Chelsea have held an emergency meeting with head coach Graham Potter amid the team's disastrous run of form, according to reports.
Potter only arrived as boss in September but has been under immense pressure in recent weeks with the west London club massively struggling in all competitions despite spending over £600m on players since the summer.
The Blues have picked up just one win in their last 10 games and suffered a new low point on Saturday with a Premier League defeat to 20th-placed Southampton.
That result means they are currently 10th in the table - 11 points off the top four - following early exits from the Carabao Cup and FA Cup. They are still in the Champions League but lost their first-leg tie to Borussia Dortmund in the last 16.
Their downfall has led to co-owners Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali - who have repeatedly backed Potter - calling an emergency meeting with the former Brighton boss with talks held on Tuesday, according to the Evening Standard.
Boehly and Eghbali were keen to understand how Potter plans to turn Chelsea's fortunes around and it is understood that the Englishman's job is safe for now.
Gabriel Agbonlahor urged Chelsea to sack Potter for his post-match comments after Saturday's home defeat to Southampton.
Speaking after the shocking loss, Potter said: 'You have to see it for what it is. We had to make some changes because of the Champions League.
'We've had to make some changes because of the situation we're in and boys coming back from injury.
'When you make those changes, it can be difficult against a team that is well prepared.'
Agbonlahor was absolutely furious with those remarks as he told talkSPORT: 'He should be sacked for that post-match interview.
'What are you talking about? They haven't got a manager, you're playing a team in disarray who can't get back-to-back wins together.
'You're complaining that you've had to bring Mykhailo Mudryk off the bench and start Joao Felix? Are you joking me?
'Poor Graham! Poor you, Graham... Wow... I think as well... There is an English bias.'
Comments