Mancini (cont)

[levets]

The button above quote.

Cheers.. never notice that red exclamation mark! Where is the 'foe' button i keep reading about?

View a post and it will say profile and pm, click profile and once on profile on the left it should say friend or foe. Click whichever you choose, a few have no doubt done it to me ;)

Cheers... now I can start 'foe' ing all the anti saint Bob loons.... ;-)

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I genuinely do believe Mancini was on to a good thing following someone so inept as Hughes.

Hughes has since gone on to prove he is even worse than I thought.

 

[Blue Heaven]

The button above quote.

Cheers.. never notice that red exclamation mark! Where is the 'foe' button i keep reading about?

if you ask Mr Shears he will explain...I am sure his Foe list is very very long.

Morning Billy

The late Marc-Vivien is the only one on my 'Foe' list...

 

[Didsbury Dave]

where are these buttons? seriously!!!!

The button above quote.

Cheers.. never notice that red exclamation mark! Where is the 'foe' button i keep reading about?

You need to learn how to press the "Quote" button, levets, mate.

i've known you for years and you've never been able to do that, whatever the forum ;-)

 

[Blue Heaven]

The button above quote.

Cheers.. never notice that red exclamation mark! Where is the 'foe' button i keep reading about?

You need to learn how to press the "Quote" button, levets, mate.

i've known you for years and you've never been able to do that, whatever the forum ;-)

While you're at it, Dave, maybe you can teach SamHarris to stop drooling all over his keyboard...

 

[Anonymous]

I said this before but I can only recall two incidences of City under ADUG publicly backing the manager. The first was Hughes via Cook shortly before they sacked him - not the greatest precedent. The second was around last October when they said that the appointment of Ferran & Txiki did not mean they were intending to replace Mancini with Pep. And we know how well that worked.

During his first half season we had countless stories about how Mancini was going to be replaced in the summer and he was only a stop gap appointment. No one at the club denied this or said anything publicly to stop the speculation. We were told Mancini's only chance at staying for the following season was a top 4 spot and it was still only a chance with no guarantees. We didn't get a top 4 spot and Mancini (gasp) wasn't moved on as everyone confidently predicted.

Next season was the same. Football was crap. Players hated him. Should be challenging for the title. Mourinho was set to replace him (also Capello at one point) and City didn't say one damn word. No vote of confidence. No Mancini is here for the long term. Nothing. Squat. Mancini stayed.

Title winning season nothing public except a brief comment during a low point from Sheikh Mansour who said Mancini was doing a good job and would be retained if we finished second. No one was convinced and even Roberto figured it would be prudent to look at alternative options just in case it went totally tits up. Which it did. For Man U.

So now its the summer of 2012 and its a 5 year contract and (quelle surprise) 3 months later we had Mancini to be replaced by Pep and after Pep it was (insert name of choice).

In 3 and a half years of Mancini's tenure the media have continually speculated that he is on the verge of being sacked or, just to vary things up, on the verge of walking out. City by contrast have kept their own counsel.

We can all read what we want into the silence. The media certainly do and seem to be continually disappointed we don't run around sacking managers every 6 months so that they can run endless stories about rich foreigners not understanding the game yada, yada but the silence means nothing with regard to Mancini staying or going. Just as statements backing the manager mean nothing. Just ask Mark Hughes.

I think it's a little more subtle than the binary manner in which you're viewing the vote of confidence. After the Arsenal result last season City privately briefed the London papers that Mancini's job was safe regardless of whether the league was won or lost. This brief was turned into at least one editorial (in the Guardian IIRC) which stated categorically that Khaldoun had spoken to Mancini and assured him.

Going back to the season previous, and there was no speculation about Mancini's job. I'm sure there were people on here, including myself, saying that there were better managers out there and that City should make a change, but this is a long way from the press linking a new manager every other week, or the press saying Mancini is under pressure/at risk.

The season previous you are right that there was speculation which City put to bed again, with a brief to the London media that even though we had missed out on the CL Mancini was going to be manager the following season.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I said this before but I can only recall two incidences of City under ADUG publicly backing the manager. The first was Hughes via Cook shortly before they sacked him - not the greatest precedent. The second was around last October when they said that the appointment of Ferran & Txiki did not mean they were intending to replace Mancini with Pep. And we know how well that worked.

During his first half season we had countless stories about how Mancini was going to be replaced in the summer and he was only a stop gap appointment. No one at the club denied this or said anything publicly to stop the speculation. We were told Mancini's only chance at staying for the following season was a top 4 spot and it was still only a chance with no guarantees. We didn't get a top 4 spot and Mancini (gasp) wasn't moved on as everyone confidently predicted.

Next season was the same. Football was crap. Players hated him. Should be challenging for the title. Mourinho was set to replace him (also Capello at one point) and City didn't say one damn word. No vote of confidence. No Mancini is here for the long term. Nothing. Squat. Mancini stayed.

Title winning season nothing public except a brief comment during a low point from Sheikh Mansour who said Mancini was doing a good job and would be retained if we finished second. No one was convinced and even Roberto figured it would be prudent to look at alternative options just in case it went totally tits up. Which it did. For Man U.

