Jose for City? (merged)

[Mancio]

Re: Jose for City?

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.

Mancini resolved his contract with Inter Milan on October 30. just when josè informed City no longer be considered an option.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Re: Jose for City?

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.

Mancini resolved his contract with Inter Milan on October 30. just when josè informed City no longer be considered an option.

Any comments on Hiddink?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: Jose for City?

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.

I'll let Mancio hazard a guess as to who currently bankrolls the Russian FA and Hiddink's salary at the time...

He likes caviar.

 

[Mancio]

Re: Jose for City?

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.

if you believe to what is writing from that papers i suddenly understand the why you often seem to come from mars.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Re: Jose for City?

<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.

I'll let Mancio hazard a guess as to who currently bankrolls the Russian FA and Hiddink's salary at the time...

He likes caviar.

Yep. And provides the reason the bigmouth agent spilt the story before Hughes was sack. Setting the whole ball rolling if I remember.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: Jose for City?

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.

Mancini resolved his contract with Inter Milan on October 30. just when josè informed City no longer be considered an option.

So what's your argument?

As I said, Mancini's settlement coincided very nicely with his availability to replace Hughes.

Hiddink was approached first. As for Jose, he was in no position to walk out on Inter with a Champions League tie v Chelsea just out the bag.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Re: Jose for City?

<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.

if you believe to what is writing from that papers i suddenly understand the why you often seem to come from mars.

If this was a lie, how do you think Manchester City would have reacted to these quotes from Hiddinks agent, bearing in mind Hughes was still in the job at the time?

 

[BobKowalski]

Re: Jose for City?

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.

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.

I never quite understood this chronology. Personally I felt that not sacking Hughes in the summer of 2009 was a mistake but ADUG didn't and backed him with a lot of money. Sacking him in Dec '09 I also think was a mistake if only because sacking managers mid season is always a risky move and shows lack of foresight and planning. It also demonstrated that not sacking Hughes in the summer of '09 was a mistake.

The appointment of Mancini as a caretaker manager (similar to Hiddink at Chelsea) until the end of the season until a permanent manager could be properly found in the summer would have also been a logical move.

That permanent manager could have been Mourinho or Mancini or whoever but what never make any sense was giving Mancini a three and a half year contract and 'pretending' it was 'real' if the club had little or no intention of honouring it. There was nothing to be gained by that if it was, as you attest, common knowledge that it was all a farce

Assuming that Mancini was just a caretaker with a 'pretend' contract' why was he not moved on in the summer? Mancini did a reasonable job when he arrived but removing him would not have been a total surprise as we didn't get top 4. This would have then left ADUG with the summer to vet and interview any number of candidates and appoint someone they were totally happy with. No players had been bought at this stage under Mancini so no harm done and every one moves on.

Yet none of this happened. Mancini was given a long contract. Mancini wasn't dismissed in the summer. Mancini kept saying he would be here for the 10/11 season and he is. He has bought players in and established a style of play and pretty much done things his way.

Yet he is far from the owners ideal choice? Makes no sense to essentially repeat the same mistake they made with Hughes. Are ADUG stupid? Is any business run successfully when the main plan seems to be be mooning around like a lovesick teenager until Jose (finally) pitches up? What if he never pitches up?

All ADUG have to do is pick the manager they think will propel the club to success. If they can't get Jose as first choice then there are plenty of ambitious, young and/or succesful coaches to choose from.

Yet no. The plan is stick with someone we don't really went (again) and wait until Mourinho responds to our love letters.

Mourinho is currently the best coach in club football. Making a play for him was a no brainer. But if you can't get Mourinho then you get the next best thing because coaches other than Mourinho do win leagues and CL finals. Once you have picked your guy you back him. Do ADUG grasp this concept? If not why not?

All very odd

 

[Mancio]

Re: Jose for City?

Mancini resolved his contract with Inter Milan on October 30. just when josè informed City no longer be considered an option.

So what's your argument?

As I said, Mancini's settlement coincided very nicely with his availability to replace Hughes.

Hiddink was approached first. As for Jose, he was in no position to walk out on Inter with a Champions League tie v Chelsea just out the bag.

please dont force me to call also you naive , please. mancini resolved his contract with inter only AFTER had found the agreement with City, its not difficult to understand

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: Jose for City?

<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.

if you believe to what is writing from that papers i suddenly understand the why you often seem to come from mars.

Well Mark Hughes believed the quotes from Hiddink's agent enough to report it to the League Managers' Association and ask where he stood legally.

On this occasion, you simply need to admit you are not in possession of all the facts and defer to people who are privileged to info because THEY ARE City fans.

And the subsequent relationships which might come from that.