Jose for City? (merged)

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: Jose for City?

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.

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

The appointment of Mancini was an alternative, it was not their primary one.

He was right time, right place - nothing more.

Our owners, quite rightly, had identified Hughes was not the man to take us forward and a run of draws, resulted in them making a snap decision.

It was also a result of particular personal issues.

On your last point, agreements mean nothing in football at this stage.

I'll agree that both Mourinho and Mancini will have a decent idea how the current land lies, but there are plenty of things to play out.

 

[Wellsblue21]

Re: Jose for City?

For the mancini outers' which im not, do you realise the type of style Mourinho brings? similar to Mancini, which is why some Real Madrid fans resent him as he hs taken away some of their flair etc.

 

[Mancio]

Re: Jose for City?

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

The appointment of Mancini was an alternative, it was not their primary one.

He was right time, right place - nothing more.

Our owners, quite rightly, had identified Hughes was not the man to take us forward and a run of draws, resulted in them making a snap decision.

It was also a result of particular personal issues.

On your last point, agreements mean nothing in football at this stage.

I'll agree that both Mourinho and Mancini will have a decent idea how the current land lies, but there are plenty of things to play out.

i think i'd answered to your post in my above. read it please.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: Jose for City?

It is a very important factor and probably the whole crux of where we are now.

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.

your source are shit mate. everyone in the football world known mourinho signed with real madrid in february.

I'll give you that. My comment was inaccurate. I think they ceased talking to JM in early March but they were looking at alternatives (including Hiddink) after that. End result is the same.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: Jose for City?

The appointment of Mancini was an alternative, it was not their primary one.

He was right time, right place - nothing more.

Our owners, quite rightly, had identified Hughes was not the man to take us forward and a run of draws, resulted in them making a snap decision.

It was also a result of particular personal issues.

On your last point, agreements mean nothing in football at this stage.

I'll agree that both Mourinho and Mancini will have a decent idea how the current land lies, but there are plenty of things to play out.

i think i'd answered to your post in my above. read it please.

I had read it, hence the above reply.

You are mistaken that Hughes was sacked bacause Mancini had been sourced.

Hughes was a dead man walking for three weeks!

Hiddink was approached before Mancini made himself available after gardening leave and final settlement had been paid by Inter.

 

[Mancio]

Re: Jose for City?

your source are shit mate. everyone in the football world known mourinho signed with real madrid in february.

I'll give you that. My comment was inaccurate. I think they ceased talking to JM in early March but they were looking at alternatives (including Hiddink) after that. End result is the same.

another bollocks by you mate. everyone well know hiddink is out of the game coz he never want to manage at club level. so is very naive to believe City owner didnt know it. i think you should respect a bit more City owner and officials , they dont are so naive as you seem to think.

 

[zoffie]

Re: Jose for City?

I think the chances of Mourinho leaving Madrid has taken a knock..
Stronger efforts will be made to keep him now he's broken a hoodoo.

Will he be convinced to stay? If you want him you have to be aggressive.

 

[jimharri]

Re: Jose for City?

For the mancini outers' which im not, do you realise the type of style Mourinho brings? similar to Mancini, which is why some Real Madrid fans resent him as he hs taken away some of their flair etc.

And trophies. Managed the domestic league champions in 3 different countries, won the CL with two different sides (one of them, Porto, not particularly fancied). Don't know how many domestic cup competitions he's won in his career (too lazy to be bothered googling it). Took Chelsea from a top 4 side onto the next level; champions.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Re: Jose for City?

I'll give you that. My comment was inaccurate. I think they ceased talking to JM in early March but they were looking at alternatives (including Hiddink) after that. End result is the same.

another bollocks by you mate. everyone well know hiddink is out of the game coz he never want to manage at club level. so is very naive to believe City owner didnt know it. i think you should respect a bit more City owner and officials , they dont are so naive as you seem to think.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/guus-hiddink-turned-down-offers-to-manage-manchester-city-juventus/story-e6frf423-1225917006192" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/gu ... 5917006192</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/8420393.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 420393.stm</a>

Obviously you weren't a City fan then to it's understandable you never saw this story hit the press.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: Jose for City?

I'll give you that. My comment was inaccurate. I think they ceased talking to JM in early March but they were looking at alternatives (including Hiddink) after that. End result is the same.

another bollocks by you mate. everyone well know hiddink is out of the game coz he never want to manage at club level. so is very naive to believe City owner didnt know it. i think you should respect a bit more City owner and officials , they dont are so naive as you seem to think.

Mancio, you are letting your admiration for Mancini getting in the way of the facts.

You are also being disrespectful to people who know a little more, don't just think it because they share a common language with our current manager.

Garry Cook made an official approach to Hiddink and his agent about taking the job until the summer.

The owners were not aware as to Hiddink's standpoint, which is why Cook used his former Nike connection with Hiddink to establish it.

Why are you spoiling for a fight, when other points you have raised, can be agreed upon?