samharris said:Maybe Hughes would have been given more time if he'd been brought in by the owners...who knows, but an important factor to add to the equasion.tolmie's hairdoo said:I agree to a certain extent, things go on all the time.
But as the dismissal of Hughes showed, sometimes clubs are forced to react to immediate situations.
My thinking too.scorer said:samharris said:Maybe Hughes would have been given more time if he'd been brought in by the owners...who knows, but an important factor to add to the equasion.
Hmmm.. we have a paradox here. Maybe they would have, but reality is they wouldn't have gone near to him with a barge pole.... if they had any sense... which they have.
samharris said:My thinking too.scorer said:Hmmm.. we have a paradox here. Maybe they would have, but reality is they wouldn't have gone near to him with a barge pole.... if they had any sense... which they have.
It is a very important factor and probably the whole crux of where we are now.samharris said:Maybe Hughes would have been given more time if he'd been brought in by the owners...who knows, but an important factor to add to the equasion.tolmie's hairdoo said:But as the dismissal of Hughes showed, sometimes clubs are forced to react to immediate situations.
tolmie's hairdoo said:Mancio said:some posts are really naive , to say the least...
how can anyone believe that the top managers may be moved at the end of a season , is well over my understanding.
both clubs and managers are used to do a thing that is called programming.
at this stage in season top clubs and top managers already knows where they'll work the next season.
I agree to a certain extent, things go on all the time.
But as the dismissal of Hughes showed, sometimes clubs are forced to react to immediate situations.
Re your first comment - see above. That's pretty well how it was, whatever you want to believe.Mancio said:i think the Hughes' dismissal only showed a thing : owner had found an alternative : mancini.
i'm sure you can agree with me that at this stage of the season both mourinho and mancini already knows (and have got agreements) where they'll work next season
Prestwich_Blue said:It is a very important factor and probably the whole crux of where we are now.samharris said:Maybe Hughes would have been given more time if he'd been brought in by the owners...who knows, but an important factor to add to the equasion.
Hughes wasn't the owners man as you say and they planned to replace him in the summer with a higher-profile manager, who had a good track record across leagues (particularly the Premiership) and in Europe. He found out, had a hissy fit and was sacked, either as the result of a "back me or sack me" ultimatum and/or because the club didn't want a "lame duck" manager for the latter half of the season.
So Mourinho was lined up for the summer (and that's the truth) with Mancini in to keep things moving. However, it was understood by all parties that if RM achieved spectacular success then he could be offered the job. The club were still talking to JM in April but it was clear his first-choice was the Madrid job. The fact that they were still trying to get a commitment from JM as late as that, suggests that they weren't that committed to RM.
His half-season didn't deliver anything spectacular and we aren't doing that much better this season so far (FA Cup aside so far but our first tough game is still to come) no one should be surprised if the owners are nervous and, despite their previous experience with him, would talk to a manager proven in 3 domestic leagues (including ours) and in Europe.
Time will tell on that one..I do like Mancini and i do hope he does the business for us but all decisions are down to the owners and what they decide goes, I will be happy to go with the owners on this..After all what choice do we have really, and if they balls up either way then thats down to them..If they get it right,it's down to them.. Still be a City fan.Prestwich_Blue said:It is a very important factor and probably the whole crux of where we are now.samharris said:Maybe Hughes would have been given more time if he'd been brought in by the owners...who knows, but an important factor to add to the equasion.
Hughes wasn't the owners man as you say and they planned to replace him in the summer with a higher-profile manager, who had a good track record across leagues (particularly the Premiership) and in Europe. He found out, had a hissy fit and was sacked, either as the result of a "back me or sack me" ultimatum and/or because the club didn't want a "lame duck" manager for the latter half of the season.
So Mourinho was lined up for the summer (and that's the truth) with Mancini in to keep things moving. However, it was understood by all parties that if RM achieved spectacular success then he could be offered the job. The club were still talking to JM in April but it was clear his first-choice was the Madrid job. The fact that they were still trying to get a commitment from JM as late as that, suggests that they weren't that committed to RM.
His half-season didn't deliver anything spectacular and we aren't doing that much better this season so far (FA Cup aside so far but our first tough game is still to come) no one should be surprised if the owners are nervous and, despite their previous experience with him, would talk to a manager proven in 3 domestic leagues (including ours) and in Europe.
Prestwich_Blue said:Re your first comment - see above. That's pretty well how it was, whatever you want to believe.Mancio said:i think the Hughes' dismissal only showed a thing : owner had found an alternative : mancini.
i'm sure you can agree with me that at this stage of the season both mourinho and mancini already knows (and have got agreements) where they'll work next season
Re your second - I think you're right. Hence why Mancini has the look of a man who doesn't want to be here anymore.