No doubt you expected the backlash from the Chelsea supporters, Martin. They missed the whole point of your argument with their usual, ‘look what we’ve won’, comments. With a different philosophy they could have won the same trophies and been respected by the rest of the football world. Arcadian, London.

I’m not saying they would have won more, Arcadian; I wasn’t even saying Chelsea need a philosophy. My point in Monday’s column – you can read it here – was that it is a bit rich for the club to behave as if long-term has been their aim all along, when the strategy from the top has been so utterly short-term. That was the point so many missed. This isn’t my talk of philosophy, it’s theirs. I’d say Michael Emenalo in particular, who is pretty much his master’s voice, is letting it be known that the new manager will have to stick with this squad and integrate young players, as if previous policy has been the fault of previous managers, rather than a direct result of Roman Abramovich’s hire-them-and-fire-them policies. Chelsea managers know the consequence of failure, so Chelsea managers live in the here and now – and are then blamed indirectly for not seeing the bigger picture. That was my point. Not that Chelsea, or any club, needs a philosophy. I’m a ‘whatever works’ kind of guy. Chelsea and Real Madrid on one hand, Manchester United under Sir Alex Ferguson or Anfield’s boot room on the other. I do think at Chelsea, however, we hear a lot about what Abramovich wants, and it all seems at odds with club strategy. He demands good football yet employs pragmatists, youth opportunity but will often buy several players for a first-team position, and now wishes for a coherent philosophy while on the brink of appointing a third manager in six months. That was the point of the column, Arcadian, but thanks for your post and equal thanks for making me think of this.

Here’s a collection of a few Chelsea philosophies: throw coins at youth players, kick a black guy from a train, racist chanting, worship a player like John Terry, have a sexist manager like Jose Mourinho and back him, hooliganism. Raxola-Blue, Manchester.

You seem to be referring to Chelsea fans, not Chelsea the football club. And, even then, I very much doubt that those philosophies embrace them all. As we go through this, my main gripe with quite a few Chelsea fans on here is that they do not seem able, or willing, to understand plain English. But, again, it’s not all.

Chelsea have no philosophy because they don't give managers time. Yet any manager a club does allow to build a philosophy is hounded by the media and Twitter when things don’t go smoothly – yet isn’t this to be expected when creating a philosophy? GarySin, London.

Yes, I completely agree, Gary. I think the problem is that the elite clubs have become so strong in recent years that any defeat, certainly back-to-back defeats, now constitute a falsely-inflamed crisis. Phone-ins, internet clickbait, the fact that every club now monitors fans forums, it all contributes to a constant rush to judgement, and it takes a very strong boardroom to resist because owners with conventional business backgrounds are not used to being in the eye of the storm. Take Randy Lerner. He came from law and banking, he has shopping malls and restaurants. In fiscal terms, sometimes he will have good years, sometimes bad. Nothing will have afforded him the scrutiny of owning Aston Villa, though. It took the biggest financial crisis of the modern age for people to start caring what the banks were up to; but if Villa lose three games, the same people are calling the radio stations to demand that Lerner quits. In that environment, it is very hard to invest in something as long-term as a strategy or philosophy, but I agree with Arsene Wenger: this constant process of being on honeymoon or in the divorce courts is tiresome and tiring.

Arsenal have had Wenger's philosophy for over a decade. Manchester United never had a philosophy during Sir Alex Ferguson’s trophy-laden reign, but they do now, of course. I'll stick to winning trophies, thanks. Chelskikovites, Hampshire.

Not this season you won’t mate, and who knows what the future holds. One day Chelsea, as a club, might even have half of what Ferguson achieved as a manager – and his Manchester United era most certainly did have a philosophy. There was a recognisable style of open and attacking football, a desire to encourage and play the club’s youth where possible, a boldness in making major signings, often of English players, an instilled work ethic plus the unswerving belief that the manager should always be the highest earner and the strongest presence in the dressing-room. I’d call that a philosophy. I’d call it a bloody good philosophy in fact.

