.

Do you know what I mean? It is the differences are that. fine. With regards to Manchester United maybe they should just do what Arsenal do and just play for corners. No but they should definitely do what how have you managed to have a dig at Arsenal in this

in the... Let me count around that. They're doing well now they're lumping it. But the Arsenal is a very good example of a team that have fought over the last four or five years back to manager recruited while clearly very healthy dynamics in terms of relationships with manager and board. Recruitment's been excellent this year again to add layers

to what they want to do. They've almost got two Yocceros, has he been good? Has he been a good signing? He's getting slowly better. He's probably, do you know, Yoceros has probably done what they kind of needed him to do? Yeah, but all I'm saying is that Arsenal... Be in the team. But they are top of the league, Chris. Is he right, Arsenal's the blueprint?

And so is Manchester City. And United ultimately haven't had the nerve to do it. Because if you looked at the... I mean, Amoram, what's really mad is, obviously Amoram's win percentage is worse than everybody else is. But Ratliff has backed him publicly so sort of vociferously. Like, he's really gone in to bat for Ruben Amarim on a couple of occasions.

He did it with Dan Rowan. He did it on the Times Business podcast. It's this kind of, he's my guy, like I'm going to stick with him forever. And yet they seem to have sacked him somehow quite suddenly. But, I mean, Ten Hard had two and a half years. How long was Van Hal there? Two seasons, they sat him. Yeah, but they sacked him suddenly because of what he said.

So why does it seem in the Premier League, this sporting director head coach relationship just doesn't work. Yet, I don't have a great knowledge of the Bundesliga, but it seems to work better abroad. That is a really good question, Chris. There are examples in England where it does work. I mean, Brighton kind of have that model. Bournemouth have it, Brentford, all the usual clubs that we say that are the only positive examples of anything in English football. They all have one and they make it work. I think it's probably partly cultural in the sense that there's not a debate over the existence of the role in Germany. and elsewhere.

Like, no one is complaining that there are sporting directors. It's accepted, that's how you work it. You have someone who kind of speaks for the, or thinks about the club and someone who thinks about the team. They just recognise that that's the way it works. I think it works best when the pressure is relatively low. So if you look at the ones where it does work relatively well,

or works well, it's places like Lavercouzen, where Simon Rolfes is the sporting director and is a really smart, but basically quite unassuming. How long has he been there? A few years now. He was an ex-player. I think he took over from Rodot, I told Jonas Bolt, who was a bit more of a kind of high-profile one.

But Rolfers, the other thing, well, the one big difference is that they're all public facing. They will talk, whereas in England, for some reason, it is accepted that, and Amarim's not the only person to complain about this. Only the manager of has to say anything. Everyone else just gets away with it, whereas in Europe,

and I've been to James Horncastle about this before, in Italy, like, if a manager gets sacked, there is an expectation that the director sportivo will stand up and explain what's happened, rather than just being forced to kind of deal on briefings and things that are sort of semi-off the record and semi-on-the-record. Well, two things there.

First of all, do you know that's the Italian for sporting director? Did you just have to know on the two different words? A little bit of both. A little bit of both. The second thing in all of this, and Thomas Frank has touched on this at his press conference tonight when he was asked about the situation at Manchester United. He said it's very difficult to achieve sustainable success

if you change key personnel in clubs, like the head coach, like the sporting directors, the best clubs, they are aligned. Ownership, leadership, head coach, over time. And you keep the noise out and you look at the progress behind it. It goes up and down and hopefully over time more and more up and you achieve something big together. The three biggest latest examples of that are, of course,

City, Liverpool and Arsenal. And the point that sort of comes out of that and makes you think, and I'll come to you, Rory, on this, but this is with, and he's, Here's, you know, my weekly stroke, fortnightly NFL mention. The goal, often, for an NFL team, if they are resetting, is to get their general manager and their head coach at the same time. Year one, completely aligned, and then away you go.

