Mancini Almost Left To Manage Monaco

[Matty]

If last January he'd been looking for potential jobs in the summer then I wouldn't be surprised, if memory serves he hadn't signed his long term deal by then so only had 12 months on his contract anyway. What I do find hard to believe is that, having won trophies at Inter Milan, Fiorentina, Lazio and Manchester City, a second division French club would have remotely interested him. Ok so Monaco is a tax haven, and he'd likely have been rewraded well financially, but I still don't see the pull of second tier French football to a man with Mancini's track record.

 

[oakiecokie]

The whole story is a negative, as the scum Press will now go to town on Mancini again, something they appear so keen to do at the every opportunity. It is very rare you see a positive story about Mancini. He is now going to get hounded by the Press to give an answer and no matter what answer he comes out with, they will turn it into a negative, not a positive. Unfortunately, most readers won't be able to see behind the negative slant they will no doubt print.

If, (and there's no reason to believe otherwise), it's true, why would the press not ask Mancini about this? It's news to print at the end of the day, so why would they just blank it and move onto Silva's injury, for example? Why would they not ask about that AND Silva's injury - both of which are to do with the club? Also, the line I referred to earlier about overhauling United to the league, why did the journo not just write 'winning the league', why did he add the overhauling United bit? Could it be because he doesn't like United and thought it'd be funny to have that little dig whilst writing this story? Afterall United have nothing to do with Mancini talking to Monaco, so why bring their name into it? Maybe there's a thread on redcafe saying the journo is a dick for having a pop, but I suspect there isn't.
Mancini being headhunted = a positive, as it means he's doing the right thing here, with us.
Mancini staying here after winning the league = a positive as it shows some kind of loyalty.
The readers of that article seeing 'after overhauling United to win the league' = a positive for obvious reasons and negative towards them, again for obvious reasons.

All this of course if the story is true.

Unfortunately you are in a minority of people who will see the positive. I just wish Joe Public were as educated as your good self to see beyond the shite that is published in the Press. There will be a Media Witch Hunt against Mancini today and tomorrow, with the Press willing us to lose on Saturday evening, so they can ready themselves for their further attacks on City about Mancini not having the dressing room, he has 2 games to save his job, etc.

Hahahhas.
Fucking hell I`ve read some shite,but this warrants a gold fucking star !!

 

[Ragnarok]

Not really interested if he was touted or not ( last season’s news) he is still a Manchester City manager with a 5 year contract, however there a quite a few negative stories surfacing at the moment in the media the latest being RVP refusal to join City.
My question would be why are these negative slant stories starting to surface again in the media, and the rag media machine in full positive flow.????????

Could it be because those stories happened? Like this one here, if indeed it did happen well isn't it the news outlets job to print such stories? Isn't it then up to the public to tick either the 'oh shit, really?', 'oh', or the 'so fucking what?' box? If Wenger had been the manager in question, it would have appeared in the papers, same with Rogers, Ferguson or any other manager. Again though I ask how is this a negative, what with the eventual outcome of Mancini deciding to remain here?

FFS He is asking WHY NOW not whether the stories happened or not. And no it would not have happened if it was Ferguson. Tell me, how much negative stories about Ferguson or United can you remember?

 

[oakiecokie]

If, (and there's no reason to believe otherwise), it's true, why would the press not ask Mancini about this? It's news to print at the end of the day, so why would they just blank it and move onto Silva's injury, for example? Why would they not ask about that AND Silva's injury - both of which are to do with the club? Also, the line I referred to earlier about overhauling United to the league, why did the journo not just write 'winning the league', why did he add the overhauling United bit? Could it be because he doesn't like United and thought it'd be funny to have that little dig whilst writing this story? Afterall United have nothing to do with Mancini talking to Monaco, so why bring their name into it? Maybe there's a thread on redcafe saying the journo is a dick for having a pop, but I suspect there isn't.
Mancini being headhunted = a positive, as it means he's doing the right thing here, with us.
Mancini staying here after winning the league = a positive as it shows some kind of loyalty.
The readers of that article seeing 'after overhauling United to win the league' = a positive for obvious reasons and negative towards them, again for obvious reasons.

All this of course if the story is true.

I don't disagree with anything you have said but the point I am trying to make is, it's all yesterdays news with the exception of the RVP story that is being regurgitated to throw a negative slant our way, well that's how it appears to me at this moment.

Well why would they do that? I've not heard anything about Mancini going to Monaco until yesterday, but then again I don't bother with the papers. If what you believe is the case, what is their for the journalist to benefit from by doing it?

