David Bernstein Q&A for KOTK

[jrb]

He wasn't at the club then so I'm not sure he's in the know on that but I do know that story.

Mancini had burnt his bridges with the club some time before, over his refusal to work with a Director of Football and his incessant financial demands, plus the breakdown of relations with just about every player. In hindsight, we should have let him go in 2012, right after the title win.

But make no mistake, he was 100% going at the end of the 2012/13 season and that decision had been pretty well made by March. It was rubber-stamped at a board meeting on the 4th April.

Obviously we needed a new manager and had targeted Pellegrini. However so had Barcelona and there was no love lost between us and them at the time. My understanding is that they leaked the news just before that Wigan game and that left City with little choice but to bring forward the sacking by a couple of weeks.

Thanks PB.

Very interesting.

That day will haunt the club and the fans forever.

I’m still not over it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

As there is no time limit for charges, is there anything from his time in charge that we should be shitting it about.

The general background and biographical stuff and his involvement with City that you know much better than me, obviously, then maybe his views on:

The key developments in how football finance has changed since he became involved?

How the big European clubs influenced FFP?

How the big English clubs are influencing the PL investigation?

The independent regulator and would he like to be involved?

The proposed rules for a salary cap based on broadcast revenues?

The legitimacy of rules around sponsorship from "associated" parties?

Does he think Daniel Levy is a turd?

 

[Ste68]

I know the answer to that as he told me a few years ago. It was all about Robbie Fowler. Keegan wanted to buy him but Bernstein wasn't happy for various reasons and wanted to reduce any perceived risk, due to Fowler's injury record mainly, plus he was suspicious that Fowler was just using us as a stepping stone to go back to Liverpool.

Although Bernstein was chairman, and pretty well executive chairman, John Wardle was the major shareholder. KK went to Wardle, who backed him over Bernstein. So Bernstein resigned as he felt his position was then untenable.

Wardle is a lovely man who i've had the pleasure to meet on a couple of occasions and he put his money into the club at some risk. But he was, in my opinion, a poor chairman and his action over Fowler was just one manifestation of that. He was probably too nice to say no to Keegan and wasn't hard enough on Mackintosh once he became CEO.

That’s what I had heard both from people involved in the medicals (know people who worked with medical staff at both Leeds and City who said both clubs had been given huge warnings as to his condition without obviously sharing specifics) and also had been invited to lunch with Keegan along with sponsors when he had cut it very short because we later found out a deal had been pulled. Sponsors not impressed and you could tell something had kicked off ( thought he was about to be sacked at the time). I never made it to the lunch while Keegan was still so was doubly disappointed thinking he’d got the sack .

 

[The Lone Whalley Ranger]

I know the answer to that as he told me a few years ago. It was all about Robbie Fowler. Keegan wanted to buy him but Bernstein wasn't happy for various reasons and wanted to reduce any perceived risk, due to Fowler's injury record mainly, plus he was suspicious that Fowler was just using us as a stepping stone to go back to Liverpool.

Although Bernstein was chairman, and pretty well executive chairman, John Wardle was the major shareholder. KK went to Wardle, who backed him over Bernstein. So Bernstein resigned as he felt his position was then untenable.

Wardle is a lovely man who i've had the pleasure to meet on a couple of occasions and he put his money into the club at some risk. But he was, in my opinion, a poor chairman and his action over Fowler was just one manifestation of that. He was probably too nice to say no to Keegan and wasn't hard enough on Mackintosh once he became CEO.

Thanks Colin. Bernstein is probably too nice to go into this, but I wonder if he feels vindicated on his more fiscally prudent stance, given much of the spending at the backend of the Keegan era and into Pearce’s time wasn’t well spent…

 

[halfcenturyup]

He wasn't at the club then so I'm not sure he's in the know on that but I do know that story.

Mancini had burnt his bridges with the club some time before, over his refusal to work with a Director of Football and his incessant financial demands, plus the breakdown of relations with just about every player. In hindsight, we should have let him go in 2012, right after the title win.

But make no mistake, he was 100% going at the end of the 2012/13 season and that decision had been pretty well made by March. It was rubber-stamped at a board meeting on the 4th April.

Obviously we needed a new manager and had targeted Pellegrini. However so had Barcelona and there was no love lost between us and them at the time. My understanding is that they leaked the news just before that Wigan game and that left City with little choice but to bring forward the sacking by a couple of weeks.

That all sounds about right to me, but I have always thought the club wanted Guardiola at that time (2012 even but Mancini put the kibosh on that by winning the league), but that he didn't want to take the job on after the shitshow that was the 2012/3 season. So he went to Bayern and we moved onto Pellegrini as a temporary measure. I am a KFA but does any of that make any sense?

 

[Revolver]

I am curious to know if Bernstein and Joe Royle were ever reconciled following on from what happened with Royles sacking.

Always thought it was a shame them falling out after what they did for the club regardless of who was right or wrong.

(Appreciate he may not want to discuss this or it’s deemed too an obscure question to ask).

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Thank him for steadying the ship, shame Kev couldn't work under his rules.

Met David at an open day and had a few words with him.....really nice bloke.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

That all sounds about right to me, but I have always thought the club wanted Guardiola at that time (2012 even but Mancini put the kibosh on that by winning the league), but that he didn't want to take the job on after the shitshow that was the 2012/3 season. So he went to Bayern and we moved onto Pellegrini as a temporary measure. I am a KFA but does any of that make any sense?

There’s definitely some truth in that. I believe that if Sergio hadn’t scored Pep would have become manager in 2012. What I don’t know is why he took the Bayern job in 2013. Maybe he got fed up of waiting because on that cup final day it was already an open secret that Pellegrini was next. Pellegrini already knew that Pep was following him.

My guess on Pep taking Bayern is that he wanted to see how FPP played out.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

What were the clubs plans for the 1999-2000 season if we had remained in division 2?

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

He wasn't at the club then so I'm not sure he's in the know on that but I do know that story.

Mancini had burnt his bridges with the club some time before, over his refusal to work with a Director of Football and his incessant financial demands, plus the breakdown of relations with just about every player. In hindsight, we should have let him go in 2012, right after the title win.

But make no mistake, he was 100% going at the end of the 2012/13 season and that decision had been pretty well made by March. It was rubber-stamped at a board meeting on the 4th April.

Obviously we needed a new manager and had targeted Pellegrini. However so had Barcelona and there was no love lost between us and them at the time. My understanding is that they leaked the news just before that Wigan game and that left City with little choice but to bring forward the sacking by a couple of weeks.

Mancini's financial demands? was he demanding to be paid more?