And if you look at Manchester United, none of their leadership roles all happen at the same time at the moment. It is a constant state of flux. And that's not just sporting director or technical director or whatever you want to call it and head coach, that includes the CEO as well. And they had technical director and a sporting director and then they changed the role of the technical director

to be sporting director under a new CEO who I don't think of being CEO at a football club anymore following on from the previous CEO who had actually been more of a commercial person than a phone, and so on and so on and so forth. So how do you streamline your direction when people are changing their roles and coming in all the time? And I think that fully enough chap has actually probably answers Chris's question.

The reason it works in other countries is because the sporting directors are in place. Like at least the institution of sporting director is in place. And so that is the constant. And there's not this kind of thing of, well, should we appoint the manager before we get the sporting director and then consult the manager on the sporting director. But then it's just the manager's mate and no one can really sack anybody. And there's this kind of confused power dynamic within English clubs. Whereas I think in Germany and Italy and in Spain, quite often the sporting director is a,

Not an apparatchic, but they're just like a club person. And they're good at that specific job, and they've kind of been through it for a while, and they've inherited the position from somebody else and stuff. There is a bit more constancy rather than permanent sort of vulnerability, because it's the case that Amarim's lost his job because he's lost a power battle with Jason Wilcox. It's an amazing sentence to anyone who watched that Blackburn team. It's a thing that Jason Wilcox would turn out to be the power behind the throne. It's not ridiculous to assume that it could have done the other way,

and maybe they'd have sacked Wilcox and said, right, Actually, do you know, Amarim's our guy? That was an option too, really. But the other thing, Rory, with it as well is that Manchester United had, in my opinion, an outstanding sporting director in place with Dan Ashworth, who left, who departed the club. And he has... Exactly.

And he had a track record of achieving really incredible things with football clubs, Brighton, Newcastle. Obviously, the Football Association is there. But he's got a track record for somebody who doesn't want to live in the limelight, works behind the scenes, knows exactly how a football club should function, and does the business, and he was in the doors at Manchester United, and now he's not there, and yet. To embrace the impossible requires a vehicle that pushes what's possible.

Defender 110 boasts a towing capacity of 3,500 kilograms, a weighting depth of 900 millimeters, and a roof load up to 300 kilograms. Learn more at landrover.ca. Hello, this is Matt Chawley's urgent question. Questions, your daily dose of political mayhem from the heart of Westminster. Order, order. I call Matt Cholley. I'm a supporter of flags.

It turns out time is finite. Government doesn't want to be involved in this. I did not think the candidates are frivolous. Matt Cholice. Urgent questions. Subscribe to the podcast and you'll get the best bits every day from around 5 o'clock. Listen on BBC Sounds. This is the Monday Night Club with Mark Chapman.

some of the themes will overlap here as we move on to talking about Celtic who today got rid of Wilfrid Nonsi after 33 days so that makes his reign the shortest stint of any permanent manager in the club's history also it's shorter than Martin O'Neill's stint as interim earlier this season and the club have confirmed this evening that Martin O'Neill now returns as manager until the end of the season I have to start with you Chris Chris, and your thought? The thought process of the club, I'm hoping, is short term. And while football's all about long-term planning,

it's just about winning the premiership this season now for Celtic, forget everything else. It's about, you know, trying to qualify for the Champions League. I think because of the poor coefficient in recent times, if Celtic win the premiership, they'll still have to go into a qualifier. But the pressure is on. That is the be-all and end-all. And I do think that they have made the right decision.

And it pains me to say after a manager is in charge for eight games, but he had lost the support of every Celtic fan, I know. And after Saturday's collapse against Rangers, it was always going to end. He was very similar to Amram. He was one way Wilf. That's what he was. It was his way.

