Martin Lipton on Carlo's sacking

The end came brutally, before they had even left Liverpool.

A summons to see chief executive Ron Gourlay at Goodison Park, seconds after completing his final press conference, a brief ­conversation, a parting of the ways.

Almost exactly 12 months after guiding Chelsea to their first domestic Double, Carlo Ancelotti became the latest man spat back out of the revolving managerial doors.

But Ancelotti’s fate was sealed at what should have been his moment of greatest strength.

In the aftermath of that triumph, Ancelotti was at the peak of his powers at Stamford Bridge.

He had failed in delivering Roman Abramovich’s main target, the Holy Grail of the Champions League, but the astonishing response to that setback should have enabled the Italian to do the job on his own terms.

Instead, when the Chelsea hierarchy outlined their new strategy for the future, stripping away some of the big-earning senior players and promoting from the youth ranks, Ancelotti acquiesced.

Economics were given priority over football, an error ­effectively acknowledged with the £71million panic purchases of Fernando Torres and David Luiz at the end of January.

And it was the mistake that was the tipping point of his spell.

Publicly, even last week, ­Ancelotti was loyally insisting he backed that policy, that it was not an error to let Michael Ballack, Ricardo Carvalho, Joe Cole, Juliano Belletti and Deco go, to put blind faith in the potential of Josh McEachran, Jeffrey Bruma, Patrick van Aanholt, Fabio Borini and Gael Kakuta.

As, too, he denied the sacking of Ray Wilkins, right at the start of the “bad moment” that lasted three months and led to the season finishing empty-handed, was a factor in the failure of the campaign. Privately, though, Ancelotti feels differently, the loss of Ballack was the key ­departure.

Ballack – who, after all, merely wanted a two-year deal for the same total money as was on the table for 12 months – was more than just a player in the squad.

He was a significant and galvanising figure within the dressing room, a bulwark between the England core led by John Terry and the overseas, African powerhouses.

A man who would call it on when required. A leader in a squad that requires ­leadership. That squad, so strong at the end of last season, looked so thin at the start of this one, with Ramires taking six months to find his feet, Yossi Benayoun out for virtually the season.

The kids were not ready. Only Kakuta, Bruma – and when the season was over - McEachran started a league game. Apart from the English youngster, the rest went out on loan.

Ballack would have provided ballast but instead, as Ancelotti only conceded in January, he was left with a first-team squad of 16 players, nine of whom – Hilario, Terry, Paulo Ferreira, Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard, Benayoun, Nicolas Anelka, Florent Malouda and Didier Drogba – were 30 or over by the end of the season.

It meant the same players having to play, making injuries more likely.

And when freak incidents saw Lampard missing for four months, Benayoun crocked and Drogba a pale imitation of his customary self after contracting malaria, the lack of strength in depth was magnified.

And, of course, the loss of Wilkins added to the sense of inertia and disarray. Ancelotti – never confrontational – accepted the decision too easily, his failure to even make an effort to keep the man he had inherited as his assistant leaving players questioning his strength of character.

If he wasn’t prepared to go in to bat for his right-hand man, they argued, why would he do it for them?

Wilkins’ enforced departure coincided with the start of the three-month slump that saw Chelsea drop 23 points out of 33. and Abramovich suddenly decided to break the bank at the end of January.

In came Luiz, who clearly has talent but is not the finished product. And of course Torres, who frankly, looks finished.

So while there will be plenty willing to take Abramovich’s shilling and become the seventh Chelsea boss of the last seven years, Ancelotti’s departure changes the frame of the debate.

Proper clubs don’t act like that. You only go there, now, for the pay-off.