Bellamy on Mancini and Robinho

[york away to this!]

apologies, michael douglas...

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Its pretty clear that Mancini had already marked Bellamy's card as trouble causing, agitiating, negative influence in the dressing room (which was correct) and decided to ship him out.
Regarding the question - with Bellamy who really knows? Was it Bellamy doing what Bellamy does best - causing trouble wherever he goes? The club doctor was in on the meeting so he would know the full extent and history of the knee problem in detail. Bellamy also goes onto say that he came into training the next day and trained anyway so just how acute was the problem?
So to briefly summarise: Bellamy was trying to take the piss (as usual) and met a manager who wasn't going to be fucked around.
Also lets not forget that Bellamy has also said in an interview since he left that he got it wrong with Mancini and 'should have tried harder'. But then again he could probably say that about the vast majority of the numerous managers he has played for down the years. A leopard doesn't change its spots and Bellamy has trouble written all over him.

The word is chronic not acute,hence Bellamy's expertise on his own knees......

Regarding the Dr at the time,was that Jamie Tandy or Phil Batty? Both of whom Mancini had dismissed/replaced for reasons of professional differences i believe - correct me if i'm wrong?

You're right about the leopard........

I think Jamie Tandy was the youth player Barton stubbed a cigar out on, iirc? So must have been the other guy, FI.

Batty didn't join until 2011 so it wouldn't have been him. And anyway Mancini sacked Batty for standing up to him over injuries and look what that did for our injury record.

 

[wythenshaweblue£££]

No denying Bellamy gave his all for city but just because he says Mancini was bad with him means he deserved to get sacked etc. Mancini was a winner and that was his way to manage city then so be it if he told him to train he's the bossy. Bellamy had a mouth on him and didnt like Mancini because Hughes got sacked in my eyes he was a disruption at city and at other clubs fact..

 

[Bluemoon115]

if he told him to train he's the bossy

Not if the way he demanded he train threatened both his career and long term quality of life.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Until Robinho arrived I can only pick out the first four months under Sven and Keegan's championship season as being the only times I've thoroughly enjoyed watching City in getting on for 20 years.

It's a very subjective viewpoint, obviously, but I'm surprised at this quote, Chris. Our promotion season in 2000 was hugely enjoyable. Redemption does that to you.

 

[macmanson]

Well his schedule was obviously not working if he had just been injured for 2 weeks.

Non-sequitur

-- Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:49 am --

Those words will be forever associated with Bellamy.

Answer the fucking question though.

Its pretty clear that Mancini had already marked Bellamy's card as trouble causing, agitiating, negative influence in the dressing room (which was correct) and decided to ship him out.
Regarding the question - with Bellamy who really knows? Was it Bellamy doing what Bellamy does best - causing trouble wherever he goes? The club doctor was in on the meeting so he would know the full extent and history of the knee problem in detail. Bellamy also goes onto say that he came into training the next day and trained anyway so just how acute was the problem?
So to briefly summarise: Bellamy was trying to take the piss (as usual) and met a manager who wasn't going to be fucked around.
Also lets not forget that Bellamy has also said in an interview since he left that he got it wrong with Mancini and 'should have tried harder'. But then again he could probably say that about the vast majority of the numerous managers he has played for down the years. A leopard doesn't change its spots and Bellamy has trouble written all over him.

Said article where Bellamy says he could have done more and actually takes responsibility for messing up his time with City.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-city-craig-bellamy-admits-1793004

 

[stonerblue]

Non-sequitur

-- Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:49 am --


Answer the fucking question though.

Its pretty clear that Mancini had already marked Bellamy's card as trouble causing, agitiating, negative influence in the dressing room (which was correct) and decided to ship him out.
Regarding the question - with Bellamy who really knows? Was it Bellamy doing what Bellamy does best - causing trouble wherever he goes? The club doctor was in on the meeting so he would know the full extent and history of the knee problem in detail. Bellamy also goes onto say that he came into training the next day and trained anyway so just how acute was the problem?
So to briefly summarise: Bellamy was trying to take the piss (as usual) and met a manager who wasn't going to be fucked around.
Also lets not forget that Bellamy has also said in an interview since he left that he got it wrong with Mancini and 'should have tried harder'. But then again he could probably say that about the vast majority of the numerous managers he has played for down the years. A leopard doesn't change its spots and Bellamy has trouble written all over him.

Said article where Bellamy says he could have done more and actually takes responsibility for messing up his time with City.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-city-craig-bellamy-admits-1793004

Thread over. Well played mamanson

 

[Бравый Дератизатор]

Always liked Bellers. The real fighter and the source of team spirit

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

No denying Bellamy gave his all for city but just because he says Mancini was bad with him means he deserved to get sacked etc. Mancini was a winner and that was his way to manage city then so be it if he told him to train he's the bossy.

So if you're not well and your boss tells you there's nothing wrong with you and he wants you in work then that's OK because he's the boss?

 

[Chris in London]

Until Robinho arrived I can only pick out the first four months under Sven and Keegan's championship season as being the only times I've thoroughly enjoyed watching City in getting on for 20 years.

It's a very subjective viewpoint, obviously, but I'm surprised at this quote, Chris. Our promotion season in 2000 was hugely enjoyable. Redemption does that to you.

Obviously there are some stand out memories along the way, but my abiding memory of the 99-00 promotion season is nail biting tension, not the joyous rampaging football we had later with Keegan. I thoroughly enjoyed the keegan promotion season because it was the first time in living memory where I woke up thinking not 'will we win', but 'how many will we win by?'

In 2000 I suppose also there was the feeling that having come straight up the year before we weren't actually ready for the prem - as proved to be the case. you will remember we got dicked 4-0 by Charlton on the opening day of the season after we were promoted. A rag taunted me that we hadn't even played a premiership team yet (Charlton had been promoted with us, you will remember) and we were already bottom.

Still, Having mentioned it, and a propos of nothing, you might remember towards the end of 1999 that we went top after we beat Charlton 1-0 away. At the time, a lad I know was doing some work at Charlton, and he gave Curbishley some stick on my behalf. Curbishley explained that they had been on something like a seven or eight game winning streak and that two of his players had found a 'lucky route' driving to the ground on match day. Then, when they played City, they had a new signing that they picked up on the way, so they had to make a detour from their lucky route and that was why they had lost.

I sent back the message that I thought it was because they hadn't picked up Goater at a corner...