Arsenal have had one manager in the whole of Roman Abramovich’s time and the trophy haul isn't even close. The days of dynasty building is over. We shall see how Barcelona’s philosophy holds up once Lionel Messi and Andres Iniesta retire. Steviejay99, Colchester.

Well, it stood up OK without Xavi Hernandez, Thierry Henry, Ronaldinho, Romario, Carles Puyol, David Villa, or any number of other players that were going to mark the end of an era. Not to mention Pep Guardiola. Barcelona’s modern philosophy dates back to Johan Cruyff, tiki-taka is a complex riff on Dutch ideals, with some of the modern pressing game incorporated. Yet Barcelona’s philosophy reaches beyond that into youth policy, into the ambition of the club and its football, into what it represents. Bayern Munich have had many different styles but the over-riding philosophy is to have a specifically German identity, which is why Guardiola is not as popular with the locals as many imagine. As for the comparisons between Chelsea and Arsenal, we shall see what happens now that Abramovich is about to enter his rebuilding stage. The football took a hit when Arsenal had to finance the move to the Emirates Stadium and looking at Chelsea’s last 11 signings maybe some downscaling is going on at Stamford Bridge, too. If so, judging by Chelsea’s current league position, Wenger’s philosophy allowed Arsenal to withstand that pressure more than Chelsea’s constant turmoil. Upheaval works when you can throw money at the squad. It will be interesting to see what awaits Chelsea without that expensively stitched safety net.

Funny how it didn't seem to be a problem last May. Ferret70, Lewes.

Yes, that’s sort of my point. Chelsea didn’t mind short-termism then.

Philosophy? Look at Manchester United with Louis van Gaal's philosophy. You're better off without one. Mr Nice, London.

Van Gaal’s problem is more that his way of playing conflicts with Manchester United’s philosophy, built around the need for attacking, entertaining football. Taken as a whole, his personal philosophy has always included giving the youth players a chance which is surely one of the few positives of United’s season so far.

Four Premier League titles, four seasons as runners up, four FA Cups, three League Cups, one UEFA Champions League title and one year as runners up, the Europa League title – yeah, philosophy. David Moyes won nothing despite spending 10 years at Everton. Zebra2inc, Gravesend.

Yes, and the investment in Everton and Chelsea in that time was close to identical. Good grief, at least try to introduce a semblance of logic to the argument, mate; otherwise it’s just a loose collection of numbers and words.

Why don’t Chelsea just change the title from head coach or manager to Football Consultant? That seems to be more apt for their philosophy. An expensive short-term fix by the latest man of the moment, someone to do the matches and the training, and all the other football stuff that seems to be a nuisance. The club is more of a trading floor for buying, selling and loaning players. Adam10, Derby.

That is the part I really don’t understand. Chelsea have got a youth policy. It is very successful in producing players for other clubs, because a succession of Chelsea managers are too worried about getting the sack to risk giving those same individuals a proper run at Stamford Bridge.

Antonio Conte is next in line to take the manager's job at Chelsea - he'll be their 12th boss in 13 years

Does Real Madrid have any philosophy? Tell me if Real Madrid is any way better than Chelsea. This article is baseless. RichForever, Kuala Lumpur.

How would you know? You didn’t read it. The comparison with Real Madrid was right there, in the column. 'Chelsea are a collection of quick fixes, previously allied to vast injections of transfer funds, or a new coach. Real Madrid are the same.' So I told you if Madrid were better than Chelsea. You work it out. You’ve obviously got more time on your hands than me.

I'd rather have the Abramovich-Jose Mourinho combo, as opposed to Stan Kroenke-Ivan Gazidis-Arsene Wenger. James Young, Epsom.

I don’t disagree. But now you’ve got neither.

Question for Martin Samuel: has the change of managers brought Chelsea any silverware? Come on, give us an answer. Truth Seeker, London.

