Jose for City? (merged)

[jimharri]

Re: Jose for City?

this is the top of the naivety.

you are mancini , you have a 9 euros million year contract at Inter until june 2012 and you quit it to go "on try" 6 months at City ? as i said before , sometime you seem to be coming from mars

You said something earlier in the thread about showing respect to the club and the manager. Yet you continue to accuse posters of being naive, of coming from Mars and replying ''bollocks'' to them. Respect is a two way street Mancio. You have your opinions; fair enough. You're perfectly entitled to them. Don't go accusing posters of not showing respect when you're not showing any yourself.

'If' it is all time and place, we are certainly fucked again because i believe he will win the champs league this year for Real, which would elevate him to god like status with the gringos and make it nigh on impossible to leave.

Eh? You think Real will go further than Barca?

 

[Mancio]

Re: Jose for City?

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

Wrong. Inter could not afford to pay Mancini the monies he was owed at £9m a year.

He had been paid on the drip and the agreed gardening leave was up.

If, as you say, Mancini ended his agreement on Oct 30th, please tell me how it is that it took another SEVEN WEEKS for Hughes to be dismissed?

That Mancini was also offered a post at Notts County PRIOR to an approach from City.

Because I can tell you in the proceeding weeks, a decision to sack Hughes came following a 1-1 draw at home to Hull on Nov 28th

And that Hiddink was approached only after.

You can take that as gospel.

i'm sorry mate , but really without offence , i dont get ANY of your words as gospel , ANY.

also if i admit i enijoing your thread in the transfer forum , this dont change my vision about your really knoledge , you get third hand news.

 

[BobKowalski]

Re: Jose for City?

Bob, as far as I understand, and TH will probably know more, Mourinho came so close to our job before Hughes was sacked he told one of our players he was coming. But he stayed in the CL by the skin of his teeth and told City he wasn't available now but might be in the summer. City wanted him and had a situation on their hands where Hughes had lost it and was obviously out of his depth (before the Arsenal cup quarter I think), round about the Spurs defeat. They started talking to managers. Hiddink said No and went public. . Mancini said "I'll do it and will do it for 6 months to prove myself". Hughes went balistic and had to be fired. So City took Mancini on on that basis - win/win for them. Mourinho agreed to join RM in Spring. The Sheikh took the call then to stick with Mancini as he was honest and was doing OK. He was gutted to not get top 4 but stuck with him, in the full knowledge that Mourinho might not last long at RM.

I'm joining the dots all over the place but that's my take. Also explains the bad blood betwen Hughes and Mancini .

As I said I can accept Mancini taking the job on a caretaker basis and hope to prove himself. That makes sense. What does not make sense and never did was the club pretending he was a long term appointment because if he wasn't a long term appointment then removing Mancini in the summer would have looked stupid and played into the whole media take of 'impatient owners' - "oh look three and a half year contract and out in 6 months yada, yada."

It simply makes no sense especially as they had already cocked up over Hughes. Why then buy yourself additional grief? Hiring Mancini on a caretaker basis would have been win/win no matter what happened.

And again sticking with and investing in Mancini just because Mourinho may not last long at Madrid? What sort of plan is that apart from bloody stupid? Mourinho is not the only coach that can win you titles or CL finals. Ancelotti proved that with the PL/FA Cup double. Is Ancelotti a better manager than Mourinho? No. Is he more than capable of doing a job for us? Damn right he could.

The owners need to pick the guy they believe will deliver the necessary success and back him. If they do not think it is Mancini they should have got rid last summer and looked for the man they do believe in. If they do think it is Mancini then the Mourinho threads are redundant.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

No offense, but beating Lyon isn't going to convince anyone at Real of anything.

In the same way that beating Aris Salonika, Notts County, Leicester, Villa & Reading isn't going to convince anyone at City of anything.

 

[taconinja]

Re: Jose for City?

He never has any intention of taking the job, we were simply a pawn in the jose chess game

.

