Jose for City? (merged)

[BobKowalski]

Re: Jose for City?

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.

My understanding is that it was a six month probationary period with the option to let him go if it wasn't working out or kick in the rest of the contract if it was.

A review clause made sense given Mancini's lack of PL experience however the fact we didn't make top 4 and they still retained him means that Mancini is their preferred choice? Meaning they must have liked what they saw in that 6 months otherwise they would have let him go?

Equally even the option of allowing the contract to kick in means there was always some intention of keeping Mancini irrespective of the Mourinho situation which invalidates the caretaker argument or that Mancini was just keeping the chair warm for Mourinho

I think we should be told... :)

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Re: Jose for City?

A review clause made sense given Mancini's lack of PL experience however the fact we didn't make top 4 and they still retained him means that Mancini is their preferred choice? Meaning they must have liked what they saw in that 6 months otherwise they would have let him go?

Equally even the option of allowing the contract to kick in means there was always some intention of keeping Mancini irrespective of the Mourinho situation which invalidates the caretaker argument or that Mancini was just keeping the chair warm for Mourinho

I think we should be told... :)

Bob, that's exactly what I was trying to say above, Maybe I didn't make it clear enough. He was never a pure caretaker in my opinion, he was always told if he shone he'd be kept on. What happened is City left the door open for Mourinho, and Mancini was prepared to work on that basis. The argument now of course is has he done enough.

He's been under enormous pressure since day one.

 

[BobKowalski]

Re: Jose for City?

Well you could argue the players didn't buy in anyway given all the unrest that ensued however I think the players and the fans would have more readily accepted an upfront caretaker deal - I mean it not as if its unheard of - especially as mid season it makes perfect sense. It may have created a lot less tension as Mancini could have come in and said 'look I'm here to help out so lets make the best of this' etc etc

Well, that's the counter argument, Bob. Hiddink did it with Chelsea and it worked.

I happen to think this was the major cock up of the Hughes sacking. The other stuff wasn't that significant. But the squad all believed he was a caretaker and he didn't get their respect and it undermined his authority. The rumour mill was alive with it.

I think that cost us fourth place.

The cock up theory I can buy however it does bring into question the professionalism of the board.

Did it cost us 4th? We will never know. I will say this though if the players were not paying attention to Mancini then who the hell was getting them to defend the way they did during that 6 months? Or making them look so organised and disciplined?

Brian Kidd?

No matter as its all moot<br /><br />-- Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:42 pm --<br /><br />

A review clause made sense given Mancini's lack of PL experience however the fact we didn't make top 4 and they still retained him means that Mancini is their preferred choice? Meaning they must have liked what they saw in that 6 months otherwise they would have let him go?

Equally even the option of allowing the contract to kick in means there was always some intention of keeping Mancini irrespective of the Mourinho situation which invalidates the caretaker argument or that Mancini was just keeping the chair warm for Mourinho

I think we should be told... :)

Bob, that's exactly what I was trying to say above, Maybe I didn't make it clear enough. He was never a pure caretaker in my opinion, he was always told if he shone he'd be kept on. The argument now of course is has he done enough.

He's been under enormous pressure since day one.

Well as he was kept on then yes he did...in the future who knows....but I think we pretty much have reached a natural conclusion to the discussion as I really need to get some work done now!

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Re: Jose for City?

The cock up theory I can buy however it does bring into question the professionalism of the board.

Garry Cook was head honcho then. Say no more.

 

[taconinja]

Re: Jose for City?

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.

All true. He's a Machevellian character. But he's hugely career minded. He thinks several steps ahead, like a chess player. He knows City will be a major force in European football at some point soon. He wants to return to England. I think he's clever enough to have not burnt his bridges at City.

He's no fool and he knows about The Sheikh's cash.

I agree. I don't know if he feels we're locked in to be a major force. I think he as is his usual wants someone that has the level of football he wants locked in before committing.

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

Re: Jose for City?

All very convincing reasons not to get him imo...

Here's 19 very convincing reasons why we should...

Porto (2002–2004)
2003 Primeira Liga
2003 Taça de Portugal
2003 UEFA Cup
2003 Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira
2004 Primeira Liga
2004 UEFA Champions League

Chelsea (2004–2007)
2005 FA Premier League
2005 League Cup
2005 FA Community Shield
2006 Premier League
2007 League Cup
2007 FA Cup

Internazionale (2008–2010)
2008 Supercoppa Italiana
2009 Serie A
2010 Serie A
2010 Coppa Italia
2010 UEFA Champions League

The Treble (League, Cup and European trophy)

2002–03 with Porto: League, Cup and UEFA Cup
2009–10 with Internazionale: League, Cup and UEFA Champions League

It needs to be more about the club than the manager, I want city the club to be feared across europe not the manager. I want city the club to win silverware, not mourinho whilst at city wins x, y, z.......your reply only emphasises my point I think.

