gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I'm an out-reach sort of guy.BobKowalski said:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Discuss Pellegrini
- Thread starter thenabster
- Start date
BluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,562
Supercity88 I read your post and admire your commitment and I hope every word you write turns out to be true. The issue that I have is not with Pellegrini and not with the club, but it is with a group of snipers and malcontents who moaned on all last season wanting the dismissal of Roberto Mancini. This is a post which sums an attitude up:-
"[BillyShears"]Fuck Mancini. He's history. A limited coach and horrible man who was taking our club backwards. Pellegrini deserves all the praise he's getting because he's not only a world class manager, but also a top man who will do what's best for City and not what's best only for him.
Funny as fuck the Mancini lovers who can't bring themselves to be positive about our new manager because they're still pining for the Italian. As well as being very transparent it's all a bit sad.”
You'll note that it oozes abuse but is short on argument. The nearest we get is that Mancini is a limited coach, a horrible man and that he took our club backwards, but we are not told why he was limited, horrible or how he took the club backwards. The anti-Mancini campaign always confined itself to vague statements such as that – they didn't expect to win the title every year but they did expect a “credible” title challenge, they expected progress in the CL, but no detail of how a credible challenge was to be known (“better than this season”!). Mancini could then be criticised for not meeting these “targets”. They were never defined so that he could never hit them.
We know that the board at City set the manager very precise targets at the start of each season. We know Mark Hughes had to get 72 points in season 2009-10 and we know that he didn't get the whole season to see if he was going to hit that target: he was dismissed in December 2009 because the famous “trajectory of results” made it pretty clear he was not going to do it after spending somewhere around £100 million and paying sky high wages. Now Roberto Mancini was not given 3 years to “see how he went”. The club were satisfied enough with his first 2 full seasons to give him a new 5 year deal – what got him the sack was his failure to meet targets set at the start of the season and Pellegrini was hired.
Now we find the Mancini process in reverse for Pellegrini. On July 25 in the “Are we 3rd best?” thread Billy Shears replied to the question:
“I think on paper we've got the strongest squad but football isn't played on paper. I would expect us to be in the top 3, and I'd like us to win the league. However, I understand you can't win everything so on that basis footballing progress, CL progress and a squad not falling apart at the seams is what I'd like for the season.” This is typical Billy Shears. It says nothing and it sets non targets so that Billy can appear like an Old Testament prophet next May to say that Pellegrini has hit them all and shown that he's “not only a world class manager, but also a top man who will do what's best for City and not what's best only for him.”
The trouble is vague and vacuous claptrap won't wash at City any more. Since 2008 the club has been pursuing a 10 year plan to become a self-financing club capable of competing with the world's best. Every season has to mark progress to that goal. So, what precise targets will you set Pelligrini, Billy? Put your money where your mouth is for once. How will be recognise adequate progress in the CL, where have we got to finish in the PL at the lowest, how many points must we get as a minimum, how will we recognise footballing progress if we see it – how many more goals must we score? Must we concede fewer? - and how will we know that the squad is not falling apart when you refuse to accept the testimony of Kun Aguero, Jack Rodwell and Pablo Zabaleta that it never was under Mancini?
Some of us want to know if you have any clear view of the future of this club rather than the settling of a personal grudge against a very successful manager. Some of us who have supported this club for a very long time through good times, bad times and very ugly times, and who don't want to see some jumped up know-it-all giving fans on here half baked and abusive sermons in place of precise reason. This is why posters find Billy Shears pompous and self-righteous.
"[BillyShears"]Fuck Mancini. He's history. A limited coach and horrible man who was taking our club backwards. Pellegrini deserves all the praise he's getting because he's not only a world class manager, but also a top man who will do what's best for City and not what's best only for him.
Funny as fuck the Mancini lovers who can't bring themselves to be positive about our new manager because they're still pining for the Italian. As well as being very transparent it's all a bit sad.”