You`re wasting your time Pige.The Blue Moaners always see a negative spin on anything thats congratulating us.These buggers always have a half empty drink and never a half full one.
Any different than us talking to you know who,whilst Les was still managing us ?

 

[Matty]

As a general rule of thumb, if an entire article is written without one single quote attributed to a specific person (and I don't mean "a close friend said" or "people at the highest level said", I mean an actual name) contained within it then it is, almost invariable, utter bullshit.

 

[oakiecokie]

Not really interested if he was touted or not ( last season’s news) he is still a Manchester City manager with a 5 year contract, however there a quite a few negative stories surfacing at the moment in the media the latest being RVP refusal to join City.
My question would be why are these negative slant stories starting to surface again in the media, and the rag media machine in full positive flow.????????

Could it be because those stories happened? Like this one here, if indeed it did happen well isn't it the news outlets job to print such stories? Isn't it then up to the public to tick either the 'oh shit, really?', 'oh', or the 'so fucking what?' box? If Wenger had been the manager in question, it would have appeared in the papers, same with Rogers, Ferguson or any other manager. Again though I ask how is this a negative, what with the eventual outcome of Mancini deciding to remain here?

FFS He is asking WHY NOW not whether the stories happened or not. And no it would happened if it was Ferguson. Tell me, how much negative stories about Ferguson or United can you remember?

So those would be positive stories about Rooney shagging grandmothers,Giggs shagging his sister in law,blah,blah,blah.
Selected memory you have.

 

[Claytop]

Mancini knew we were talking seriously to Mourinho in January. You can hardly blame him for looking elsewhere just in case.

We were doing what now?

 

[Pigeonho]

Unfortunately you are in a minority of people who will see the positive. I just wish Joe Public were as educated as your good self to see beyond the shite that is published in the Press. There will be a Media Witch Hunt against Mancini today and tomorrow, with the Press willing us to lose on Saturday evening, so they can ready themselves for their further attacks on City about Mancini not having the dressing room, he has 2 games to save his job, etc.

Why would that be then? Who benefits from that? What is the point?
Also, I don't see a positive or a negative. I raised the point about the United line because no one else has, yet many see this so call negative, a negative they believe is there in a story which is about our manager not joining another club and staying with us for the next 5 years - after winning the league. There are no negatives, but the fact people can find them yet fail to see what could be construed as a dig at United tells it's own story, and that is that people appear to absolutely need this agenda to be real. Why that would be I have no idea, but there is not one negative in this story here, not one.

The negative is the unwanted attention this is now going to bring on Mancini and City in the days ahead. It is a non-story, but the Press will now go to town on it. We are now just waiting on quotes from persons at Monaco, the cue the story of Mancini being summoned to Abu Dhabi on Sunday, when in fact he is probably being asked to make a fleeting visit for the Grand Prix.

But if it has happened, why would they not print it?
You haven't answered why they are doing it either.
If Fergie got a call from the owners of Blackburn last week and had talked to them about becoming their manager, it would have made the news in the same way this has. The reason for that is because it is news. You say this is a non-story, well how so? The manager of the now-champions of England having talked to the owners of Monaco whilst still in a season where his current club could be champions... how is that a non-story?
I'll throw another one in. Should Chelsea be looking like becoming champions this season and in April RDM decides to talk to Anzhi, for example, because he's not too sure about his tenure at the Bridge, I can guarantee you that it will make the papers at some point. There's no reason why not, just like there's no reason why this Mancini story shouldn't make the papers.<br /><br />-- Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:59 am --<br /><br />

Could it be because those stories happened? Like this one here, if indeed it did happen well isn't it the news outlets job to print such stories? Isn't it then up to the public to tick either the 'oh shit, really?', 'oh', or the 'so fucking what?' box? If Wenger had been the manager in question, it would have appeared in the papers, same with Rogers, Ferguson or any other manager. Again though I ask how is this a negative, what with the eventual outcome of Mancini deciding to remain here?

FFS He is asking WHY NOW not whether the stories happened or not. And no it would happened if it was Ferguson. Tell me, how much negative stories about Ferguson or United can you remember?

So those would be positive stories about Rooney shagging grandmothers,Giggs shagging his sister in law,blah,blah,blah.
Selected memory you have.