This is the Debate column, mate. I always answer. Otherwise it would just be page after page of Chelsea fans talking among themselves and getting the wrong end of the stick. Unfortunately, however, there is no definitive answer to your question, because you seem to be directly attributing the changes of manager to success. We cannot say the changes of managers brought the trophies, because we have no way of knowing that they would not have been won anyway. Would Luiz Felipe Scolari have won the FA Cup, as Guus Hiddink his interim replacement did? Would Andre Viillas-Boas have won the Champions League like Roberto Di Matteo? We’ll never know. Chelsea do not win trophies just because they change managers. There are many factors concerning budget, individual form, team selection and myriad random breaks, good and bad, that are also part of the issue. To put each achievement down to a sacking would mean there was some grand plan in changing the successful Carlo Ancelotti for the unsuccessful Villas-Boas, and then changing again for Di Matteo mid-season. And clearly that is nonsense.

This article is rubbish. Very few clubs can build a philosophy as few managers last long enough. Real Madrid, Chelsea, Tottenham, Manchester City and Liverpool have all chopped and changed. And no clearout of players? Several other media outlets are reporting that there will be wholesale changes. I think Abramovich has seen first-hand the power of the dressing room at Chelsea, and he will want to break it. I believe several players will leave in the summer. Gary, Croydon.

And your beliefs are based on what Gary? We can all have beliefs mate. What we need is inside information. We want more people hitting the phones and talking to people in and around the club, not just having a hunch and shouting rubbish. As several means more than two, but not many, I think it is quite possible that several players will leave Chelsea – but also that several players will leave Leicester, too, and they are about to win the league. Several players leave every club, every season. Over the last three seasons, including youth releases, 53 players with a total value of £232.65m have left Chelsea, so several is nothing. What has changed is that missing out on European football means they will not be able to remove key personnel because the same quality of replacement may not be available. Chelsea might have been willing to sell Eden Hazard after a poor year, for instance – but will another player of Hazard’s ability come to the club, in its current state? It is no longer certain. So best to stick with Hazard, and hope Antonio Conte can get better performances from him. Also, you seem to fall for Chelsea’s line – as if the constant changing of managers is something beyond the control of the clubs. It is hard to build a philosophy when clubs keep sacking the managers? Really, Sherlock? And who’s fault is that?

Maybe Chelsea's problem is not giving enough time to quality players? They’ve let go of Juan Mata, Kevin De Bruyne, Daniel Sturridge, Romelu Lukaku and Andre Schurrle. Who exactly is making these premature decisions? Soccerreligion, New York.

Chelsea old boy Romelu Lukaku dumped them out of the FA Cup last weekend

Well, Chelsea are happy to let the world think it is the manager’s decision – yet when it came to the issue of John Terry’s contract, the manager did not seem to be involved, so I’m sceptical of that.

That ‘great’ judge of a football player, Mourinho, decimated Chelsea's squad. Mourinho sold Lukaku, De Bruyne, David Luiz, Mata, Ryan Bertrand and Schurrle; and kept Nathan Ake on the bench for two years. He replaced them with Juan Cuadrado, Mohamed Salah, Radamel Falcao, Pedro and Cesc Fabregas. Mourinho took over a team that had won the Champions League, the Europa Cup, and the FA Cup in the two seasons before, and left Chelsea fighting relegation. Dai Dunga, Brazil.

Excellent knowledge and yet you seem to have omitted the league title and League Cup that Mourinho won in that period, plus the signings of Willian, Diego Costa, Nemanja Matic and Kurt Zouma. No doubt this was merely an oversight and not a desperately transparent attempt to make your argument stand.

Very few clubs have a philosophy. Manchester United are slowly losing theirs, West Ham haven't played the West Ham way since the 1960s, Tottenham are creating a new one. The only team that have a philosophy is Arsenal and with just two trophies in the last 10 years it shows this doesn't work. Redwhiteblue, Peterborough.

I don’t think it shows Arsenal’s philosophy does not work, because it is the same one that went a season unbeaten and won the Double. I think other factors have left Arsenal weakened, not least the financial strength of their rivals.

Why would you say the manager responsible for the Europa League was sacked? Rafa Benitez’s contract was over; he was not sacked. Bips, Melbourne.

Why would you comment on a piece you plainly hadn’t read properly? Here’s the sentence again: '…the winner of the club’s last league championship, the winner of its only Champions League title and the winner of its last European trophy, all did not make it to the end of the year.' Where does that say Benitez was sacked?

