3 year contract for Mancini

[awest]

I get the feeling Mancini loves Manchester City, whereas i get the feeling Jose loves, erm Jose.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

I get the feeling Mancini loves Manchester City, whereas i get the feeling Jose loves, erm Jose.

Are you psychic, then?

What's your feeling about the winner of the 2.45 at New Market tomorrow? I may have a fiver on it.

 

[Anonymous]

I get the feeling Mancini loves Manchester City, whereas i get the feeling Jose loves, erm Jose.

i'm pretty sure swp loves city but i wouldn't have him back.

 

[Helmet Cole]

Chelsea got an invite to the top table which they have dined at ever since because of Mourinho. The British press practically cum in there knickers when he is around. He understood that getting the press on side helps

This is simply NOT FECKIN TRUE and it's a total myth that Chelsea were nowhere before Mourinho. I wish people would stop repeating it because you just look foolish! Chelsea were ALREADY in Europe. Mourinho started at a much more improved position with Chelsea than Mancini did with us, so FFS give Mancini some credit.

Chelsea had already been in the Champions League for a few years BEFORE Mourinho came to the club, in the year before Mourinho was appointed manager they were in the Champions League SEMI-FINALS, so by definition they were already 'dining at Europe's top table'. In the year before Mourinho was manager they also finished SECOND in the Premier League, AHEAD OF MANCHESTER UNITED. Arsenal won the League, Chelsea 2nd and United 3rd.

So to pretend Chelsea were a bunch of naives is not true, they were already competing strongly in the League and Europe BEFORE Mourinho. They already had the experiences as a club and as players that we have not. I'm not taking anything away from Jose, he clearly pushed them that little bit further to actually win the Trophy's but to suggest they were not already at the highest level is not true and it does Mancini a dis service because he has been constantly improving City, starting from a lower base than Mourinho at Chelsea.

A lot of sense ifn this post. I've said for ages that too many blues are brainwashed by the rag press into thinking we should be winning everything straight away just because of the cash. The sheik buying city is not a direct parallel with Abramnovich at the chavs. They had already been knocking on the door both domestically and in Europe for a good few years during the Ken Bates period under a few managers. All their infrastructure had been sorted during this time and the Russian money and Jose were just the final piece of the jigsaw really. Lets not turn into rags just because of the cash - enjoy our slow and inevitable rise, just like you would enjoy slowly pulling out Rooneys fingernails with pliers.

 

[intheknow!]

Chelsea got an invite to the top table which they have dined at ever since because of Mourinho. The British press practically cum in there knickers when he is around. He understood that getting the press on side helps

This is simply NOT FECKIN TRUE and it's a total myth that Chelsea were nowhere before Mourinho. I wish people would stop repeating it because you just look foolish! Chelsea were ALREADY in Europe. Mourinho started at a much more improved position with Chelsea than Mancini did with us, so FFS give Mancini some credit.

Chelsea had already been in the Champions League for a few years BEFORE Mourinho came to the club, in the year before Mourinho was appointed manager they were in the Champions League SEMI-FINALS, so by definition they were already 'dining at Europe's top table'. In the year before Mourinho was manager they also finished SECOND in the Premier League, AHEAD OF MANCHESTER UNITED. Arsenal won the League, Chelsea 2nd and United 3rd.

So to pretend Chelsea were a bunch of naives is not true, they were already competing strongly in the League and Europe BEFORE Mourinho. They already had the experiences as a club and as players that we have not. I'm not taking anything away from Jose, he clearly pushed them that little bit further to actually win the Trophy's but to suggest they were not already at the highest level is not true and it does Mancini a dis service because he has been constantly improving City, starting from a lower base than Mourinho at Chelsea.

A lot of sense ifn this post. I've said for ages that too many blues are brainwashed by the rag press into thinking we should be winning everything straight away just because of the cash. The sheik buying city is not a direct parallel with Abramnovich at the chavs. They had already been knocking on the door both domestically and in Europe for a good few years during the Ken Bates period under a few managers. All their infrastructure had been sorted during this time and the Russian money and Jose were just the final piece of the jigsaw really. Lets not turn into rags just because of the cash - enjoy our slow and inevitable rise, just like you would enjoy slowly pulling out Rooneys fingernails with pliers.

You are right. This myth seems to have developed that Chelsea were minnows and nothing before Abramovich and then they got Russian money, Mourinho, loads of players and suddenly won everything overnight. The old, 'Chelsea haven't got any history' refrain, that was got up by the Scousers. But when you look at the facts it's not true. Chelsea haven't got history compared to Liverpool but not no history. People seem to forget before Abramovich they had another wealthy backer, who died in an air crash or something. So they'd had sustained investment for a long time, I think it was after he died that the club got into major financial difficulty. But in the 90's they won the FA Cup, UEFA Cup and UEFA Super Cup and as I say they were already above United when Jose came in. Jose did bring good players in as well but Ranieri bought Cech, Robben etc and he was the one who made Terry captain.