You'll note that it oozes abuse but is short on argument. The nearest we get is that Mancini is a limited coach, a horrible man and that he took our club backwards, but we are not told why he was limited, horrible or how he took the club backwards. The anti-Mancini campaign always confined itself to vague statements such as that – they didn't expect to win the title every year but they did expect a “credible” title challenge, they expected progress in the CL, but no detail of how a credible challenge was to be known (“better than this season”!). Mancini could then be criticised for not meeting these “targets”. They were never defined so that he could never hit them.
We know that the board at City set the manager very precise targets at the start of each season. We know Mark Hughes had to get 72 points in season 2009-10 and we know that he didn't get the whole season to see if he was going to hit that target: he was dismissed in December 2009 because the famous “trajectory of results” made it pretty clear he was not going to do it after spending somewhere around £100 million and paying sky high wages. Now Roberto Mancini was not given 3 years to “see how he went”. The club were satisfied enough with his first 2 full seasons to give him a new 5 year deal – what got him the sack was his failure to meet targets set at the start of the season and Pellegrini was hired.
Now we find the Mancini process in reverse for Pellegrini. On July 25 in the “Are we 3rd best?” thread Billy Shears replied to the question:
“I think on paper we've got the strongest squad but football isn't played on paper. I would expect us to be in the top 3, and I'd like us to win the league. However, I understand you can't win everything so on that basis footballing progress, CL progress and a squad not falling apart at the seams is what I'd like for the season.” This is typical Billy Shears. It says nothing and it sets non targets so that Billy can appear like an Old Testament prophet next May to say that Pellegrini has hit them all and shown that he's “not only a world class manager, but also a top man who will do what's best for City and not what's best only for him.”
The trouble is vague and vacuous claptrap won't wash at City any more. Since 2008 the club has been pursuing a 10 year plan to become a self-financing club capable of competing with the world's best. Every season has to mark progress to that goal. So, what precise targets will you set Pelligrini, Billy? Put your money where your mouth is for once. How will be recognise adequate progress in the CL, where have we got to finish in the PL at the lowest, how many points must we get as a minimum, how will we recognise footballing progress if we see it – how many more goals must we score? Must we concede fewer? - and how will we know that the squad is not falling apart when you refuse to accept the testimony of Kun Aguero, Jack Rodwell and Pablo Zabaleta that it never was under Mancini?
Some of us want to know if you have any clear view of the future of this club rather than the settling of a personal grudge against a very successful manager. Some of us who have supported this club for a very long time through good times, bad times and very ugly times, and who don't want to see some jumped up know-it-all giving fans on here half baked and abusive sermons in place of precise reason. This is why posters find Billy Shears pompous and self-righteous.
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
BluessinceHydeRoad said:This is why posters find Billy Shears pompous and self-righteous.
That's nice. I've been accused of much worse than being vague self righteous and pompous. Highlights in the last 12 months include sad ****, spineless, dick, prick, balding with shit hair, laughing stock, snide, wretch, rag, thick as pig shit, sad, deluded, lobotomised, the cancer that keeps on spreading, and the village idiot.
It's any wonder I have friends on the forum!
Didsbury Dave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 38,062
BluessinceHydeRoad said:Supercity88 I read your post and admire your commitment and I hope every word you write turns out to be true. The issue that I have is not with Pellegrini and not with the club, but it is with a group of snipers and malcontents who moaned on all last season wanting the dismissal of Roberto Mancini. This is a post which sums an attitude up:-
"[BillyShears"]Fuck Mancini. He's history. A limited coach and horrible man who was taking our club backwards. Pellegrini deserves all the praise he's getting because he's not only a world class manager, but also a top man who will do what's best for City and not what's best only for him.
Funny as fuck the Mancini lovers who can't bring themselves to be positive about our new manager because they're still pining for the Italian. As well as being very transparent it's all a bit sad.”