It was three, four three. I'm not going to change. And his issue was, while some of the football was actually good on the eye in patches, Celtic were far too patchy. Under Brendan Rogers and under Mark

the Neil Celtic conceded 19 goals in 24 games between those two managers. Under Wilfred Nancy, 18 in eight games. It was kamikaze stuff. You can only link Rogers and O'Neill together defensively. You can't link Rogers and O'Neill together in terms

of atmosphere around the place because it was acrimonious at times under Rogers towards the end. Yeah, yeah, it was and Brendan Rogers got the blame for everything in some parts from various people earlier on in the season. That was never the case. This has been, I'm not going to say a long time in the making,

but I've talked about the Monday Night Club before about where this sort of whole situation stemmed from, and it stems from other areas in the club, their inability to recruit well, and they let star players go, key players go, Keogo, Nicholas Coon, never replaced them, failed in the Champions League where I think, you know, that the club were far too complacent,

thought they're going to be Carrot or Matty. They didn't. They went out. The summer recruitment was poor, letting Adam Eda go in the end. That wasn't a good decision. And it's been a tough season. Do you have sympathy for Wilfrid Nonsi?

I do. On the face of it, people down south will think eight games. That isn't enough. And in general, I would agree with that. But he also has to understand that he needed to adapt. He needed to change. Celtic have played with a back for ever since I can remember

and he came in halfway through a season with a squad in truth which is pretty incapable and he trashed the team. Martin tweaked the team Martin tweaked the team from Brendan Rogers and he made various subtle changes over his eight games and they weren't playing I don't care I get an argument with lots of Celtic fans about this

because Martin did a good job but Celtic weren't playing unbelievable football under Martin O'Neill and Martin was aware of that but he came in and he tried to play away And the justification for all that change is if you're getting the results. Did one of the things Martin tweak, and then I want to bring Izzy on on this, but is one of the things Martin tweets, and I don't mean to be doing him a disservice here by saying this,

was one of the things he tweaked mentality and atmosphere and positivity? I think so. Therefore, Izzy, my question is, and we touched on this in the first hour a little bit, Are a lot of the modern coaches process driven rather than humanly driven? Yeah. I think coaching has become quite fashionable, quite trendy, quite, and I say this lightly ego-driven. And I think you have to have an internal ego to be a football coach. I do, because I think you have to have so much self-belief.

You have to be bulletproof because you're facing the media. We've seen it with Amaran. We've seen it with Wilfred Nancy, obviously in the past sort of couple of months. you know, he's looked under severe pressure every time I've seen him come up on the TV screens under severe pressure and behind the scenes you have to work on something which is your style of play make the players believe in what you do

get them to buy into it and then get results at the same time and I don't think you can do all three of those things all at the same time and I think the instant thing you need is respect and I think you need to be respected by the players by the club of course by the staff and everybody needs to believe and trust in what you're doing and I think that the short time period of eight games just shows and tells me that

without being a Scottish football expert, it tells me that it was a completely bad idea, all of it. And you look quizzical when I asked the question, Rory, you wonder whether more and more it's about, and interestingly, both Nazi and Amarim suffered with this image of getting out a little tactics board than it is about sitting on the end of a player's bed in a hotel room the night before,

or putting your arm round them. But that is, I don't know whether that's true, but that is the perception that you get from a lot of the, in inverted commas, modern coaches. Yeah, I think what he says is really interesting, that I think we've created a cult around managers that's always kind of existed, sorry, coaches, they're not managers, there's always kind of existed but has become very sort of, it seems to become more pronounced and it's, you know, I mean, I say this is almost like a confession, but like, when you get loads of pretentious journalists talking about philosophies,

it's as though kind of everyone's decided to buy into that and I get why the managers do it well the reason I look quizzical is I was trying to work out why it is that managers have this tendency to go in and rather taking than taking the kind of I was when I was talking to Max Allegory and him saying I don't really have a philosophy my philosophy is I go in and I see what the players are good at

and then I do that and that and you think well yeah that's what they should all like obviously that's what they should all be doing and I was trying to work out if I was trying to figure out in my own head if I could think of an argument why you wouldn't do that. And I guess it's because you need as a coach to be able to show your bosses progress. And if you keep chopping and changing and trying stuff, it's really hard to say we're getting better at this one thing.