Ah yes, philosophy – the latest concept for pundits, commentators, journalists and ex-players. My 54 years of watching football has helped define the ‘philosophy’ of a football team: play in the opponents half, when you have the ball pass to someone in the same colour shirt, when you are close enough and clear enough, have a go at goal. When you don't have the ball, win it back quickly, hard but fair. At the end of the game you will have won, lost or drawn. I never heard Bill Shankly, Don Revie, Brian Clough, Bill Nicholson or Sir Alf Ramsey talk about philosophy, and never read a philosopher who wrote about football. Bert Slopend, Mid-Lincolnshire.

They probably didn’t talk about it between the interest in chattering about the game was not as all-consuming as it is now, but I can assure you that each one of the managers you mentioned had a philosophy, and the details are available in the many books written by or about them. As for philosophers, shall we start with Albert Camus? Writing for the alumni magazine of the Racing Universitaire Algerios, he came up with the line that launched a thousand hipster doofus T-shirts around north London. 'All that I know most surely about morality and the obligations of man, I owe to football.' But, actually, that’s a misquote. Camus wrote: 'After many years during which I saw many things, what I know most surely about morality and the duty of man I owe to sport and learned it in the RUA.' He was clearer when asked directly if he preferred theatre or football. He said football. The Camus Society have this to say about his alumni essay. 'People have read more into these words than, perhaps, Camus would want them to. He was referring to the kind of simple morality he wrote about in his early essays, an ethic of sticking up for your friends, of valuing courage and fair play. Camus believed that the people of politics and religion try to confuse us with convoluted moral systems to make things appear more complicated than they really are, possibly to suit their own agendas. People may do better to look to the simple morality of the football field than to politicians and philosophers.' It’s fair to say if he was alive today he’d feel more than a little let down. Still, one of his early novels was entitled The Fall, and that’s always a good excuse for a song. Quite the tale this, too. 'Unfortunately, this being East Germany, Gert patriotically volunteered for a labour beautification course in the countryside…' You can find out what happens next by clicking below.

Chelsea have the deep pockets to attract and convince almost any footballer on the planet even if they miss out on the Champions League next season. Sidd7689, Bangalore.

I’m not sure that is true, Sidd. Manchester United threw money at the problem too, when they were out of the Champions League and while they got good players such as Angel di Maria and Radamel Falcao, it didn't bring lasting success because it was more a case of taking what they could get, rather than what they needed. So Falcao was not the same player after his injury problems and Di Maria did not fit in to Van Gaal’s system. I think the reason it is suggested Conte will be asked to work with what he has got is because Chelsea know that their list of targets will have to be amended, without European football.

There is no philosophy behind Chelsea’s game plan, other than winning. The philosophy across the Abramovich years seem to have been, employ an excellent manager and make him answer to under-qualified cronies who undermine his work by foisting players on him that don't always fit the team ethic. I cannot begin to imagine the look on Mourinho's face, having won the Champions League twice, when he was forced to report to Emenalo, a second-tier journeyman footballer who only got the job because he was a mate of Abramovich's mate, the equally woeful Avram Grant. They sacked Mourinho when the club was 14th in the league. They're now three places off that. Bluto, London.

It’s much better than that, Bluto, to be fair to Guus Hiddink. Chelsea were 16th when Mourinho was sacked and they are 10th now, so that’s six places and they are a point per game improved. Chelsea were averaging 0.93 points per game under Mourinho which, right now, would place them 16th, roughly three points above Sunderland who would have a game in hand. Hiddink’s average return equates to third in the league, roughly a point behind Tottenham and five clear of Arsenal, who would have a game in hand. So Hiddink has done a very good job, despite the recent cup exits. Like you, however, I remain unconvinced by Emenalo. I find it staggering that another manager has gone – a winner of three titles for the club – yet he sails on.