You'll note that it oozes abuse but is short on argument. The nearest we get is that Mancini is a limited coach, a horrible man and that he took our club backwards, but we are not told why he was limited, horrible or how he took the club backwards. The anti-Mancini campaign always confined itself to vague statements such as that – they didn't expect to win the title every year but they did expect a “credible” title challenge, they expected progress in the CL, but no detail of how a credible challenge was to be known (“better than this season”!). Mancini could then be criticised for not meeting these “targets”. They were never defined so that he could never hit them.
We know that the board at City set the manager very precise targets at the start of each season. We know Mark Hughes had to get 72 points in season 2009-10 and we know that he didn't get the whole season to see if he was going to hit that target: he was dismissed in December 2009 because the famous “trajectory of results” made it pretty clear he was not going to do it after spending somewhere around £100 million and paying sky high wages. Now Roberto Mancini was not given 3 years to “see how he went”. The club were satisfied enough with his first 2 full seasons to give him a new 5 year deal – what got him the sack was his failure to meet targets set at the start of the season and Pellegrini was hired.
Now we find the Mancini process in reverse for Pellegrini. On July 25 in the “Are we 3rd best?” thread Billy Shears replied to the question:
“I think on paper we've got the strongest squad but football isn't played on paper. I would expect us to be in the top 3, and I'd like us to win the league. However, I understand you can't win everything so on that basis footballing progress, CL progress and a squad not falling apart at the seams is what I'd like for the season.” This is typical Billy Shears. It says nothing and it sets non targets so that Billy can appear like an Old Testament prophet next May to say that Pellegrini has hit them all and shown that he's “not only a world class manager, but also a top man who will do what's best for City and not what's best only for him.”
The trouble is vague and vacuous claptrap won't wash at City any more. Since 2008 the club has been pursuing a 10 year plan to become a self-financing club capable of competing with the world's best. Every season has to mark progress to that goal. So, what precise targets will you set Pelligrini, Billy? Put your money where your mouth is for once. How will be recognise adequate progress in the CL, where have we got to finish in the PL at the lowest, how many points must we get as a minimum, how will we recognise footballing progress if we see it – how many more goals must we score? Must we concede fewer? - and how will we know that the squad is not falling apart when you refuse to accept the testimony of Kun Aguero, Jack Rodwell and Pablo Zabaleta that it never was under Mancini?
Some of us want to know if you have any clear view of the future of this club rather than the settling of a personal grudge against a very successful manager. Some of us who have supported this club for a very long time through good times, bad times and very ugly times, and who don't want to see some jumped up know-it-all giving fans on here half baked and abusive sermons in place of precise reason. This is why posters find Billy Shears pompous and self-righteous.
It's rather comical that you say you have "no issue with the club" but then you keep attacking Billy for having the same opinion. I'm enjoying it.
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
Didsbury Dave said:It's rather comical that you say you have "no issue with the club" but then you keep attacking Billy for having the same opinion. I'm enjoying it.
This one posted after the Cardiff game that Blues were singing Mancini songs during the match. When challenged by people who were at the game he said "I heard it clearly on the Sky coverage" or words to that effect. When people who watched the game on Sky challenged that, he shifted gears completely and began pretending he had never made the comment.
supercity88
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 13,818
I am one of those fans of the club where loyalty probably clouds my judgement. I was loyal to the end to Mancini, he inherited Mark Hughes' side and took us further than we ever could have hoped. He won the FA Cup ending our trophy drought and beating the rags at Wembley, he won us the league in an up and down roller coaster season fitting to the way City do things. I have nothing but good things to say about him and what he did for the club. He has said he doesn't understand why he was sacked, he hasn't slated the club in any way and has been good to us fans.
