Mancini On Soriano

[George Hannah]

I take absolutely no issue with Soriano's targets. They should be the bare minimum. Mancini came very close to three trophies in three seasons, and he started out with a team that was 6th in the league. That manager, was sacked. Pellegrini is starting out with a team that finished 2nd in a poor season, has amassed 89 points in a season at its best, and already won two trophies consecutively. A trophy a season when you're starting where Pellegrini is, is about right as a bare minimum. You can't demand different expectations from different managers because the bar hasn't really changed much, in fact, vis-a-vis the level of progression Mancini achieved, it might be too low.

Mancini wasn't sacked because he didn't achieve enough at City. He was sacked primarily because his position had become completely untenable within the organisation. I'm sure a more diplomatic man with better people skills would've been afforded far more slack.

Mancini was not supported and then sacked by the Barca Boys because they wanted a manager who would work with them on their terms. The only way Mancini would have survived would have been to win the League again or do well in the Champs League. Last summer's transfer shambles made that virtually impossible.

 

[Skashion]

Mancini wasn't sacked because he didn't achieve enough at City. He was sacked primarily because his position had become completely untenable within the organisation. I'm sure a more diplomatic man with better people skills would've been afforded far more slack.

If that's the case I disagree with it. You can't demand less of a manager because they're more pleasant to work with. Soriano's targets are right, if not a bit under-ambitious.

 

[wayne71]

I take absolutely no issue with Soriano's targets. They should be the bare minimum. Mancini came very close to three trophies in three seasons, and he started out with a team that was 6th in the league. That manager, was sacked. Pellegrini is starting out with a team that finished 2nd in a poor season, has amassed 89 points in a season at its best, and already won two trophies consecutively. A trophy a season when you're starting where Pellegrini is, is about right as a bare minimum. You can't demand different expectations from different managers because the bar hasn't really changed much, in fact, vis-a-vis the level of progression Mancini achieved, it might be too low.

Mancini wasn't sacked because he didn't achieve enough at City. He was sacked primarily because his position had become completely untenable within the organisation. I'm sure a more diplomatic man with better people skills would've been afforded far more slack.

Do you think if the spaniards had backed him 100% and shown some solidarity things may have been different? When employees see a boss that isn't universally popular undermined by his own bosses that gives them the perfect excuse to play up.

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

If Pellegrini gets us playing scintillating, trophy-producing football next season I can see some serious revisionism going on around here. Let's hope it's the case.

 

[Blue Tooth]

I take absolutely no issue with Soriano's targets. They should be the bare minimum. Mancini came very close to three trophies in three seasons, and he started out with a team that was 6th in the league. That manager, was sacked. Pellegrini is starting out with a team that finished 2nd in a poor season, has amassed 89 points in a season at its best, and already won two trophies consecutively. A trophy a season when you're starting where Pellegrini is, is about right as a bare minimum. You can't demand different expectations from different managers because the bar hasn't really changed much, in fact, vis-a-vis the level of progression Mancini achieved, it might be too low.

Mancini wasn't sacked because he didn't achieve enough at City. He was sacked primarily because his position had become completely untenable within the organisation. I'm sure a more diplomatic man with better people skills would've been afforded far more slack.

Mancini was not supported and then sacked by the Barca Boys because they wanted a manager who would work with them on their terms. The only way Mancini would have survived would have been to win the League again or do well in the Champs League. Last summer's orchestrated transfer shambles made that virtually impossible.

Edited for accuracy ;)

 

[Anonymous]

Mancini wasn't sacked because he didn't achieve enough at City. He was sacked primarily because his position had become completely untenable within the organisation. I'm sure a more diplomatic man with better people skills would've been afforded far more slack.

If that's the case I disagree with it. You can't demand less of a manager because they're more pleasant to work with. Soriano's targets are right, if not a bit under-ambitious.

It's not about being more pleasant to work with. It's about being able to work full stop. Mancini had lost the respect of the entire organisation barring Khaldoun. If you disagree with that being a reason to sack someone fair enough.

As for Soriano's targets being under ambitious, I guess time will tell. I almost agree with you in the sense that the tools at MP's disposal, as were the tools at Mancini's disposal, are the envy of any manager in the world. You need a bit of luck along the way though ...<br /><br />-- Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:42 pm --<br /><br />

I take absolutely no issue with Soriano's targets. They should be the bare minimum. Mancini came very close to three trophies in three seasons, and he started out with a team that was 6th in the league. That manager, was sacked. Pellegrini is starting out with a team that finished 2nd in a poor season, has amassed 89 points in a season at its best, and already won two trophies consecutively. A trophy a season when you're starting where Pellegrini is, is about right as a bare minimum. You can't demand different expectations from different managers because the bar hasn't really changed much, in fact, vis-a-vis the level of progression Mancini achieved, it might be too low.