Chelsea's problem is not that they have no philosophy, but that they do. It is defined by Abramovich’s desire to see winning football played creatively. He dreams of Chelsea being Barcelona. This does not make him unusual, who wouldn't want that? The complication is that he probably reads nonsense from experts in the media about how the La Masia academy with its holistic model produced Xavi, Messi and Iniesta – which is crap, but sets his expectation in place. Abramovich hasn't yet realised that the transition from youth to world class is massive and unmanageable. Barcelona didn't produce Messi, and if he and Iniesta had turned up in Chelsea's academy, things would be different. Barca isn't producing any more superstars either – they are just buying them. Male-on-line, London.

Look, I’m as up for debunking some of the myths around lovely Barcelona as much as the next man – don’t give me ‘mes que un club’, sunshine, when you’ve got Qatar all over the shirt – but if they were not responsible for the production of Xavi, Messi and Iniesta, who was? Yes, Messi began with Newell’s Old Boys in Argentina, but by 13 he was with Barcelona. If Barcelona didn’t produce Messi then Chelsea didn’t produce John Terry, who was on the books at West Ham, until switching clubs at 14. I agree that youth brings no guarantee and Barcelona’s production line has slowed of late – although Sergio Busquets is still one of theirs, and he has been in immense form – but Abramovich has to decide what he wants. If it is youth and a fresh structure that might survive the vagaries of individual seasons, then he has to give his managers time, at least two seasons, maybe more. If he wants near to a guarantee of success, throwing money at the problem and sacking the manager every other season is as good a way as any. But it never seems to make him happy. If Abramovich’s holy grail is to have a young team, playing beautiful football and winning the league, he might get that once in a lifetime, as Sir Alex Ferguson did. Mind you, he was nine years into the job then.

This is a very misleading article. Your count of 13 includes caretaker managers, some of whom were only in charge for a game. Abramovich has really appointed five permanent managers in his time at Chelsea: Mourinho, Scolari, Ancelotti, Villas-Boas and Mourinho again. Others such as as Di Matteo were given contracts after successful spells as caretaker but were never a chosen manager for a club like Chelsea. Even if you accept your number, 13 is funnily enough exactly the same number as Real Madrid have had over the same period, Europe’s most successful club, and Barcelona's number of permanent managers is very similar. Theobjectiveone, Weymouth.

Somebody else who can’t read. I wrote: 'Conte will be confirmed as the 12th manager of Roman Abramovich’s 13 years in charge.' So that’s 12 in 13 years, not 13 managers as you state. I did not use the word appointment, and I did not include caretakers who were in charge for the odd match, such as Ray Wilkins and Steve Holland, as you presume. I did include the interim appointments as they lasted almost as long as some of the permanent managers and I did include Claudio Ranieri – because although Abramovich inherited him, it doesn’t follow that he should sack him, after all Greg Dyke inherited Roy Hodgson as England manager and he’s still there. I also made it clear this was a future projection and Conte, the next in line, was included in the 12. They are: Ranieri, Mourinho, Grant, Scolari, Hiddink, Ancelotti, Villas-Boas, Di Matteo, Benitez, Mourinho, Hiddink, Conte. You can’t just pretend Di Matteo didn’t get the job permanently, because he did – and where is Grant on your list? Real Madrid have had 13 managers in that time, but I drew the comparison with Chelsea in the piece, and it has only brought them three league titles since 2003. And I just don’t know where you are getting your Barcelona figures from, as they have had just five coaches in that period, including Tito Vilanova, whose time was cut short because he died of cancer. Without his illness, there may have even been just three Barcelona managers since Abramovich arrived. Either way they have won seven titles and four Champions League trophies in that period, more than Real Madrid and Chelsea combined. I’m not saying stability and a club philosophy is the only reason for that, mind you, but it remains a fact.

Guus Hiddink (2nd left) is in charge of the Blues for now and it's his second spell in the hotseat

Chelsea are a Russian plaything. Only Arsenal have stuck by their manager and should be applauded for it. As a Manchester United fan I would go after the Bournemouth manager, Eddie Howe, give him a five-year contract and no money, to get our young players through. Only when we get back to our roots will we be successful. Mscthewestie, Preston.

