Discussion: Manuel Pellegrini 2014/15 (continued)

[mosssideblue]

I am miserable when City lose and happy when we win, that's the nature of being a football fan.

I am also a blue who has been following City for 40 years and I always like to treat people with a bit of respect.

In my opinion you're doing exactly what I have done many times in the past re Hughes, and Mancini and defended them against all comers because they were dear to you. But in hindsight when the club changes manager, the blinkers fall away and you can become objective.

Marv. I have no personal axe to grind with you but your recent posts actually contradict your said values.

We have been winning recently, yet your posts have remained morose. If you have been following City for 40 years (relevance?), you should be of a mature enough age to understand what your posting is overly negative with more than enough anti City sub tones contained within them, particularly towards the Manager and those above him.

Pellers isn't "dear to me" but I am able to appreciate that he is a good manager and deserves credit for his achievements. You however, refuse to acknowledge any credit that he has earnt either here or abroad and seem unable to apportion blame anywhere other that his doorstep. That is not treating people with respect.

You wax lyrical over Klopp, probably because he is more extrovert than Pellers, but if he does arrive, there is no guarantee anything will change in terms of performance or results. If Klopp is our manager next season and we have another mare, will you be banging on about wanting him out because he's clueless too?

You continue a crusade that suggests the City board are doing nothing behind the scenes to put things right, which, unless you are ITK, is pure speculation on your part.

No one would disagree with you that we have had a poor season, and you do have some support on BM thinking that it is all the managers fault, but the reality is it isn't.

I will be happy if Pellers is here next year and I will also respect the clubs decision if he is moved on, but I'm not convinced any new manager would have done better this season with the players we have.

At the risk of getting more peoples' backs up I think there are other factors too. Kompany earlier on in the season was very poor. He was tying really hard recently, but I think he and several of the players like Toure did not take the start of the season seriously or some of the Cup games. And that hasn't helped.

But the manager should be in control of that and deal with it. He should see it developing and try and respond in some way, although I accept in FFP and the days of player power, a manager can live and die by his players.

Getting beat by Barca in the end was no problem. But the performances against CSKA and the Cup games were really really bad. The home game against CSKA was absolutely shambolic for a team that is desperately trying to make an impression in Europe. I know a manager can not be held responsible for everything, but City have certainly stopped progressing as a team, and have gone quite a bit backwards. Most clubs go through a spell of 3 weeks or so where form dips, but this is 4 months. It must start ringing alarm bells at some point.

Of course it does, but my pushback to you was you continuously laid the blame only on the manager, whereby we all know there are many factors that contribute to a poor season.

 

[mosssideblue]

Marv. I have no personal axe to grind with you but your recent posts actually contradict your said values.

We have been winning recently, yet your posts have remained morose. If you have been following City for 40 years (relevance?), you should be of a mature enough age to understand what your posting is overly negative with more than enough anti City sub tones contained within them, particularly towards the Manager and those above him.

Pellers isn't "dear to me" but I am able to appreciate that he is a good manager and deserves credit for his achievements. You however, refuse to acknowledge any credit that he has earnt either here or abroad and seem unable to apportion blame anywhere other that his doorstep. That is not treating people with respect.

You wax lyrical over Klopp, probably because he is more extrovert than Pellers, but if he does arrive, there is no guarantee anything will change in terms of performance or results. If Klopp is our manager next season and we have another mare, will you be banging on about wanting him out because he's clueless too?

You continue a crusade that suggests the City board are doing nothing behind the scenes to put things right, which, unless you are ITK, is pure speculation on your part.

No one would disagree with you that we have had a poor season, and you do have some support on BM thinking that it is all the managers fault, but the reality is it isn't.

I will be happy if Pellers is here next year and I will also respect the clubs decision if he is moved on, but I'm not convinced any new manager would have done better this season with the players we have.

