Mancini out? (merged)

[Rolee]

Exactly, contracts mean fuck all. When will people realise that?

Di Matteo got a new contract last summer too.

-- Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:00 pm --

How long was Mourinho's?

The relevance of that question is directly proportionate to the relevance of your original point.

So are you going to answer my question or continue your smart arse, look down your nose people attitude that yourself and Waldorf excel at?

Why give him a 5 year contract instead of a say 3 year when the compensation pay out would be less?

 

[Deleted member 52846]

I can say for a fact that this is true. I have never been ITK about anything but a couple of months before Christmas by some weird chance I did become party to some dialogue between the Sheik and Khaldoon. They were more than clear that Mancini was not the long term choice and that they wanted Guardiola at the end of the season at the latest, Christmas if they could get him. I was shocked when he went to Munich, but I guess in the end he just did not want to come to Manchester and we couldn't persuade him.

Seems odd that they gave him that 5 year contract if this is true.

Did you find it odd that Adam Johnson got a new contract less than a year before he was sold ? Or that Mourinho got one last summer after winning the league yet is nailed on to be sacked this summer ?

Sometimes players are given new contracts so that their club can negotiate more money on a transfer of that player.

Whereas when managers are given new contracts they are the ones who can negotiate a bigger pay-off if they're ever sacked.

 

[Anonymous]

Exactly, contracts mean fuck all. When will people realise that?

Di Matteo got a new contract last summer too.

-- Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:00 pm --

How long was Mourinho's?

The relevance of that question is directly proportionate to the relevance of your original point.

So are you going to answer my question or continue your smart arse, look down your nose people attitude that yourself and Waldorf excel at?

Why give him a 5 year contract instead of a say 3 year when the compensation pay out would be less?

The best thing to do is take a step back from your love for Mancini and ask yourself who was in the best negotiating position last summer. Then look at our summer spending last summer. Then look at the things Mancini has said about wanting players but not getting them. Then ask yourself why our owners would give a guy a 5 year contract then effectively tie one hand behind his back and give him peanuts to spend in the transfer market and expect him to retain the title and qualify from his CL group.

 

[Rolee]

Di Matteo got a new contract last summer too.

-- Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:00 pm --



The relevance of that question is directly proportionate to the relevance of your original point.

So are you going to answer my question or continue your smart arse, look down your nose people attitude that yourself and Waldorf excel at?

Why give him a 5 year contract instead of a say 3 year when the compensation pay out would be less?

The best thing to do is take a step back from your love for Mancini and ask yourself who was in the best negotiating position last summer. Then look at our summer spending last summer. Then look at the things Mancini has said about wanting players but not getting them. Then ask yourself why our owners would give a guy a 5 year contract then effectively tie one hand behind his back and give him peanuts to spend in the transfer market and expect him to retain the title and qualify from his CL group.

It's not love, it's respect. So you think Mancini had a stronger negotiating hand than the Sheikh?

 

[NipHolmes]

Exactly, contracts mean fuck all. When will people realise that?

Di Matteo got a new contract last summer too.

-- Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:00 pm --

How long was Mourinho's?

The relevance of that question is directly proportionate to the relevance of your original point.

So are you going to answer my question or continue your smart arse, look down your nose people attitude that yourself and Waldorf excel at?

Why give him a 5 year contract instead of a say 3 year when the compensation pay out would be less?

Because Bobby wouldnt have signed any less.

We just won the league, Bobbys name was in the lights and the future ahead looked great. Since then Bobby has had his wings clipped and seems unhappy and our team is playing beneath themselves.

I'd be willing to wager there's clauses in the contract stipulating such and such a pay off. Performance targets will be installed too.

I do suspect Mancini has a 2-3 year stipulation though, he seems happy to not use Sinclair and also to slam Lescott for Ajax etc. Imo he's trying to say 'look, can you see I was right!'. By not playing Sinclair he's saying its a bad signing, Lescott playing poorly v Ajax and being second fiddle to a young lad will say 'Look, I told you to pay up for After, look he's just cost us in Europe ffs!'.

He had the board by the bollocks as it'd be criminal to sack a manager following directly after a league win (we aren't Real Madrid doing a Capello) and Mancini has flexed his muscles somewhat. He certainly proved his point but has he endeared himself to the owners in the process, I think not!