No money? That was never the root of Manchester United. Tommy Taylor, Denis Law, Willie Morgan, Martin Buchan, Joe Jordan, Gordon McQueen – all broke the previous Manchester United record transfer. Manchester United have a fine youthful tradition; but they’ve always supplemented it with expensive transfers.

OK, so let's entertain this philosophy notion of yours. Which club, apart from Manchester United, in the last two decades or since the beginning of the Premier League has had a successful philosophy? And, for the record, Chelsea has been the most successful club in England since Abramovich took over. Chaitika, London.

As I said, it’s not my desire for a philosophy. I’m quite the advocate of short-term planning when it comes to football. No England manager would get more than a two-year contract, and I don’t think long-term arrangements guarantee success. But this philosophy talk is coming out of Chelsea and I just think it is a little rich to pretend it is not the thinking at the top that is the root cause of previous policy decisions, rather than a consistent disregard for youth by successive managers. Anyway, since you ask, Arsenal’s philosophy under Wenger has worked reasonably well in that period, with success before the oil money arrived, and consistent qualification for the Champions League, while Manchester City look capable of building something substantial as Barcelona Lite.

In those 13 years, Chelsea won more trophies than any other Premier League club. I know a certain other club that stood by their manager for 13 years and won just two FA Cups. Lucan83, Dublin.

Yes, but Arsenal’s financial situation was very different in that time. You may wish to emerge unscathed from the Stamford Bridge rebuild before making presumptions. The early signs are not promising. If it is this project that has led to some bargain-basement shopping, it has already cost you your best manager, and led to your worst season of Abramovich’s reign.

Samuel is inventing a story out of nothing or trying to imply that football clubs have philosophies. He says his beloved Arsenal have a philosophy but where has it got them - absolutely nowhere in the last 12 years. Should Chelsea then be like Arsenal? Obviously not. And he seems to be trying to state that with Chelsea every season is ‘a roll of the dice’ which is blatant nonsense as they have been winning trophies almost every season for over a decade. It is the complete opposite – the seasons they don’t win trophies are the exceptions. So, Samuel, stop spouting and assuming everyone is going to nod their heads and go along with your drivel. Write something meaningful rather than just splurging on any old nonsense or theme you can think of about Chelsea. People are not so daft that they cannot see when you are bending facts or inventing to suit your purpose. You should ask the North Korean government for a job as a spin doctor. Torres, Fulham.

But if the column is an exercise in spin, who am I spinning for? Who benefits if I write a column that is critical of Chelsea’s executive strategy? So simmer down, put the tin foil hat away for a minute and I’ll walk the sensible folk through this. Right. A newspaper recently got an interview with Emenalo, since when little snippets have emerged on its pages that seem to suggest the direction that Chelsea is heading. There was one piece that spoke very favourably of Papy Djilobodji’s first few games for on loan for Werder Bremen, for instance, claiming it showed what could be achieved if these young players were given a chance. At the time, Djilobodji had only played two games and while Werder Bremen had won one and drawn the other, they had also conceded four goals. I made a mental note to check back in when Bremen played Bayern Munich, because that is the only Bundesliga team that a club with Chelsea’s ambition and finances should be judged against. Djilobodji’s performance in that match is more of an indication of his suitability as a Chelsea player than a 1-1 draw with, say, Hoffenheim. Anyway, it was played last week and Bayern Munich won 5-0. But I digress. One of the few people with a vested interest in telling everyone at Chelsea how good Djilobodji is, and how he was poorly served by Mourinho is Emenalo, who signed him. I keep an eye on stuff like that. It’s the job, working out where information might come from, and weighing up its reliability. And it was in that newspaper that I then read a very authoritative piece saying the new Chelsea manager would be asked to work with the current squad and introduce more youth players. To be fair, it is common knowledge that Chelsea have been trying to get more kids in for some time now – but a lot of people are expecting big changes in the senior squad this summer and this suggested that won’t be the case. It read like good information that had come from near the top. And that’s what started the thought processes for the column. I just find it a little bit of an insult to some good Chelsea managers who have worked through some rather unique challenges, that they are increasingly painted as short-term chancers, when we all know the absence of patience and pressure from above makes short-term thinking inevitable. It would be nice if someone in the posh seats would front up and say the strategy has changed, rather than making it look as if the managers were to blame. So, that’s the background to the column. I know it is a far more detailed explanation than a ranting clown like Torres deserves, but there are some sensible people on here and I thought they might be interested. And now, back to the playground.