At the risk of getting more peoples' backs up I think there are other factors too. Kompany earlier on in the season was very poor. He was tying really hard recently, but I think he and several of the players like Toure did not take the start of the season seriously or some of the Cup games. And that hasn't helped.

But the manager should be in control of that and deal with it. He should see it developing and try and respond in some way, although I accept in FFP and the days of player power, a manager can live and die by his players.

Getting beat by Barca in the end was no problem. But the performances against CSKA and the Cup games were really really bad. The home game against CSKA was absolutely shambolic for a team that is desperately trying to make an impression in Europe. I know a manager can not be held responsible for everything, but City have certainly stopped progressing as a team, and have gone quite a bit backwards. Most clubs go through a spell of 3 weeks or so where form dips, but this is 4 months. It must start ringing alarm bells at some point.

Of course it does, but my pushback to you was you continuously laid the blame only on the manager, whereby we all know there are many factors that contribute to a poor season.

Marvin, read your pm but unable to respond. Can you elaborate in another pm?

 

[The-Dogs-Pollocks]

We can never be the behemoth without that acceptance. It's why Chelsea have still fell behind in a business and footballing sense over a decade after their takeover.

Our business model depends on our ability to attract new fans and give them something to emotionally hang their hat on in terms of "who Man City are", in the way that United, Arsenal and Liverpool have but Chelsea don't.

United fans rightly or wrongly could describe in great detail who United are as a club and if you got 100 fans to do this then 75% of them would be "on message" regarding Munich/the Busby Babes to the European Cup comeback, Alex Ferguson and Fergies Fledglings, constant youth development, the Stretford End and Best, Charlton and Law, etc. Arsenal fans would talk about Chapman's revolutions and then Wenger's revolutions on how he singlehandedly modernised the English game, how Arsenal play the best football and are single-minded in how they go about their business. Liverpool will talk about Shankly, the boot-room, Istanbul, Gerrard and Carragher and Owen and the rest of them.

My point is that each of these clubs have a mythos behind them that ties into their brand identity. Of course much of it is complete bollocks but that isn't important to the Beijing Massive who will watch Sky TV and listen to how these are "great clubs, different from any other". This obviously drives their revenue - not only because fans feel that certain traits that the club holds but also that advertisers will see that people associate these clubs with that trait and will want to cross-market themselves with them.

Chelsea have consistently struggled for revenue because they don't have this. They have the stink of new money, the image of oil baron running things, a suspect Russian in charge, no standardised way of playing football and a bunch of racist fans.

Again, this is obviously bollocks that doesn't take into account the great things that they have done but my point is that their brand image out in the wider world is not a positive one.

Our image is less vitriolic than Chelseas, and people tend to hate us less because of the local investments made and the fact that we don't really have many dislikeable players in our team. We do have the new money problem and we do have the oil baron problem and the FFP sanctions were extremely bad for us image wise, but outside of that we're doing better than Chelsea were in trying to pull back the stink of investment. With NYCFC and Melbourne we are creating new fans of the brand in the longer term - many of the NYCFC lot absolutely hate us now but these are the first responders/glory-hunting tossers who will be weeded out in the long run and their fanbase will become more sensible over time to see the shared relationship.

You talk of success and the need for it but I'd argue that in the modern global game, success alone isn't enough to build your business on top of and use not only Chelsea but many of the Italian clubs and the differences between Wolfsburg/Dortmund in Germany. We don't compete REALLY with the Evertons of the world in terms of building new sponsor relations and gaining a fanbase; we compete with Barca, Bayern, Real, United, Liverpool, Milan, Juve, Arsenal and Chelsea. They all have success as well so we're no different in that regard - what we're trying to do here is to create a "Man City Way".

To be honest, the Man City Way is basically what was always Typical City. But since the Swales Era the "brand" of our club has always been one of spectacular fuck ups with the opposite that people also claim to be part of the charm not being common enough. That's who we are to many outsiders and it's who we are to many City fans. We were essentially the bumbling but loveable sidekick of English football.

