DTKOAG
Well-Known Member
Forward with Manuel
Discussion: Manuel Pellegrini 2014/15 (continued)
- Thread starter Bill
- Start date
- Status
Marvin said:
I suspect that Ferran and Txiki can't sack Pellegrini as they were the ones who wanted Mancini out in the first place and Mancini is a friend of Khaldoon's. I imagine Khaldoon would think it pretty poor if these two came to him and said the manager's not good enough. He may well think they are not good enough.
I reckon all three will be gone at the end of the season. Obviously not Khaldoon.
S
S
Summerbuzz
Guest
Leadership involves a mixture of responsiveness and consistency. When things get serious, you choose one. We fucked that up, on the football front. Shit happens.
I'm more concerned with the public display of leadership. Not so much Pelle - he is right to offer himself as responsible, it's a proven management tactic when things go wrong. I thought he could have done so earlier, but at least he did. I'm much less happier that he offered up so many tantalising glimpses into what is going wrong, and yet is still saying 'I don't know' in one breath, and 'We have to win their trust" in the next. People trust those who know.
Anyway, my real concern is the PR, the representation of the heirachy's role in all of this. It's easy with hindsight to pick holes, but here we go.
We've heard;
"he's going nowhere."
A reasonable line to take.
But if you're taking that line, at least stick to it. Don't then come back in two weeks and say;
"We have no intention of sacking him. But there will be a review at the end of the season"
I mean, it's true, there was always going to be a review. But why say it now? It sounds like a change in tack.
Then it's
"He's not in danger until the end of the season. He'll survive if he keeps pace with Chelsea"
Huh. Another weakening. And it only took one game, for nearly everyone to agree that we have failed in that exact regard. Now you've helped create a situation where, in the week running up to the derby, according to what's been said, and what's occured, the manager is all but dead.
Now, apparently he is in danger, but only if top four is under threat.
Like the statement about keeping pace with Chelsea, we have a vague concept of success and failure - what exactly would constitute it being under threat? An unlucky draw against WHU, and everyone thinks, well, that's definitely it then, he's gone. If the club did not see it that way, that would be their right, but because the statement created an expectation in people, if they don't sack him, they look like they either can't, or are dithering.
A pretty abject lesson in how not to manage a crisis.
I'm more concerned with the public display of leadership. Not so much Pelle - he is right to offer himself as responsible, it's a proven management tactic when things go wrong. I thought he could have done so earlier, but at least he did. I'm much less happier that he offered up so many tantalising glimpses into what is going wrong, and yet is still saying 'I don't know' in one breath, and 'We have to win their trust" in the next. People trust those who know.
Anyway, my real concern is the PR, the representation of the heirachy's role in all of this. It's easy with hindsight to pick holes, but here we go.
We've heard;
"he's going nowhere."
A reasonable line to take.
But if you're taking that line, at least stick to it. Don't then come back in two weeks and say;
"We have no intention of sacking him. But there will be a review at the end of the season"
I mean, it's true, there was always going to be a review. But why say it now? It sounds like a change in tack.
Then it's
"He's not in danger until the end of the season. He'll survive if he keeps pace with Chelsea"
Huh. Another weakening. And it only took one game, for nearly everyone to agree that we have failed in that exact regard. Now you've helped create a situation where, in the week running up to the derby, according to what's been said, and what's occured, the manager is all but dead.
Now, apparently he is in danger, but only if top four is under threat.
Like the statement about keeping pace with Chelsea, we have a vague concept of success and failure - what exactly would constitute it being under threat? An unlucky draw against WHU, and everyone thinks, well, that's definitely it then, he's gone. If the club did not see it that way, that would be their right, but because the statement created an expectation in people, if they don't sack him, they look like they either can't, or are dithering.
A pretty abject lesson in how not to manage a crisis.
Millwallawayveteran1988
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2010
- Messages
- 38,485
robbieh said:
I assume they come as a pair because one certainly seems to do better than the other.
FanchesterCity
Well-Known Member
Millwallawayveteran1988 said:
Because if the players are controlling a manager's future, the club itself has lost control (because the players should never be the ones calling the shots).
I'm sure the club will pull the trigger, but based on their own timing. not the players. They'll also pull the trigger on a few of the players too, to make sure players know who is in charge. It's the only way they'll learn. They were lucky the first time with Mancini, it won't happen twice.
Depressing or just true? I said on the very first game that the players were complacent and we were going to do a Mancini all over again and here we are. I am not always down about City but what's going on at MCFC at the moment, given the players at this club, is shambolic.Ducado said:
- Status