You beat me to it! I'll add the papers taking the piss out of Wio for not being able to sit down on a plane because his back was 'finished'. We could go all the way back to 92 and how Fergie lambasted his players for partying. We could go back to the Keane/Stam/D'Urso incident when they were described as animals. We could look at any number of Keane stories actually, from breaking Alfie's leg to hitting women whilst pissed up.
I don't remember such stories of City players doing this.

 

[93.20]

If it's complete BS, Mancini should issue a statement saying so and send someone along to have a quiet word with the Guardian.

Can't imagine Sheikh Mansour and Khaldoon would be too impressed to read this. Their man in touch of the title and negotiating his own departure at the same time????

 

[mcfcphil]

Why would that be then? Who benefits from that? What is the point?
Also, I don't see a positive or a negative. I raised the point about the United line because no one else has, yet many see this so call negative, a negative they believe is there in a story which is about our manager not joining another club and staying with us for the next 5 years - after winning the league. There are no negatives, but the fact people can find them yet fail to see what could be construed as a dig at United tells it's own story, and that is that people appear to absolutely need this agenda to be real. Why that would be I have no idea, but there is not one negative in this story here, not one.

The negative is the unwanted attention this is now going to bring on Mancini and City in the days ahead. It is a non-story, but the Press will now go to town on it. We are now just waiting on quotes from persons at Monaco, the cue the story of Mancini being summoned to Abu Dhabi on Sunday, when in fact he is probably being asked to make a fleeting visit for the Grand Prix.

But if it has happened, why would they not print it?
You haven't answered why they are doing it either.
If Fergie got a call from the owners of Blackburn last week and had talked to them about becoming their manager, it would have made the news in the same way this has. The reason for that is because it is news. You say this is a non-story, well how so? The manager of the now-champions of England having talked to the owners of Monaco whilst still in a season where his current club could be champions... how is that a non-story?
I'll throw another one in. Should Chelsea be looking like becoming champions this season and in April RDM decides to talk to Anzhi, for example, because he's not too sure about his tenure at the Bridge, I can guarantee you that it will make the papers at some point. There's no reason why not, just like there's no reason why this Mancini story shouldn't make the papers.

-- Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:59 am --

FFS He is asking WHY NOW not whether the stories happened or not. And no it would happened if it was Ferguson. Tell me, how much negative stories about Ferguson or United can you remember?

So those would be positive stories about Rooney shagging grandmothers,Giggs shagging his sister in law,blah,blah,blah.
Selected memory you have.

You beat me to it! I'll add the papers taking the piss out of Wio for not being able to sit down on a plane because his back was 'finished'. We could go all the way back to 92 and how Fergie lambasted his players for partying. We could go back to the Keane/Stam/D'Urso incident when they were described as animals. We could look at any number of Keane stories actually, from breaking Alfie's leg to hitting women whilst pissed up.
I don't remember such stories of City players doing this.

I speak as a working journalist.
Couple of points – yes it may be true, but to say there is absolutely no reason to doubt the story is extremely naive. There could be a whole manner of inaccuracies in it and they don’t even have to malicious. Just human error or getting facts wrong, misinformation – it happens.

Also to say certain sections of the media won’t be hoping city get beat against west ham is also very naive. Maybe hope is the wrong word but the journalist will be looking for the strongest possible story and City getting beat by west ham and ramping up the pressure on mancini is a far better story than city breezing to a standard 2-0 win. Admittedly that isn’t specifically anti-city but i have no doubts there are sports journalists out there who would take great pleasure in that angle and push it to the nth degree.

Finally, to say there is no negative angle to this story is way wide of the mark. The very fact the manager’s job (either through sacking or resignation) was a real possibility only a few months ago will do absolutely nothing for the stability of the club. Maybe the journalist didn’t put a negative slant with the language he used but that’s because he didn’t have to – unless he is lives on mars then he would know the result of the article would be a negative one to the club.

I’ll give you an example. I have been subbing the sports pages for a newspaper since the start of the season. I have been writing headlines about a certain club which has been struggling dramatically. I have absolutely no axe to grind against this club but my headlines were negative and putting pressure on the manager simply because that is the inescapable story. Incidentally the manager was sacked very recently.
But like i say i had absolutely no beef with the club – no opinion whatsoever – but if it was a club i disliked with a passion then you can bet your bottom dollar my headlines would have been more inflammatory. If i was writing a headline about fergiescum being under pressure do you not think i would take great pleasure in doing a little bit to bring about the end of the old pisscan? Of course i would!

You can’t call a journalist a rag just for printing a negative story, but you need to compare his story to those of others covering the same story and judge it over a period of time. Then all will become clear as to who in the media has an agenda against City