Whereas if you have a philosophy, you say here are my parameters, here are my kind of the things that I think are important. If we improve these, then we will see sort of results. And I guess that's appealing. But it does feel to me as though, I don't know,

there's a lack, maybe a lack of self-awareness with both Amoram and Nancy. I don't, like it feels self-evident to me a man who, who has proved very bad at coaching under eight football. It feels self-evident to me that you can't do that in the middle of a season. Well, my first question for Chief SportsRider for BBC Scotland, Tom English, who is joining us as well, was exactly that. Not do you think these players can play your system,

but didn't anybody say to him, we've actually done quite well recently, Wilf, and we've got two or three big games coming up. Is there any way you would stick to kind of what we're doing at the moment before you implement your grand plan? Do you there anybody asked him that? I doubt it because, you know, if you're going to ask him that, then you're trying to influence your new manager.

And I don't think that's a great start. I think maybe people at Celtic would presumably would have the cop on not to come in and change everything when your first game is against hearts with the league leaders. Can you presume, though, Tom? I mean, was that the mistake being presumptuous then? Because surely that should have been, that had to be part of the conversation.

If he was going to come in and he was going to be an absolute stickler for this way of playing and he was going to be inflexible, and he wasn't going to adapt, that was always going to be a problem. Somebody made a mistake there. So that had to be somebody above not doing their job properly. I think on every single level, Chris, people weren't doing their jobs properly on this. I think the people who appointed him in the first place on pretty scant evidence weren't doing their jobs properly. Because you would, and again, it's, again, it's assumption and we don't know. But I would imagine that Wilfred Nancy is coming in and he says, right, this is the way I play.

This is the way I play. This is the way I do things. I'm going to do this immediately. What do you think about that? And Seltic would have said, yeah, fine. You're the manager. Do it do as you please. I just think he just brought in so much confusion.

Square pegs and round holes is the expression that's been used constantly and it's apt. I think he just, he just changed so much. He said he had a 15, or Martin O'Neill, Neil said he had a 15-minute conversation with Nancy when he arrived. O'Neill gave the impression that he would have been prepared to sit there for a lot longer than that. And he also said that Wilford-Nancy did most of the talking during that 15-minute conversation. That's a surprise. So you're thinking, hang on, even from a PR perspective, even if you don't want to listen to Martin O'Neill, a legend of the club, surely is a peer perspective on a peer perspective and a kind of a self-stress.

survival mode, you would come in and you say, oh look, I just spent two hours of Martin O'Neill, legend at his club. I learned so much from him. The fans would have lapped that up, Chris, as you know, lapped it up. But he didn't go down that road. And he kind of, as you said earlier, he kind of seemed to know everything. And he kept on telling people, oh, you will see, as if we were kind of idiots, you know, that we couldn't see the grand vision that he was building. You wrote a big article on the big picture at Celtic. I'll read that back to people here. You wrote, Tom, there's not a big picture view at Celtic, or not one that's apparent. They could finish off their stadium and make it a near 80,000 Citadel, one of the continent's best, but they haven't done it.

They could build one of football's greatest museums. Lord knows they have enough icons of great moments to fill it, but there's no sign of it. They could have deployed a modern and razor sharp scouting system, but they haven't done that either. They bob along, cash rich and content with bossing it parochially, but even that is now at risk. The emergence of hearts and the support they're getting from Tony Bloom and Jake. Jamestown Analytics, he's threatening to change the game in a very significant way. Those four paragraphs reading between the lines would accuse Held to give complacency, yes? Yes.

Yeah, I think they have. I think they've had it so good for so long, domestically. I don't think they ever saw a change coming. They certainly didn't see hearts coming. Not many did, but the hearts are here now. And I think they just have, they're content, from my perspective, living here for 21 years now, They're content to boss it in Scotland and hope they'll take whatever they get from Europe. But to stay one step ahead or two steps ahead of Rangers, win the league, win a couple of trophies, win a couple of trebles, that'll do for us.