Mancini wasn't sacked because he didn't achieve enough at City. He was sacked primarily because his position had become completely untenable within the organisation. I'm sure a more diplomatic man with better people skills would've been afforded far more slack.

Mancini was not supported and then sacked by the Barca Boys because they wanted a manager who would work with them on their terms. The only way Mancini would have survived would have been to win the League again or do well in the Champs League. Last summer's transfer shambles made that virtually impossible.

Fundamentally we disagree because last summer's transfer shambles as you call it is no different to what's going on this summer. The money for transfer fees is there, but we won't pay huge wages unless huge wages have come off the wage bill. And even then only in the right circumstances. Also if you think last summer was a transfer shambles, then you have to acknowledge it was one put in place by Sheikh Mansour and Khaldoun, not by the Barca Boys.

You also need to accept that Mancini wanted high priced players to replace the high priced players he'd signed. This isn't going to win much favour in an organisation that is trying to stabilise costs.

 

[Skashion]

It's not about being more pleasant to work with. It's about being able to work full stop. Mancini had lost the respect of the entire organisation barring Khaldoun. If you disagree with that being a reason to sack someone fair enough.

As for Soriano's targets being under ambitious, I guess time will tell. I almost agree with you in the sense that the tools at MP's disposal, as were the tools at Mancini's disposal, are the envy of any manager in the world. You need a bit of luck along the way though ...

No, I've now conceded, after reading these quotes from Mancini about Soriano that he couldn't continue here. I said the other day his position wasn't untenable. I'm retracting that now. Apparently it was, much as I maligned to admit it. OK, Mancini had to go, I accept that. HOWEVER, it does not mean that we lower the bar because the new manager is more pleasant to work with. He's still got to better Mancini, both absolutely and relatively. We can't have a plan to make us one of the biggest clubs in the world and then let progress stall because the new guy is nice to everyone.

 

[Anonymous]

Do you think if the spaniards had backed him 100% and shown some solidarity things may have been different? When employees see a boss that isn't universally popular undermined by his own bosses that gives them the perfect excuse to play up.

I agree to some extent with that reading. The onus was on both sides to come to the table and work together. However Mancini couldn't or didn't acknowledge that he was not in a position of power anymore and that Ferran and Txiki were going to call the shots. What Mancini should've done is softened his corrosive approach towards the people he worked with to ensure at least a chance to continue beyond this summer. I guess though if he'd done that he wouldn't be Mancini and he'd argue he wouldn't be as effective as a manager.<br /><br />-- Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:49 pm --<br /><br />

It's not about being more pleasant to work with. It's about being able to work full stop. Mancini had lost the respect of the entire organisation barring Khaldoun. If you disagree with that being a reason to sack someone fair enough.

As for Soriano's targets being under ambitious, I guess time will tell. I almost agree with you in the sense that the tools at MP's disposal, as were the tools at Mancini's disposal, are the envy of any manager in the world. You need a bit of luck along the way though ...

No, I've now conceded, after reading these quotes from Mancini about Soriano that he couldn't continue here. I said the other day his position wasn't untenable. I'm retracting that now. Apparently it was, much as I maligned to admit it. OK, Mancini had to go, I accept that. HOWEVER, it does not mean that we lower the bar because the new manager is more pleasant to work with. He's still got to better Mancini, both absolutely and relatively. We can't have a plan to make us one of the biggest clubs in the world and then let progress stall because the new guy is nice to everyone.

I don't know what semantic gymnastics your playing or what you think i'm saying - but the targets for Pellegrini are the same as the ones which were set out for Mancini last summer no doubt. The only thing I said was that had Mancini's position not been untenable behind the scenes, he may have been afforded more slack. Consequently I think if the next guy or the guy after that isn't corrosive behind the scenes he may be afforded a bit more slack. That's not moving the goalposts in terms of targets, that's merely saying that if you retain the support of all the players and the people you work with on a day to day basis, if you don't hit your targets you might not automatically get sacked. If you don't agree with that fair enough.

 

[Skashion]

What the fuck is the point of targets if they don't dictate whether or not a manager goes? Oh well, haven't met my targets. Oh well, it's alright, you're a nice guy, you can stay.

 

[Anonymous]

What the fuck is the point of targets if they don't dictate whether or not a manager goes? Oh well, haven't met my targets. Oh well, it's alright, you're a nice guy, you can stay.

I guess you would've advocated sacking Mancini after his first six months in charge since he didn't meet the target of qualifying for the CL ?