That's one take on it, Zin, and I can see why you think that.

I don't believe it personally, I don't think that's how he operates. But it's just two differing opinions based on the same set of facts.

Really? Mourinho always acts from a position of leverage. He leverages his team against the press or the fanbase as needed. He leverages players against each other. His coaching style is always to create a siege mentality and he uses his excellent understanding of psychology to do so. He also uses leverage in the press against his owners (not always successful) and he uses the leverage that other teams want him against owners as well.

He's rather ruthless. I like that by the way.

 

[BobKowalski]

Re: Jose for City?

No offense, but beating Lyon isn't going to convince anyone at Real of anything.

In the same way that beating Aris Salonika, Notts County, Leicester, Villa & Reading isn't going to convince anyone at City of anything.

Actually Real progressing to the QF for the first time in 6 years will strengthen Jose just as City getting to the FA Cup SF in 30 years strengthens Mancini

Progress is progress and something both managers can point to if needs be.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: Jose for City?

Wrong. Inter could not afford to pay Mancini the monies he was owed at £9m a year.

He had been paid on the drip and the agreed gardening leave was up.

If, as you say, Mancini ended his agreement on Oct 30th, please tell me how it is that it took another SEVEN WEEKS for Hughes to be dismissed?

That Mancini was also offered a post at Notts County PRIOR to an approach from City.

Because I can tell you in the proceeding weeks, a decision to sack Hughes came following a 1-1 draw at home to Hull on Nov 28th

And that Hiddink was approached only after.

You can take that as gospel.

i'm sorry mate , but really without offence , i dont get ANY of your words as gospel , ANY.

also if i admit i enijoing your thread in the transfer forum , this dont change my vision about your really knoledge , you get third hand news.

Yes, that's right. I get third hand news. That is indeed a compliment, as I am not Garry Cook, Khaldoon Al Mubarak or Sheik Mansour.

Go take a look in the Classic section and take a look at 'I hear we have a new manager'.

And there are plenty of people on here who will testify that I had PMd it was Mancini, including the breathless owner of this very site ;)

You cite my credentials, fair enough, which is why I throw this one back to you, only in terms of the current topic.

It's only right to remain civil, I actually embrace new fans, and you have a very good grasp of English.

My continued line of questioning remains, though.

You say Mancini ONLY ended his agreement with Inter on Oct 30th, as a result of agreeing with City?

So he kissed goodbye to another SEVEN weeks severence pay, just out of the goodness of his heart.

City's top-brass reacted, simple as that.

You will also note in said classic section that my brother Zin is not privvy to everything I get told...;)

Erroneous, indeed!

 

[BobKowalski]

Re: Jose for City?

That's one take on it, Zin, and I can see why you think that.

I don't believe it personally, I don't think that's how he operates. But it's just two differing opinions based on the same set of facts.

Really? Mourinho always acts from a position of leverage. He leverages his team against the press or the fanbase as needed. He leverages players against each other. His coaching style is always to create a siege mentality and he uses his excellent understanding of psychology to do so. He also uses leverage in the press against his owners (not always successful) and he uses the leverage that other teams want him against owners as well.

He's rather ruthless. I like that by the way.

Agreed. And Real progressing to the QF will be used as part of his leverage against Real management. Which sort of contradicts your earlier point :)

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Re: Jose for City?

Bob, as far as I understand, and TH will probably know more, Mourinho came so close to our job before Hughes was sacked he told one of our players he was coming. But he stayed in the CL by the skin of his teeth and told City he wasn't available now but might be in the summer. City wanted him and had a situation on their hands where Hughes had lost it and was obviously out of his depth (before the Arsenal cup quarter I think), round about the Spurs defeat. They started talking to managers. Hiddink said No and went public. . Mancini said "I'll do it and will do it for 6 months to prove myself". Hughes went balistic and had to be fired. So City took Mancini on on that basis - win/win for them. Mourinho agreed to join RM in Spring. The Sheikh took the call then to stick with Mancini as he was honest and was doing OK. He was gutted to not get top 4 but stuck with him, in the full knowledge that Mourinho might not last long at RM.