Well, in those 13 years Chelsea has won four Premier League titles and the Champions League. Arsenal with the one manager has won nothing in that same period. Rubbish article, a waste of my time. James Michaels, United States.

Don’t worry about it, mate. I’m guessing your time isn’t too precious.

Look who's complaining about firing managers at Chelsea, like you and your cronies had nothing to do with it. Whining and moaning here daily about the managers like a little kid who's had his toy taken away. Please kindly shut the hell up. Bobby, Los Angeles.

But if I did, Bobby, who would you bother with your stupid posts? You’d be mithering people in the supermarkets. It’s a public service, keeping idiots like you off the streets. Although a taxidermist could perform a similar role.

Chelsea isn't really one of those clubs that has a philosophy. Not every club needs or thrives on it. Real Madrid always appoint players and managers for short-term and are quite happy with that approach. FootyDrama, United States.

I agree. My argument was never that every club should have this monumental vision. It was more that if you want a quick fix, go for it – just don’t pretend you’re more sophisticated than you are. Bringing us seamlessly to…

Mr Samuel suggests Chelsea's changing of managers has led to them being unable to achieve ‘the sort of regime that Mauricio Pochettino has installed at Tottenham.’ Mr Samuel puts this down to Chelsea having 11 managers since 2003. He conveniently fails to mention that Mauricio Pochettino is Tottenham's 10th appointment over the same period. During that time, Chelsea have won five doubles including the Champions League, multiple Premier League titles, FA Cups and League Cups and the Europa League. Those 11 Chelsea managers have won 15 trophies, while Tottenham's 10 managers have won one between all of them, the League Cup. And let's not pretend Tottenham hasn’t spent big money on players over the last few years. To top it all, Mr Samuel chooses a Champions League, FA Cup double-winning season as an illustration of Chelsea ‘failure’. In attempting to talk about the philosophy of clubs, Mr Samuel presents us with a piece bereft of philosophical or any other value. Sir Cecil, San Francisco.

It’s Mr Samuel, now eh? Nice to have a bit of respect around here. In an ideal world, obviously, it’s mutual but you can’t have everything, Cecil, you gigantic chump. Anyway, once again mathematics is taking a bit of a hit here. I don’t mean to complain, but it’s not as if we’re using calculus. It’s adding up; and not even the big stuff. Adding up to 12. Even Sesame Street did 12. Anyway, Cecil, this Debate is brought to us by the number 12, and the letters F and U. It will be 12 Chelsea managers, including Conte, not 11 – and eight from Tottenham in that time, unless you are serious about including two brief caretaker spells from Clive Allen and Alex Inglethorpe, in which case Wilkins and Holland are added to Chelsea’s list. Either way, once Conte arrives, Chelsea will have had four managers more than Tottenham in the same period. I make Tottenham’s true count: David Pleat, Jacques Santini, Martin Jol, Juande Ramos, Harry Redknapp, Villas-Boas, Tim Sherwood and Pochettino. Moving away from the numbers, the other flaw in your piece is the idea that I was arguing that Tottenham have always had a method to admire. In fact, I’ve been highly critical of the interference from above at Tottenham, and the wild swings in strategy. One moment they wanted a continental model, then Redknapp was appointed who eschewed it, then back to Franco Baldini as director of football, now the same model but with a head of recruitment who is very closely allied to the manager, which is probably the ideal strategy. So it is really no wonder Tottenham have fallen short previously. Without Chelsea’s money, but with a half-baked structure, it was always going to be a battle. Plainly, as everyone understood – yours is the only post that took issue over Tottenham – it is Pochettino’s relationship with recruitment director Paul Mitchell and chairman Daniel Levy that is working well, and explains why Chelsea were interested in taking him.