No big vision. And this is a monster football club. It's a huge football club. They could do so much with it. But they're just content and have been content be kings of Scotland rather than to push on and be what they think they are, a big European club. They don't act like a big European club They'd act like a big Scottish club The risk of quoting Chris Sutton

Which is never a pleasant thing to have to do Chris makes this point a lot And he's absolutely right There is absolutely no reason Why Celtic couldn't be club bruges But kind of souped up in scale Because bruges are not Bruce don't have Parkhead

Bruges don't have that history They don't have a European Cup They've got a European Cup final But they don't have a European Cup The failure at Celtic for years has been a total failure of ambition And I get in trouble whenever I say this because I have their own accent. But it's the Derby in Glasgow.

It has contorted both of those teams into thinking that is what matters. It is not. What matters is using the platform they have as two of the... Today, the managers of two of the five British clubs in Britain have gone. And we forget that because partly just the Englisher, you know, naturally quite pompous sorts of Scots, but partly because Celtic and Rangers have allowed themselves to become Scottish things. They're not.

They're global things, but they don't behave like it. They don't think like it. And until they do, they won't be happy. That is very, again, that's quite obvious. It's a good point, but who are the other three in your five? I'm just wondering whether you say that, because then the pylon comes. Not going to be answering that question, Jeffers, not an idiot. Worth a try, wasn't it?

With Martin A. Neal back and Hart six points clear. And Danny Roald doing, Tom, what you would call an understated job at Rangers in the fact that there doesn't appear to be. be much noise around them, but I'm saying that, as Chris often says, as someone from Down Sound. Who are the favourites for the Scottish Premiership title, do you think? Well, up until a few hours ago, I would have said Hearts. Would I still say Hearts? I think it's neck and neck now between Hearts and Martin O'Neill's Celtic, because I think Martin O'Neill's Celtic will win games. I think he'll galvanise things, he'll get everyone

to organise, he'll put smiles back on the faces of the players who look haunted and confused, and I think he will drag them forward. So I think this is a bad day for hearts. Like it's a bad day for Rangers. It's a good day for Celtic on the pitch. I think it's mortifying for Celtic as a club to have to go back to Martin, as in break glass in case of emergency option.

They've stuffed it up again. So Martin has sent the bat signal out for Martin. For Celtic, thank goodness he's there. But without him, I'm not sure what they would have done. But it's okay bringing Martin back. But I'm telling you now, If they do not recruit in January, if they do not recruit well, then Martin will be stuffed. And Martin was on record.

Who leads that recruitment? Well, I mean, this is fascinating now. There's nobody there now. It was Paul Tisdale, Rory's friend, Dr. Doolittle, as he's known in Glasgow. But, you know, it's an issue. But at least, at least what Celtic have done is that, you know, even though it's going to have to be rushed, you know, they've given themselves time to, to bring players in. But there's not a Caton Health chance Celtic will win the league.

If they don't recruit, I don't care what anybody says. Celtics, Celtics squad is bang average and it needs improving. Let's move on to Chelsea. It looks increasingly likely that Liam Resignor will replace Enzo Moreska and be in place for Chelsea's trip to Fulham on Wednesday. He's obviously been at Strasbourg. He completed his UEFA A licence while still a player age 32. and he's one of the few people who's come on the MNC as a guest

that we haven't cursed. This was in last season. We hear a lot managers now speaking about their styles of play. We hear pundits speak against managers who have a style of play. The reason you have to have a style of play now as a manager, I believe, is that people know what you're about. People know what your team looks like. People know what the values and the culture that you work to,

what your fundamentals are. So I left hole, which is a fantastic club. And I felt we did a really, really good job there. in a short space of time, just missing out on the playoffs. And I had a call out of the blue from Paul Winstonley, who is an outstanding, outstanding operator in football. I work with at Brighton, he said, because of the work I had done, they were really, really interested in me,

moving over to Strasbourg and putting that into practice there. So already I felt like I had a board and a backing of people who were aligned with what I wanted to do. And what I would say as well in terms of British coaches, if you look at Germany, if you look in Portugal or Spain, or even Italy or France. Their younger coaches are exposed to the top level, to the top league earlier than our English coaches are here.

