Chelsea did not sign Rob Green because he was dug up by a fearless scout

Here are some likely reasons why Chelsea snatched Rob Green, 38, to be the team's third goalkeeper this season:

• He was free
• He is a local
• He is ( probably)
• He is never really going to play
• He has a lot of veteran experience
• He is grown at home and can therefore be registered without losing any of the 17 non-points exclusive on a third. goalkeeper (or leave the third goalkeeper on the list and use an Academy player instead, as we have done a few times in recent seasons)
• Nobody who worked on the case,

Here is at least one reason that was obviously not used to sign Rob Green:

• He was identified by a long and careful recognition process, controlled by all appropriate internal channels, put on a list of recommendations for the third goalkeeper up to the chain of command (edited, reduced to the top), finally arrived on the desk of the person responsible for the big self-adhesive note saying "SIGN THIS MAN IF YOU WANT TO WIN THE TITLE"

But if we claim that bringing Rob Green is a movement of any significant consequence, we can produce some sensationalist claptrap, which Registered bie n in the story of constant conflict behind the scenes in Chelsea. Here is a nice copy of Matt Hughes of the Times, although his summary in the tweet is all you really need to know.

Sarri and the staff are "perplexed" despite the obvious logic of the move (Sarri and staff who obtuse?).

Sarri was "not involved" but "not unhappy" and "relaxed" about it (so not a big deal for a man who said very clearly that he does not want to to be involved because the transfer market "bores" him) .

Green was not on a list of transfer targets provided by the scouting department and club guard coaches (do Scouting departments spend time producing target lists for the third goalkeeper? ?) .

Granovskaya "is supposed to have done business directly with the agent of Green" (how would it be otherwise?) – the insinuation being that she acted alone and did not consult anyone, who a) Sounds whimsical and b) is her prerogative as (de facto?) director of football and the hand of the emperor.

And last but not least … "Other coaches and scouts at the club are less optimistic because their recommendations have been neglected largely because of Granovskaya's desire to add to Chelsea's quota local players. "

First of all, not a" quota of local players ". Only the number of non-homegrown players is limited (no more than 17). There is no minimum or maximum for local players, although 8 of the maximum 25 players of a team can not be filled. If a team does not have 8, which has been the case for some time in Chelsea, it must roll with fewer senior players (which can then be completed by players from the academy / B- list).

coaches and scouts "spent time looking at the third goalkeepers and produced a list of uncultured options, they hurt everything from the start.

Also, simply because that you recommend something to your boss, your boss should never do what you recommend.This sort of comes with the territory and is a reality of life in any business setting, whether professional sports or professional underwater weaving.

You may disagree, of course, but if you then express your frustrations to the media, you also do all that is "professional".

Chelsea has so much to worry about these days … Rob Green's signature is actually not part of it.There is an interesting question that can be asked as to why now this has been done (it was enough One or two days between the first phone call and the signatures and handshakes), and what it meant Futures de Courtois and Bulka and a few others, but the signature itself is quite inconsequential. Unless of course, we are trying very hard to create a controversy in its wake.