Michael Emenalo has survived in his role at Chelsea as one manager after another is shown the door

Written by the same Martin Samuel who predicted Chelsea would retain their Premier League crown. Robbo, Edinburgh.

No, because I don’t do pre-season predictions. For exactly this reason: some twit would always want to throw it in your face as if you’ve claimed to be clairvoyant.

I hate Chelsea but this is a bogus argument. Yes they had 12 managers in 13 years but during this time they have won the Champions League, the Europa League and the Premier League . Arsenal have had the same manager for the last 12 years and they are yet to win the Champions League and last won the title since 2004. Paname Guy, United Kingdom.

He's not saying it isn't successful. He’s just saying it's hypocritical to have a different manager and new signings every six months and expect or want a coherent philosophy. James, London.

I really do feel that right now balloons and confetti should be falling from the sky, while the Hallelujah Chorus plays. It’s official! Someone gets it! His name is James and he’s from London. James, God bless you. James, if I could, I would reach through this laptop screen, and give you a big hug. I’m not saying you’d like that. I’m not saying I’d like it. But I thought you should know, all the same.

The record books don't have a philosophy column, they list trophies and Chelsea have plenty of those to prove this period has been fantastically successful for the club and fans. Philosophies for football clubs are shallow, their importance is a piece of naive nonsense for journalists to fill columns. No big club exists that isn't totally controlled by numbers, not philosophy. In a hundred years’ time this period in English football will be noted as belonging to Chelsea....little else will be relevant or remembered. Godsfinest, London.

Yes I can see that. For instance, the five titles that Manchester United have won compared to the four by Chelsea since Abramovich arrived appear to have been forgotten already. By you, for a start.

Chelsea missed their chance for stability and a philosophy by sacking Mourinho. The man is a born winner, as he has proved time and time again, and the players refused to believe in his methods which won Chelsea the league comfortably last season. I’ve lost respect for a lot of Chelsea players, especially Hazard. How Do, Co. Tyrone.

Me too, mate. Me too.

Why Abramovich still has so much time for the opinions and decisions of Emenalo is beyond me. He's overseen some of the worst transfers in 13 years. Falcao, for example. At United he was below average and they couldn’t get rid of him quick enough. Instead of building for the future and going for a big player or even scouring the lower leagues for talent in the mould of Jamie Vardy, we pick him up off the scrap heap along with some other mediocre half-hearted players who are along for a cosy season on the bench. If we don't sort this out soon we will turn into just another club going into the wilderness for the next decade. Churchy26, Luton.

I’m all for sharing the load here, and think Emenalo has got away with quite a lot, but isn’t Falcao on the books of Jorge Mendes, the same agent that represents Mourinho? I think the manager may be to blame for that one.

Chelsea had a brilliant philosophy with leaders like Frank Lampard, John Terry, Petr Cech, Didier Drogba and Ashley Cole. Solid counter-attacking football. The Daily Fail, India.

It was Mourinho’s philosophy, and it worked. At Chelsea, however, there is always someone who knows better.

Whoever is in charge next season has to start by recalling some loan players and giving our youth a chance. This is a great chance to build a young side for the future without European distractions and let's hope the manager will be allowed to do this. Shedender3, United Kingdom.

I’m sure the club will insist it wants nothing less. And then if he fails to involve Chelsea in those ‘European distractions’ in time for the following season, they will sack him.

Pathetic. Mourinho’s gone so now you go after the club’s philosophy, you turkey. Chelsea have got a great philosophy: it's called winning. Something the best owner on the planet demands. Sounds pretty good to me, even though it can be a rough ride at times. Ozblue, Sydney.

Not for you, though, mate, because you turn your television on and off and there your commitment begins and ends. Are you implying that I criticised Mourinho before turning on Chelsea; because anyone on here paying any kind of attention this season knows that isn’t true. I’m a fan of Mourinho’s work. And now to finish with, something that is a little off topic but needs to be said just the same.

Dear Martin, don't you find it tough to be in the same team as Craig Hope? Jlist, Brighton.