As a fan I found at times we were slow in build up play and that we lacked that cutting edge or width. But whether Mancini was planning on addressing that this summer by signing Fernandinho and Navas who knows! Tactically whilst he gets slated on here, he managed to overhaul an 8 point deficit and whilst luck played a part, he dealt with the situation very well. In head to head battles with our rivals he normally came out on top. In Europe we did lack that tactical nouse and were often out played. But our luck was missing, we dominated Napoli at home and got pipped on the break and were unlucky not to get through the group. I think last season it played on Mancini's mind. He was sacked from Inter based on european performances and i think he tried to mix things up a bit too much. We didn't improve in the transfer window but that wasn't down to him not wanting to, that was because of us refusing agent fees and rightly so.
The club have wanted to restructure things and avoid embarrassing transfers like that of Sinclair. We have off loaded high wage earners and brought in a more structures wage system and bought good players withough paying over the odds (Fernandinho from Shakhtar was always going to cost a lot, they always sell for high prices). The whole holistic terminology that has since emerged was a way of subtly saying that Mancini wasnt willing to work within the way the club had decided to. I think Mancini wanted certain players regardless of their fees. The club have implemented a way of doing things, the manager gets a say on players but they will not pay anything for them. They also wanted someone with a record of nurturing younger players and bringing them through. I believe Pellegrini has already seen the EDS in action and I don't think Mancini attended many of their games.
The whole club has had a massive overhaul this summer in terms of coaches at the younger age groups and with wages in the first team and I think the Barca boys now have someone who is perfect to slot into their system. I do honestly believe Pellegrini will settle well and his methodical brain will mean we are strong tactically.
As I stated at the beginning though I am a bit of a head in the clouds loyal supporter. I thought Sinclair could have made an impact for us and many will write off what I say now because of that!!!
As a fan I found at times we were slow in build up play and that we lacked that cutting edge or width. But whether Mancini was planning on addressing that this summer by signing Fernandinho and Navas who knows! Tactically whilst he gets slated on here, he managed to overhaul an 8 point deficit and whilst luck played a part, he dealt with the situation very well. In head to head battles with our rivals he normally came out on top. In Europe we did lack that tactical nouse and were often out played. But our luck was missing, we dominated Napoli at home and got pipped on the break and were unlucky not to get through the group. I think last season it played on Mancini's mind. He was sacked from Inter based on european performances and i think he tried to mix things up a bit too much. We didn't improve in the transfer window but that wasn't down to him not wanting to, that was because of us refusing agent fees and rightly so.
The club have wanted to restructure things and avoid embarrassing transfers like that of Sinclair. We have off loaded high wage earners and brought in a more structures wage system and bought good players withough paying over the odds (Fernandinho from Shakhtar was always going to cost a lot, they always sell for high prices). The whole holistic terminology that has since emerged was a way of subtly saying that Mancini wasnt willing to work within the way the club had decided to. I think Mancini wanted certain players regardless of their fees. The club have implemented a way of doing things, the manager gets a say on players but they will not pay anything for them. They also wanted someone with a record of nurturing younger players and bringing them through. I believe Pellegrini has already seen the EDS in action and I don't think Mancini attended many of their games.
The whole club has had a massive overhaul this summer in terms of coaches at the younger age groups and with wages in the first team and I think the Barca boys now have someone who is perfect to slot into their system. I do honestly believe Pellegrini will settle well and his methodical brain will mean we are strong tactically.
As I stated at the beginning though I am a bit of a head in the clouds loyal supporter. I thought Sinclair could have made an impact for us and many will write off what I say now because of that!!!
ali benarbia's studs
Well-Known Member
alas the real pelle has landed!!!!
supercity88
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 13,818
Can we rename this thread the "Discuss Pellegrini/ slate each other for hating/supporting Mancini/ not going to games/going to games/ I'm more of a fan than you thread".
PS. Do we all support City at least? Can't we all just get along? I had a dream that one day all City fans would treat each other with respect, that one City fans child could happily play alongside another's without having to look at the other with contempt because they still respect Mancini.
PS. Do we all support City at least? Can't we all just get along? I had a dream that one day all City fans would treat each other with respect, that one City fans child could happily play alongside another's without having to look at the other with contempt because they still respect Mancini.