Discuss Pellegrini (Pt 2)

[gordondaviesmoustache]

a thread about counting scrotum hairs could amount to the same result compared to the Europa League offerings tonight.

The correct term is "scrote".

 

[The Future's Blue]

We pay some Spanish bloke a lot of money to do just that.

You match going massives barely cover the fucking electricity bill.

Check the finances at City next time you get a chance. Might clue you in as to why the last clown got sacked and why crying about not backing him was well wide of the mark ...

Ha ha ha

 

[cookster]

We pay some Spanish bloke a lot of money to do just that.

You match going massives barely cover the fucking electricity bill.

Check the finances at City next time you get a chance. Might clue you in as to why the last clown got sacked and why crying about not backing him was well wide of the mark ...

Idiotic post, thought you had more sense.

Your posts are getting more paranoid by the passing hours!

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

and the best your lot came up with was a man who's won even less.

Just sayin', didn't stop your out movement last season that dragged on and on till we got the 4-10th choice depending on the poster.

Certainly if you don't count winning trophies in S America but count trophies in Holland then yes, you're bang on he's won less. Otherwise, well you're wrong. Pellegrini and Hiddink have similar records. Only Pellegrini's star was shining a few months back ... Hiddink's half a decade ago.

South America is an entirely different continent, it is not beyond reasonable to look at those credentials with wariness particularly when those successes were also a decade ago.

 

[Danamy]

His record at Chelsea was unbelievable with a win rate in the 70's I believe but I'm with you that he's a spent force now.

Hiddink's Anzhi were painful on the eyes. They seemed to play in slow motion and it was like Mancini's early City team where we were dour and defensive, except much worse. Hiddink wasn't limited by budget at Anzhi and was able to sign some big hitters but the football was turgid.

The next manager after Pellegrini, whenever that may be (probably 2-3 years unless Pellegrini fails spectacularly), should be someone young and modern with fresh ideas - not Hiddink who is years older than Pellegrini who some have called 'old'. A lot of the best managers established or emerging now are young like Guardiola, Klopp, Simeone, Conte, De Boer, Laudrup, and AVB. All of them have very hard working and well organised teams (Spurs a work in progress but looking good). Mancini was a young coach too, but seemed to lack the tactical brain of the Guardiolas and Klopps, and so failed in Europe and had no answers when domestic teams sussed out his style (hence the increase in draws and defeats after that swashbuckling first half season).

For the record, that's the type of manager I wanted in this time around, the board chose to take the MP route so I'm happy to support that until the time is right for change.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

We pay some Spanish bloke a lot of money to do just that.

You match going massives barely cover the fucking electricity bill.

Check the finances at City next time you get a chance. Might clue you in as to why the last clown got sacked and why crying about not backing him was well wide of the mark ...

So at the end of the day this all boils down to your blind hatred of Mancini, doesn't it, Billy?
You are simply unable to debate without some sly dig regarding that bloke who won us stuff.
What is it with you, Billy?
Why can't you let it go?
Frankly your sorry obsession is becoming tedious.
You haven't got a clue what is going on at City.
So stop constantly putting down blues who actually do go, because you are little better than the average southern Skyrag.

 

[The-Dogs-Pollocks]

You match going massives barely cover the fucking electricity bill.

Check the finances at City next time you get a chance. Might clue you in as to why the last clown got sacked and why crying about not backing him was well wide of the mark ...

Yeah man thank fuck for your sky sub.

Manchester City Football Club Income Breakdown (per season)

Gate and matchday: £22m

TV and broadcasting: £88m

And the relevance of those figures to the Pellegrini debate is?

 

[cookster]

Yeah man thank fuck for your sky sub.

Manchester City Football Club Income Breakdown (per season)

Gate and matchday: £22m

TV and broadcasting: £88m

And the relevance of those figures to the Pellegrini debate is?

They ain't relevant. Just the ranting of a radical

 

[Danamy]

So is the current rationale amounts to 'nobody half decent is available, so we'll let the bloke we are saddled with carry on blindly fucking up and hoping for the best'?
It isn't our job to find a replacement Billy.
We pay some Spanish bloke a lot of money to do just that.

It's our job to chew the fat and we've certainly done that tonight, this thread gripped me more than the Swansea game that I had on in the background, that's for sure.

Who won?

Swans 1-0

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Yeah man thank fuck for your sky sub.

Manchester City Football Club Income Breakdown (per season)

Gate and matchday: £22m

TV and broadcasting: £88m

And the relevance of those figures to the Pellegrini debate is?

Oh my fucking days.
Billy is actually claiming to be a bigger blue than those of us who go because the Sky revenue is greater.
Fucking unbelievable Jeff.