 

[taconinja]

Re: Jose for City?

No, you're forgetting who he's dealing with. No one--not the rags or Liverpool or anyone else--has the self-assured expectations that Real has. Beating Lyon isn't progress to them. It's what is supposed to happen. Getting to the quarterfinals isn't progress to them. They expect to be in the finals. Every year. And they expect to do it with flair. And their fanbase supports this and believes all this. He can't use beating Lyon as leverage because they don't care about Lyon. Lyon is no different to them than Scunthorpe. There's Real... and everyone else. Only Barca (and a few others can sometimes be included when the organization and fans feel generous) can conceivably be a threat. There's no leverage in beating Lyon or getting to the quarterfinals. That statement would be incredulous to them.

My apologies then. :)

It's early over here and I just had my tea.
I was teasing :)

Although I bet Jose will rub it in that they hadn't got this far in 6 years until they appointed him. Jose would not be able to resist having a dig.

 

[SWP's back]

Re: Jose for City?

All true. He's a Machevellian character. But he's hugely career minded. He thinks several steps ahead, like a chess player. He knows City will be a major force in European football at some point soon. He wants to return to England. I think he's clever enough to have not burnt his bridges at City.

He's no fool and he knows about The Sheikh's cash.

I agree. I don't know if he feels we're locked in to be a major force. I think he as is his usual wants someone that has the level of football he wants locked in before committing.

So we may be in a very strange position where we get top 4 - then sack Mancini as Jose will only take over a top 4 club.

Or finish 5th and have to keep Mancini as Jose won't come and there's no one better available.

That would be typical City to be honest so I will buy it.

 

[taconinja]

Re: Jose for City?

Well you could argue the players didn't buy in anyway given all the unrest that ensued however I think the players and the fans would have more readily accepted an upfront caretaker deal - I mean it not as if its unheard of - especially as mid season it makes perfect sense. It may have created a lot less tension as Mancini could have come in and said 'look I'm here to help out so lets make the best of this' etc etc

Well, that's the counter argument, Bob. Hiddink did it with Chelsea and it worked.

I happen to think this was the major cock up of the Hughes sacking. The other stuff wasn't that significant. But the squad all believed he was a caretaker and he didn't get their respect and it undermined his authority. The rumour mill was alive with it.

I think that cost us fourth place.

Yes, as much as I dislike the mercenary term that other teams' fans try to stick us with (because almost every footballer is a mercenary in truth) we had in order to advance as quickly as needed with the looming FFPR, bought some characters who can be... troublesome to say the least. And they treated Mancini as if he was a substitute teacher. i.e. no respect and they thought that he would be gone in six months, so they were really the ones in charge. At least they were in their heads.

That one is on the board and the owner. A lot of grief and frustration could have been avoided.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Re: Jose for City?

Dennis, a whole series of "ifs":

"If" Mancini left and "if" Mourinho came and "if" he won the league and "if" he was holding that trophy up in Albert Square.

I put it to you not a single one of the 100,000 City fans there will think "It would have meant more if Jose wasn't holding it up".

In fact I put it to you the opposite is true. At the moment we still get laughed at, the media love to paint us as the cock up kings. A figurehead like him is exactly what the club needs fighting our corner.<br /><br />-- Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:50 pm --<br /><br />

Well, that's the counter argument, Bob. Hiddink did it with Chelsea and it worked.

I happen to think this was the major cock up of the Hughes sacking. The other stuff wasn't that significant. But the squad all believed he was a caretaker and he didn't get their respect and it undermined his authority. The rumour mill was alive with it.

I think that cost us fourth place.

Yes, as much as I dislike the mercenary term that other teams' fans try to stick us with (because almost every footballer is a mercenary in truth) we had in order to advance as quickly as needed with the looming FFPR, bought some characters who can be... troublesome to say the least. And they treated Mancini as if he was a substitute teacher. i.e. no respect and they thought that he would be gone in six months, so they were really the ones in charge. At least they were in their heads.

That one is on the board and the owner. A lot of grief and frustration could have been avoided.

Again, I agree 100%.

The Sheikh is loaded and ambitious, Khaldoon is atriculate and likeable, but that doesn't mean they don't make bad decisions from time to time. Those 2, and Cook, had never worked in football before.