It annoys me because it's like people think, Mourinho took Chelsea from nothing to winners overnight so Mancini should do the same or Mancini is underachieving blah blah blah. When it's not true. Chelsea were an established 'top club' domestically and in Europe. Mancini needs to be given credit for winning us our first Trophy for decades and into the position where it is a major disappointment if we don't win the League. To turn a club like Man City into 'winners', that sweep all before in 2 and half seasons is impossible, literally impossible. It's never been done before, not even at Chelsea, despite the media brainwashing. So when people call for Mancini to be sacked, just remember what he has achieved in so little time and remember Chelsea were not unknowns before Jose. Maybe it's like others have said Mourinho's ego and character is so big that it does dominate a club, erasing memories of their history and clouding their future. For examples of that look no further than Chelsea and Inter Milan.

 

[Ragnarok]

This is simply NOT FECKIN TRUE and it's a total myth that Chelsea were nowhere before Mourinho. I wish people would stop repeating it because you just look foolish! Chelsea were ALREADY in Europe. Mourinho started at a much more improved position with Chelsea than Mancini did with us, so FFS give Mancini some credit.

Chelsea had already been in the Champions League for a few years BEFORE Mourinho came to the club, in the year before Mourinho was appointed manager they were in the Champions League SEMI-FINALS, so by definition they were already 'dining at Europe's top table'. In the year before Mourinho was manager they also finished SECOND in the Premier League, AHEAD OF MANCHESTER UNITED. Arsenal won the League, Chelsea 2nd and United 3rd.

So to pretend Chelsea were a bunch of naives is not true, they were already competing strongly in the League and Europe BEFORE Mourinho. They already had the experiences as a club and as players that we have not. I'm not taking anything away from Jose, he clearly pushed them that little bit further to actually win the Trophy's but to suggest they were not already at the highest level is not true and it does Mancini a dis service because he has been constantly improving City, starting from a lower base than Mourinho at Chelsea.

A lot of sense ifn this post. I've said for ages that too many blues are brainwashed by the rag press into thinking we should be winning everything straight away just because of the cash. The sheik buying city is not a direct parallel with Abramnovich at the chavs. They had already been knocking on the door both domestically and in Europe for a good few years during the Ken Bates period under a few managers. All their infrastructure had been sorted during this time and the Russian money and Jose were just the final piece of the jigsaw really. Lets not turn into rags just because of the cash - enjoy our slow and inevitable rise, just like you would enjoy slowly pulling out Rooneys fingernails with pliers.

You are right. This myth seems to have developed that Chelsea were minnows and nothing before Abramovich and then they got Russian money, Mourinho, loads of players and suddenly won everything overnight. The old, 'Chelsea haven't got any history' refrain, that was got up by the Scousers. But when you look at the facts it's not true. Chelsea haven't got history compared to Liverpool but not no history. People seem to forget before Abramovich they had another wealthy backer, who died in an air crash or something. So they'd had sustained investment for a long time, I think it was after he died that the club got into major financial difficulty. But in the 90's they won the FA Cup, UEFA Cup and UEFA Super Cup and as I say they were already above United when Jose came in. Jose did bring good players in as well but Ranieri bought Cech, Robben etc and he was the one who made Terry captain.

It annoys me because it's like people think, Mourinho took Chelsea from nothing to winners overnight so Mancini should do the same or Mancini is underachieving blah blah blah. When it's not true. Chelsea were an established 'top club' domestically and in Europe. Mancini needs to be given credit for winning us our first Trophy for decades and into the position where it is a major disappointment if we don't win the League. To turn a club like Man City into 'winners', that sweep all before in 2 and half seasons is impossible, literally impossible. It's never been done before, not even at Chelsea, despite the media brainwashing. So when people call for Mancini to be sacked, just remember what he has achieved in so little time and remember Chelsea were not unknowns before Jose. Maybe it's like others have said Mourinho's ego and character is so big that it does dominate a club, erasing memories of their history and clouding their future. For examples of that look no further than Chelsea and Inter Milan.

Only this

 

[FantasyIreland]

Great post Blue Haze.

I just can't fathom why there is so much support for Bobby when he's done very little to deserve it.This idea that we must keep him for the sake of continuity is rubbish,he's underachieved and simply isn't upto the task as our lame displays in the cups and our league collapse have proved.

Would people stick with AJ if Ronaldo was available??


Edit - Errr,Blue Haze,where the fook has your post gone??

 

[Blue Haze]

I deleted it, tired of arguing. If people want to diminish Mourinho's accomplishments while rationalising our poor European form and PL meltdown, let them.

 

[Ragnarok]

Great post Blue Haze.

I just can't fathom why there is so much support for Bobby when he's done very little to deserve it.This idea that we must keep him for the sake of continuity is rubbish,he's underachieved and simply isn't upto the task as our lame displays in the cups and our league collapse have proved.

Would people stick with AJ if Ronaldo was available??


Edit - Errr,Blue Haze,where the fook has your post gone??

Oh Right. Its a shock that people are supporting our current manager instead of needlessly speculating about someone who may not even come in all probability. What a terrible thing to do.

 

[Dubai Blue]

Great post Blue Haze.

I just can't fathom why there is so much support for Bobby when he's done very little to deserve it.This idea that we must keep him for the sake of continuity is rubbish,he's underachieved and simply isn't upto the task as our lame displays in the cups and our league collapse have proved.

Would people stick with AJ if Ronaldo was available??


Edit - Errr,Blue Haze,where the fook has your post gone??

Underachieved by finishing second at worst? We can't win the league every year you know. Even Mourinho finishes second occasionally