I'm joining the dots all over the place but that's my take. Also explains the bad blood betwen Hughes and Mancini .

As I said I can accept Mancini taking the job on a caretaker basis and hope to prove himself. That makes sense. What does not make sense and never did was the club pretending he was a long term appointment because if he wasn't a long term appointment then removing Mancini in the summer would have looked stupid and played into the whole media take of 'impatient owners' - "oh look three and a half year contract and out in 6 months yada, yada."

It simply makes no sense especially as they had already cocked up over Hughes. Why then buy yourself additional grief? Hiring Mancini on a caretaker basis would have been win/win no matter what happened.

And again sticking with and investing in Mancini just because Mourinho may not last long at Madrid? What sort of plan is that apart from bloody stupid? Mourinho is not the only coach that can win you titles or CL finals. Ancelotti proved that with the PL/FA Cup double. Is Ancelotti a better manager than Mourinho? No. Is he more than capable of doing a job for us? Damn right he could.

The owners need to pick the guy they believe will deliver the necessary success and back him. If they do not think it is Mancini they should have got rid last summer and looked for the man they do believe in. If they do think it is Mancini then the Mourinho threads are redundant.

If we accept that's what happened, and I believe it did (and Mancini let it slip in the press conference too, more or less) there are two ways City could have approached it. Go public on the fact that it was a 6 month contract but the big risk there is that the players don't buy into him. Or cover it up to stop that, especially seeing as there was a real chance he could be retained if he succeeded. It doesn't take a football genius to know that if he'd been sacked after 6 months and replaced with Jose, noone would have cared about him.

With regards to City picking the right guy and sticking with him, you have to remember there are not many people with the pedigree to do our job in the whole of football. And if one of those comes available, I believe The Sheikh has to go with it and will go with it.

I'm sure Mancini's always known that he has to have serious success to stay in this job. That's why he's looking shaken now, and has taken the shackles off. It's slipping away from him fast.

This is why all this "We're 3rd FFS rome wasn't built in a day" stuff is naiave, in my opinion. I think when Mancini was kept on in the summer, The Sheikh said "you didn't get us 4th but you can keep your job, spend what you want but I want us to compete with the top teams"

 

[BobKowalski]

Re: Jose for City?

i'm sorry mate , but really without offence , i dont get ANY of your words as gospel , ANY.

also if i admit i enijoing your thread in the transfer forum , this dont change my vision about your really knoledge , you get third hand news.

Yes, that's right. I get third hand news. That is indeed a compliment, as I am not Garry Cook, Khaldoon Al Mubarak or Sheik Mansour.

Go take a look in the Classic section and take a look at 'I hear we have a new manager'.

And there are plenty of people on here who will testify that I had PMd it was Mancini, including the breathless owner of this very site ;)

You cite my credentials, fair enough, which is why I throw this one back to you, only in terms of the current topic.

It's only right to remain civil, I actually embrace new fans, and you have a very good grasp of English.

My continued line of questioning remains, though.

You say Mancini ONLY ended his agreement with Inter on Oct 30th, as a result of agreeing with City?

So he kissed goodbye to another SEVEN weeks severence pay, just out of the goodness of his heart.

City's top-brass reacted, simple as that.

You will also note in said classic section that my brother Zin is not privvy to everything I get told...;)

Erroneous, indeed!

Actually the outstanding 7 weeks of severance pay could have been easily added on as part of a golden handshake built into the City deal.

As none of us were party to the negotiations or contract details you can spin it whatever way you want.

Equally none of us would know when precisely Mancini was contacted as part of other managers being sounded out at the time or where he stood in the preferred list of candidates although I suspect lack of PL experience would automatically discount him as first choice.