That's because of the strength of the Premier League. That's because of the corporate power, the financial power. Teams don't want to take, in quotes, risks. So the best way for an English coach to get in the Premier League is to be promoted from the championship. Now, I love talking to him when he was on last season. The players loved him at Hull. Henry Clark, is he, in the mail,

said his emotional intelligence was perhaps, perhaps his most impressive attribute. The players loved working with him. He knew when to put an arm around the shoulder or when to dish out some home truths. And I think, I know he talked about the style of play there, but he talked about the culture and the values, which goes back to our earlier point, doesn't it?

On the emotional intelligence of the modern coach. Yeah, spot on. And I think it's so important to be able to have that relationship with the players. I mean, when we had Phil Jones in earlier, I thought it was really interesting that we sort of disagreed in a sense around. I think it's healthy to have a distance between players as a coach

but I also believe that that distance can also allow you to get close to a player and put the arm round but also be firm and I think you could be firm in clever ways on the coaching pitch and in a sort of team environment and I think ultimately when you have that kind of knitted together approach where everybody is aligned everybody knows what you're trying to do

and you as a head coach or manager you have the opportunity at the very start of your tenure wherever that is to set out those morals and to keep living and breathing by them, you know, day in, day out on the training pitch, you know, throughout games. And I think ultimately, if you've got players that are buying into you and they know what you're trying to do and they believe in it, you are on the path to success. And I think the way that, you know, you speak about a lot of ex-pros, you know, going into coaching. And Liam Rasini's journey, his career very interesting, his managerial career so far, very interesting, clearly a very intelligent guy.

And I think that, like you said, the emotional intelligence is so important to be able to resonate and connect in the right way. to then get yourself towards success. I listen to Pat Nevin's stuff on Chelsea and Pat Nevin saying that Chelsea want a puppet type manager in somebody they control. I just hope it's a move which doesn't swallow him up and sort of have a negative effect on his coaching. I'm not saying it will because he's a super smart guy.

But the one thing I can't work out about Chelsea is what sort of club are they? What are they actually trying to achieve? Are they trying to win? And they'll say, well, of course we're trying to win. But you always felt whether you like the sort of Abramovich era or not, that they were always going to compete and contest. I just don't get the same feeling about this Chelsea package with the new owners in.

Yeah, I mean, I have the same question as Chris. I think if you're trying to win, then you, it's all very well-being a disruptor and wanting to prove to everybody you're the cleverest person in the world, which is, I think, a fairly strong motivation for quite a lot. the stuff that Chelsea do. But there's certain bits of received wisdom that you don't have to challenge. One of them is probably need a couple of players are at their peak. If they've got experience, it tends to help. That's not a ridiculous thing that football thinks. That's a perfectly valid piece of conventional wisdom in football. Another is that if you keep buying players,

eventually they're getting each other's way. And Chelsea don't seem to have, it's, there's an element of Chelsea where they seem to just be so enamored with the thrill of doing deals that they just keep on doing them. They've got four players, I think, who are scheduled to arrive this summer already. And that's fine. They might all be super talented. But ultimately that you You can't allow them all to develop if there's so many of them there. You need, they need space to grow. That's obvious. And I don't understand why Chelsea don't see it.

So I'm like Chris, I don't quite understand what the end game is. But mainly, I think if Liam Rossini, who seems like an incredibly smart man and a very talented coach, goes to Chelsea, I think it would be one of the greatest disgraces in modern European football. Because it totally Rob Strasbourg, which was an independent club that had its own reason to exist of any kind of sovereignty whatsoever. I think it would be genuine, it would be enough. If you're running UEFA, you should look at that and say, right, actually, do you know what, you lot have tried to have this multi-club model, this is not allowed. There is no way they should be able to say, basically summon an employee from another club and say, do you know what, Strasbourg, you're having quite a good season, actually. You're in Europe, you're doing OK. We're taking your coach now because the big team needs him.