That isn't however who Abu Dhabi wants us to be. They as you point out want us to be liked and respected, rather than liked and patronised or respected but feared. They understand that this will help them achieve the goals that they have when buying the club and it will help us grow as a brand in the new battlegrounds of European football - the US, Africa and India. They want City to have a positive attitude in the minds of other people and unfortunately some sacrifices do need to be made around this idea, like not going and telling UEFA to fuck themselves and spending £500m.

We can talk on and on and on about the relative merits and faults with these ideas, but it's essentially fruitless as we'll conduct our business like that no matter what. We're not City's target audience any more, they already have us hooked. They are now arsed about the Chinese teenager shopping in their local sports shop and to get them to buy City's shirt, so that we have the revenues to compete with the biggest clubs in the world. Distasteful or not, it is the commercial realities of football in a UEFA driven world.

A good read that, nice one

Agree. Its a really interesting post on a very pertinent subject which is discussed under lots of different topics (Agenda etc). Is there a separate subject on Manchester City branding strategy (apologies if there is) but maybe Damocles post could kick it off? Big business spends millions on Branding. When its well done it is a very major factor in Corporate success. How well we do it is worth a discussion.

interesting if depressing read, We all know about the realities of the modern game (big business and all that) However for years and years we have derided utd for courting the asian market and being a brand rather than a football club.

It is upsetting that we are trying to become the very thing that we dispise. As for trying to appeal to new fans in far off coutries by creating a new persona for city, I think that is fundamentally flawed. For a start foreign fans are relatively fickle and a lot follow there favourite stars from club to club rather than delving into the history of their club of choice.

Also trying to portray us as something we are not just alienates the true supporters and from a branding perspective makes no sense at all.

The key to building a brand is creating a unique selling point to differentiate yourself from the competition, stand out and offer something new to potential customers. Whilst we dont have a history of success like the other european elite teams, We do have a history of struggle against the odds, a passionate loyal fan base and a unique personality to the club and fans that makes us different from Bayern, barca, utd and the rest.

If the club could build on this instead of attempting to turn us into Barca mk 2 we could create an alternative brand to whats already out there, without alienating the existing supporters.

Mcfc ok.

 

[sir baconface]

Well if they fire Mancini after a bad season, then Pelle wins the double, then has a bad season that gets him fired, that will look clearly like one bad seoason and you are out. Many of the football world dont go into details like Mancini created a bad dressing room etc , it will be seen especially by the media that one bad season and you are out.

But what if the new manager doesnt start with a trophy but with a bad season? With quite a big rebuilding of the squad, gel time will be needed probably to some extent while rivals wont slow down when it comes to improtant transfers.

But to keep Pelle just because what they will say about our stability otherwise well decision needs to be made what more important, the image or the actual improvement.

Its kinda funny because vast majority of football supporters have extremely bad opinion about City, mercenary, oil money, bought success, buy expensive players, turn them into flops, sell low price, not giving youuth a chance thats the image we have. The more success we will have the more they will hate our Arabs...
It wont be many better imo even if we will have break even seasons after break even seasons and finally a manager that will bring trough youth players.

Most of the time Abu Dhabi gets mentioned trough us in press its not look what they have done for City, how great all of this is, but moneybags, Oil club, FFP cheater Arabs etc...

Ironic really because that's a microcosm of numerous threads on here. We turn on outsiders when they say it. However our self-image pretty faithfully mirrors this outside image when things aren't going well.

 

[NQCitizen]

Hart was a Shrewsbury youth, everybody knew that. He has never been synonymous with mcfc's development of a young player. Neither have Barry, lesscott or Johnson. They are not recognised as mcfc products. On the contrary they are probably regarded as mercenaries from an outside point of view. Bought with oil money. The very reason we are not getting the recognition the owners clearly want. Richards was never around the national team long enough to really advertise mcfc youth Development. You look at Southampton, praised from pillar to post for their work, simply because of their youth programme and English talent at that. Respected through out the game because of it. They havnt won diddly for yonks but still get the plaudits. This is what the owners want I believe. From a business point of view from a brand point of view and from an Abu Dhabi point of view.

even then Southampton aren't selling shirts in Hong Kong by the minute.

