I think the situation that he is looking at would be significantly different. Most clubs don't have a manager of Hiddink's prestige as their director of football; sometimes you get an older guy who has done 'it' before but not very often somebody who is so recently getting acclaim for their managerial work. I think that will be a problem, but we'll see I guess.

Not to mention Abramovich fucking things up at the top of the food chain. Got to be a bit of a nightmare club to manage at in certain respects.

Yup much better to hand over every last responsibility to the manager

i cant imagine hiddink will agree to be DoF. he wants to manage, not sit in an office sending faxes. nor do i think villas-boas would agree to have a manager of hiddink's stature and hsitory at chelsea sitting right above in the director's seat. it would be a managerial and political nightmare.

Hiddink's an enigma, but he definitely has a large ego, charisma and the ability to get his own way. For some reason the organisations that hire him always end up supplicants, begging him to do this or that.

I don't buy the idea that he will of necessity be a disruptive influence in a director of football role. I don't actually think he meddled too much during Ancelotti's tenure. He probably just gets on well with Abramovich and has the luxury therefore of running a critique of the current manager from the sidelines, without putting his own mettle to the test.

it's too many cooks in the kitchen. their egos won't let them cede any decision-making authority to the other. it would be like trying to run a country with a napoleon-stalin co-dictatorship. it doesn't work. it's like highlander - there can only be one!

I think it might work at Chelsea, where Abramovich takes a strong and active hand. I'm sure he'll review the dynamic between Hiddink and Villas-Boas and just axe whoever he deems necessary if there's a problem.

I still think the players are a bigger source of off-field problems myself. Terry, Lampard, Drogba, Anelka, Cole - talent aside, these aren't guys I'd want to have to take on as a new manager, and they're all slowing down as well.

I believe it does, yes.

The figures used in the FFP are relatively all-encompassing as far as that sort of expenditure is concerned, right?

Don't see any hope in us next season, when CFC appoint one of the best upcoming managers in the world who is going to bring all his awesome players from Porto with him and Manc is going stronger than they have been again.

I can't be 100% certain but I believe it takes into account "wages and associated costs" which presumably covers the compensation, buy-outs and redundancies mentioned in Ricky's quote.

Villas Boas is in London for Chelsea talks

http://www.goal.com/en/news/11/transfer-zone/2011/06/21/2541838/breaking-news-official-vitor-pereira

You have to admire Porto for their business savvy. They've monetized their football program better than other teams in lesser markets, including even Ajax in recent years. They've just claimed 13 million pounds for a manager (unheard of in football), and are potentially looking at another 30-40m pounds in sales if AVB decides to copy Mourinho and take a few Porto players with him to Chelsea.

Indeed, and they've still bagged a couple of European cup's in their time.

Indeed, Biggus. 3 European titles in the last 8 years is nothing to sneer at.

Heh heh and as one wit on F365 observed- the 15 million Euro "transfer" was worth it, who would you prefer for that sort of money? Villa Boas or Squillaci.

Time will tell whether Villas-Boas really is special. It's an interesting cargo cult move by Abramovich - "well a plucky lesser known Portuguese with no playing career worked well last time". Seems optimistic to assume he'll do much better than Ancelotti.