So now its the summer of 2012 and its a 5 year contract and (quelle surprise) 3 months later we had Mancini to be replaced by Pep and after Pep it was (insert name of choice).

In 3 and a half years of Mancini's tenure the media have continually speculated that he is on the verge of being sacked or, just to vary things up, on the verge of walking out. City by contrast have kept their own counsel.

We can all read what we want into the silence. The media certainly do and seem to be continually disappointed we don't run around sacking managers every 6 months so that they can run endless stories about rich foreigners not understanding the game yada, yada but the silence means nothing with regard to Mancini staying or going. Just as statements backing the manager mean nothing. Just ask Mark Hughes.

I think it's a little more subtle than the binary manner in which you're viewing the vote of confidence. After the Arsenal result last season City privately briefed the London papers that Mancini's job was safe regardless of whether the league was won or lost. This brief was turned into at least one editorial (in the Guardian IIRC) which stated categorically that Khaldoun had spoken to Mancini and assured him.

Going back to the season previous, and there was no speculation about Mancini's job. I'm sure there were people on here, including myself, saying that there were better managers out there and that City should make a change, but this is a long way from the press linking a new manager every other week, or the press saying Mancini is under pressure/at risk.

The season previous you are right that there was speculation which City put to bed again, with a brief to the London media that even though we had missed out on the CL Mancini was going to be manager the following season.

City actually briefed Hughes was keeping his job for the first time at White Hart Lane the season before his eventual dismissal.

Khaldoon told Hughes after the game and Cook told the press in the tunnel.

 

[levets]

The button above quote.

Cheers.. never notice that red exclamation mark! Where is the 'foe' button i keep reading about?

You need to learn how to press the "Quote" button, levets, mate.

i've known you for years and you've never been able to do that, whatever the forum ;-)

I know mate... I often wonder how posters like BS can multi quote, whilst a man of the world, such as me, cant even manage a normal quote!

 

[NipHolmes]

Cheers.. never notice that red exclamation mark! Where is the 'foe' button i keep reading about?

You need to learn how to press the "Quote" button, levets, mate.

i've known you for years and you've never been able to do that, whatever the forum ;-)

I know mate... I often wonder how posters like BS can multi quote, whilst a man of the world, such as me, cant even manage a normal quote!

That's the level of poster Levets. The clever ones are 'outers' hahaha ;)

 

[levets]

I said this before but I can only recall two incidences of City under ADUG publicly backing the manager. The first was Hughes via Cook shortly before they sacked him - not the greatest precedent. The second was around last October when they said that the appointment of Ferran & Txiki did not mean they were intending to replace Mancini with Pep. And we know how well that worked.

During his first half season we had countless stories about how Mancini was going to be replaced in the summer and he was only a stop gap appointment. No one at the club denied this or said anything publicly to stop the speculation. We were told Mancini's only chance at staying for the following season was a top 4 spot and it was still only a chance with no guarantees. We didn't get a top 4 spot and Mancini (gasp) wasn't moved on as everyone confidently predicted.

Next season was the same. Football was crap. Players hated him. Should be challenging for the title. Mourinho was set to replace him (also Capello at one point) and City didn't say one damn word. No vote of confidence. No Mancini is here for the long term. Nothing. Squat. Mancini stayed.

Title winning season nothing public except a brief comment during a low point from Sheikh Mansour who said Mancini was doing a good job and would be retained if we finished second. No one was convinced and even Roberto figured it would be prudent to look at alternative options just in case it went totally tits up. Which it did. For Man U.

So now its the summer of 2012 and its a 5 year contract and (quelle surprise) 3 months later we had Mancini to be replaced by Pep and after Pep it was (insert name of choice).

In 3 and a half years of Mancini's tenure the media have continually speculated that he is on the verge of being sacked or, just to vary things up, on the verge of walking out. City by contrast have kept their own counsel.

We can all read what we want into the silence. The media certainly do and seem to be continually disappointed we don't run around sacking managers every 6 months so that they can run endless stories about rich foreigners not understanding the game yada, yada but the silence means nothing with regard to Mancini staying or going. Just as statements backing the manager mean nothing. Just ask Mark Hughes.

I think it's a little more subtle than the binary manner in which you're viewing the vote of confidence. After the Arsenal result last season City privately briefed the London papers that Mancini's job was safe regardless of whether the league was won or lost. This brief was turned into at least one editorial (in the Guardian IIRC) which stated categorically that Khaldoun had spoken to Mancini and assured him.

Going back to the season previous, and there was no speculation about Mancini's job. I'm sure there were people on here, including myself, saying that there were better managers out there and that City should make a change, but this is a long way from the press linking a new manager every other week, or the press saying Mancini is under pressure/at risk.

The season previous you are right that there was speculation which City put to bed again, with a brief to the London media that even though we had missed out on the CL Mancini was going to be manager the following season.

City actually briefed Hughes was keeping his job for the first time at White Hart Lane the season before his eventual dismissal.

Khaldoon told Hughes after the game and Cook told the press in the tunnel.

I thought it was the 'Desert Rat' who briefed everybody on here first...