Just my take.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Why give him a 5 year contract instead of a say 3 year when the compensation pay out would be less?

We don't know what's in that contract though do we? I'm pretty sure it's not a straightforward 5 year contract & believe that any compensation is limited to a maximum amount and that there is a break clause or clauses, some of which are performance related. So it could cost us the same if we sacked him tomorrow or in 3 years time. The 5 years might have been because the performance targets were set over that timescale or because that was the price RM demanded for agreeing to the targets set.

 

[Anonymous]

It's not love, it's respect.

That's sweet.

So you think Mancini had a stronger negotiating hand than the Sheikh?

Shall I get a spoon and a bib and feed you properly ?

 

[mgreenz97]

Di Matteo got a new contract last summer too.

-- Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:00 pm --



The relevance of that question is directly proportionate to the relevance of your original point.

So are you going to answer my question or continue your smart arse, look down your nose people attitude that yourself and Waldorf excel at?

Why give him a 5 year contract instead of a say 3 year when the compensation pay out would be less?

Because Bobby wouldnt have signed any less.

We just won the league, Bobbys name was in the lights and the future ahead looked great. Since then Bobby has had his wings clipped and seems unhappy and our team is playing beneath themselves.

I'd be willing to wager there's clauses in the contract stipulating such and such a pay off. Performance targets will be installed too.

I do suspect Mancini has a 2-3 year stipulation though, he seems happy to not use Sinclair and also to slam Lescott for Ajax etc. Imo he's trying to say 'look, can you see I was right!'. By not playing Sinclair he's saying its a bad signing, Lescott playing poorly v Ajax and being second fiddle to a young lad will say 'Look, I told you to pay up for After, look he's just cost us in Europe ffs!'.

He had the board by the bollocks as it'd be criminal to sack a manager following directly after a league win (we aren't Real Madrid doing a Capello) and Mancini has flexed his muscles somewhat. He certainly proved his point but has he endeared himself to the owners in the process, I think not!

Just my take.

I agree with you, but one question.
Who is "After"?

 

[Chippy_boy]

Seems odd that they gave him that 5 year contract if this is true.

Did you find it odd that Adam Johnson got a new contract less than a year before he was sold ? Or that Mourinho got one last summer after winning the league yet is nailed on to be sacked this summer ?

Sometimes players are given new contracts so that their club can negotiate more money on a transfer of that player.

Whereas when managers are given new contracts they are the ones who can negotiate a bigger pay-off if they're ever sacked.

I wondered about this too and it did puzzle me. I have no idea why they gave him the 5-year contract, but I wondered whether it was as a "thank you" for taking us this far, and for winning the FA Cup and the league. I get the impression that Mancini is liked by the Sheikh and by Khaldoon, even if they don't think he's the man for the long haul.

 

[Rolee]

Di Matteo got a new contract last summer too.

-- Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:00 pm --



The relevance of that question is directly proportionate to the relevance of your original point.

So are you going to answer my question or continue your smart arse, look down your nose people attitude that yourself and Waldorf excel at?

Why give him a 5 year contract instead of a say 3 year when the compensation pay out would be less?

Because Bobby wouldnt have signed any less.

We just won the league, Bobbys name was in the lights and the future ahead looked great. Since then Bobby has had his wings clipped and seems unhappy and our team is playing beneath themselves.

I'd be willing to wager there's clauses in the contract stipulating such and such a pay off. Performance targets will be installed too.

I do suspect Mancini has a 2-3 year stipulation though, he seems happy to not use Sinclair and also to slam Lescott for Ajax etc. Imo he's trying to say 'look, can you see I was right!'. By not playing Sinclair he's saying its a bad signing, Lescott playing poorly v Ajax and being second fiddle to a young lad will say 'Look, I told you to pay up for After, look he's just cost us in Europe ffs!'.

He had the board by the bollocks as it'd be criminal to sack a manager following directly after a league win (we aren't Real Madrid doing a Capello) and Mancini has flexed his muscles somewhat. He certainly proved his point but has he endeared himself to the owners in the process, I think not!

Just my take.

They didn't have to offer him any extension at all nevermind a 4 year extension.