Do you think it's a bit of a power move then? Because my question is if Strasbourg didn't exist as part of the multi-club ownership alongside Chelsea in that sort of model, would Chelsea be looking at Liam Rossinia? Yeah, I think they probably would be, because he's done a really good job. But the difference to me is that in that situation, say Strasbourg or what Strasbourg have always been, before for some reason UEFA decided to let this stuff happen, then Chelsea would have gone and said, look, you've got a really promising coach, how much do you want for him? And Strasbourg would have been able to say an amount of money that either put Chelsea off or felt like an appropriate amount of kind of compensation. Strasbord in that situation. Sorry, knowing that they'd hired a coach who was potentially going to be a progressive. Yeah, and there's a food chain

and it's awkward and it's not nice. How do you know Chelsea aren't going to give Strasbourg a load of money? They might give them a lot of money, I don't know, but I know that the Strasbourg president said he has threatened to resign if it happens. So I'm guessing the people at Strasbourg are not especially happy about it. It feels as though Strasbord don't have agency in this situation.

I don't know if there's a world. And if I'm wrong, then I'm sure somebody from one of Chelsea's many PR people will contact me. I don't know if Strasbourg have a right to say no. Liam Rossini has a right to say no. Rossini can say, I don't think I'm ready for it, absolutely. I don't know if Strasbourg can stand in Chelsea's way and that makes me feel really uneasy because it is relegating Strasbourg to be in a farm team. That's what you're turning them into in one fell swoop. You are making it clear that ultimately... Has the relationship with Chelsea

made Strasbourg better? Yes, in one sense and no in the other, because the ultras protest every... Olli K., the Athletics done to read the stories on this. They protest before every game. They played Nice a couple of weeks ago and both sides are part of... The weekend just gone. It was Nice Strasbourg and both sets of fans protested about the multi-club ownership. It's not fair.

It's not fair for these clubs that do exactly what English teams do. They serve communities. They stand as avatars for places. They mean something to hundreds and thousands of people. It's not fair for the Premier Leads money, particularly the Premier Leads money, to reduce their status to

vassal states. That's all they're doing. And it's been a mountain problem for about seven or eight years now. But Chelsea just taking Strasbourg's manager when they need it after a slightly odd sacking of Enzo Moreska really just brings it all out into the open. It makes clear how distorted Europe has become by allowing networks to take place and allowing the Premier League's money to have this effect.

And it makes me genuinely quite angry. And I'm not, I would like to make it clear. I'm not a Strasbourg fan. No, but if they, and then just to throw the counter argument back, they take Liam Resignia or appoint Liam Ressinger, but are also performing the same role for Strasbourg to bring in their replacement manager, does that mitigate them leaving them high and dry?

If you're a Strasbourg fan, what's the point? What is your success for? What is any of it for? You've got, yeah, they've made them better, but they're about to sell their best player, Emmanuel Amade at the striker, to Chelsea. Their manager is going to go to Chelsea. A Strasbourg doing this for themselves?

Are they doing it for Chelsea? Strasbourg is a thing that exists for its own glory. That's what all clubs do. They all exist for their own, to be the best versions of them. themselves they can be. But all this system does is reduce it to if anything good you have wood and a tape

and that's just not how it should work. I have to end it there. We did at the start of the day before everything happened wanted to do Brentford going 7th who are well run, always seem to have a succession plan, always seem to know what they're doing the complete antidote to the last to have. We'll hopefully do

Brentford in the coming weeks. Thank you, Izzy. Thank you Chris. Thank you, Rory. Thanks for listening. Five Live Sport Our referee for this afternoon Close her whistle We are underway

And the only goal And she is able to just pick her sport This way past the best goalkeeper in the division BBC Women's Football Weekly The latest news, insights and analysis from across the women's game. Lucy Bruns, welcome back. What one lioness do you think would make the best rugby player?

Me? Listen. With the BBC Sounds app.