Realistically to appeal globally to fans through two factors that are perhaps most universally relatable - success and adversity.

Real - the galacticos, the all white kit.

Barca - style, and the adversity of Real as competition.

Bayern - an almost mechanical dominant way.

United - the adversity of Munich, the Fergie era, the class of 92

Liverpool - mostly adversity (Hillsborough) Istanbul, an underdog attitude.

Dortmund - the adversity of rivalling Bayern, the underdog with a charismatic leader.

They're wafer thin identities but for a kid from south asia they're instantly distinguishable.

For us -

squandering it and our biggest recent adversity is being gifted hundreds of millions.

So we can see success as a common thread that cancels each other out. I'll do it above and it sort of shows why we're struggling a little.

As you can see when we stack up against them to that South Asian mindset (and it isn't just South Asians obviously), we're lacking. This is what Soriano and Begiristain are trying to accomplish - to give us something after that which makes us us.

It's interesting to see how the branding of the club has changed since the takeover. We went from no brand to "Manchester's Club" under Cook to no brand to now establishing one through the holistic model under Soriano. We have to stop pissing about in this regard and just let the people do their work. Executives cannot function if they are working on timescales of 3 years, we need to let them execute their plan and you'd think that we'd be much more established as a brand if the Cook/Nedum thing hadn't happened and he was still around to continue to shape his vision of who we are over the longer term.

I think an interesting point is that we don't just need success we need a satisfying framing of that success.

The way that Real treat success is so different to the way United would present a success of theirs.

Even when we win things in marketing terms we need to somehow sculpt a larger narrative around those victories, which is as I see it is what 'holistic' and CFG and CFA is about - the club that grew itself.

But even then as our identifying factor that's much harder to promote and proliferate than individual points in time such as world famous matches and disasters.

Essentially we had the perfect moment after the 3-2

That moment.
Aguero a season or so from being regarded as one of the absolute top 5.
Mancini an icon that was synonymous with the club.
Kompany a genuinely dominant captain.

Chelsea haven't even really had that moment - we got ours too soon.

 

[The-Dogs-Pollocks]

even then Southampton aren't selling shirts in Hong Kong by the minute.

Realistically to appeal globally to fans through two factors that are perhaps most universally relatable - success and adversity.

Real - the galacticos, the all white kit.

Barca - style, and the adversity of Real as competition.

Bayern - an almost mechanical dominant way.

United - the adversity of Munich, the Fergie era, the class of 92

Liverpool - mostly adversity (Hillsborough) Istanbul, an underdog attitude.

Dortmund - the adversity of rivalling Bayern, the underdog with a charismatic leader.

They're wafer thin identities but for a kid from south asia they're instantly distinguishable.

For us -

squandering it and our biggest recent adversity is being gifted hundreds of millions.

So we can see success as a common thread that cancels each other out. I'll do it above and it sort of shows why we're struggling a little.

As you can see when we stack up against them to that South Asian mindset (and it isn't just South Asians obviously), we're lacking. This is what Soriano and Begiristain are trying to accomplish - to give us something after that which makes us us.

It's interesting to see how the branding of the club has changed since the takeover. We went from no brand to "Manchester's Club" under Cook to no brand to now establishing one through the holistic model under Soriano. We have to stop pissing about in this regard and just let the people do their work. Executives cannot function if they are working on timescales of 3 years, we need to let them execute their plan and you'd think that we'd be much more established as a brand if the Cook/Nedum thing hadn't happened and he was still around to continue to shape his vision of who we are over the longer term.

I think an interesting point is that we don't just need success we need a satisfying framing of that success.

The way that Real treat success is so different to the way United would present a success of theirs.

Even when we win things in marketing terms we need to somehow sculpt a larger narrative around those victories, which is as I see it is what 'holistic' and CFG and CFA is about - the club that grew itself.

But even then as our identifying factor that's much harder to promote and proliferate than individual points in time such as world famous matches and disasters.

Essentially we had the perfect moment after the 3-2

That moment.
Aguero a season or so from being regarded as one of the absolute top 5.
Mancini an icon that was synonymous with the club.
Kompany a genuinely dominant captain.

Chelsea haven't even really had that moment - we got ours too soon.

Very much doubt the spainiards are in charge of our marketing strategy.

 

[NQCitizen]

So we can see success as a common thread that cancels each other out. I'll do it above and it sort of shows why we're struggling a little.

As you can see when we stack up against them to that South Asian mindset (and it isn't just South Asians obviously), we're lacking. This is what Soriano and Begiristain are trying to accomplish - to give us something after that which makes us us.

It's interesting to see how the branding of the club has changed since the takeover. We went from no brand to "Manchester's Club" under Cook to no brand to now establishing one through the holistic model under Soriano. We have to stop pissing about in this regard and just let the people do their work. Executives cannot function if they are working on timescales of 3 years, we need to let them execute their plan and you'd think that we'd be much more established as a brand if the Cook/Nedum thing hadn't happened and he was still around to continue to shape his vision of who we are over the longer term.

I think an interesting point is that we don't just need success we need a satisfying framing of that success.

The way that Real treat success is so different to the way United would present a success of theirs.

Even when we win things in marketing terms we need to somehow sculpt a larger narrative around those victories, which is as I see it is what 'holistic' and CFG and CFA is about - the club that grew itself.

But even then as our identifying factor that's much harder to promote and proliferate than individual points in time such as world famous matches and disasters.

Essentially we had the perfect moment after the 3-2

That moment.
Aguero a season or so from being regarded as one of the absolute top 5.
Mancini an icon that was synonymous with the club.
Kompany a genuinely dominant captain.

Chelsea haven't even really had that moment - we got ours too soon.

Very much doubt the spainiards are in charge of our marketing strategy.

I don't really understand how the CEO wouldn't have any control on that.

 

[The-Dogs-Pollocks]

I think an interesting point is that we don't just need success we need a satisfying framing of that success.

The way that Real treat success is so different to the way United would present a success of theirs.

Even when we win things in marketing terms we need to somehow sculpt a larger narrative around those victories, which is as I see it is what 'holistic' and CFG and CFA is about - the club that grew itself.

But even then as our identifying factor that's much harder to promote and proliferate than individual points in time such as world famous matches and disasters.

Essentially we had the perfect moment after the 3-2

That moment.
Aguero a season or so from being regarded as one of the absolute top 5.
Mancini an icon that was synonymous with the club.
Kompany a genuinely dominant captain.

Chelsea haven't even really had that moment - we got ours too soon.

Very much doubt the spainiards are in charge of our marketing strategy.

I don't really understand how the CEO wouldn't have any control on that.

he will obviously have some input, but he wont be the person who comes up with the ideas or strategy

 

[blueparrot]

Very much doubt the spainiards are in charge of our marketing strategy.

I don't really understand how the CEO wouldn't have any control on that.

he will obviously have some input, but he wont be the person who comes up with the ideas or strategy

Well they are branding the Aguero moment with the 93.20 blocks and using it around the cfa

 

[The-Dogs-Pollocks]

I don't really understand how the CEO wouldn't have any control on that.

he will obviously have some input, but he wont be the person who comes up with the ideas or strategy

Well they are branding the Aguero moment with the 93.20 blocks and using it around the cfa

Again i woild doubt that would have been soriano's idea, there will be a marketing team with people at various levels who will then get an ad agency to pitch for the mcfc tender, in fact they will have a roster of approved agencies. The marketing ideas will be formulated by a combination of the agencies and internal marketing team.