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.

 

[NipHolmes]

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?

At the time yes. He had just finished a decent campaign (forget us losing CC to Liverpool in semis) and no candidates of qaulity were knocking around and as I said, its harsh to sack so soon after a league.

We look at the here and now, Jose is available in summer and Mancini flopped this season. The sheikhs got the better hand. Bobby can get his pay off but the balls not in his court on this one like it was in the summer.

 

[jay_mcfc]

I am not privy to info but when you sit down and think about it that makes sense. Also explains the reluctance to spend big last summer. In a bizarre way winning the league has put us back, for how long we don't know.

Which is utterly bizarre and doesn't reflect well on the owners and decision makers. It doesn't matter whether they think he was the long term option what matters is success for Manchester City. After we won the league had they bought Hazard and RVP, for example, we could have gone on to dominate if not in europe at least in England. Instead we have gone backwards and lost a year for no good reason. The owners can do what they like but imo if this is the case they have fucked up a bit.

We as a club are still in great shape and a few fresh faces at all levels will get us back on the right track. But really after Mancini had won us the league and he had signed a long term contract they should have backed him.

 

[Rolee]

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 ?

Do you get some perverse kick out of being an arrogant patronising prick?<br /><br />-- Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:29 pm --<br /><br />

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.

A polite and respectful way to answer a query, fair play Chippy Boy.

Take note Billy.

 

[inchy14]

We've had a poor season. Nothing more.

You don't sack a manager after a poor season. Especially when the previous two were successful.

Write this year off, rebuild in the summer and go again next year. In three seasons, we've had one poor season. It's not as if we are steadily getting worse. This season if anything goes against the trend.

Plus we had a shocker in the summer, and that wasn't Mancini's fault.

Disagree but a well reasoned post.

Reality is we only played our best football early last season. We went off the boil and only really came to life when Tevez returned.

We struggled against teams last season who parked the bus and its got even worse this season, no answer to that other than a 3-5-2 formation which fits us like Jo Brand in a pair of size 10 jeans.

For the life of me I don't understand the sentimental logic shown here. Mancini has form for being poor in Europe. We need to make headway and if the past is to be learned from (isn't that why we have stats and analysis) then he's proven to be short of whats required.

Finally and I'm yet to read a post containing this, Players themselves. They have ambition and targets. Some have come here to win things and do well in Europe, quite simply if we aren't then they may look to the next club that offer better possibilities. Thinking otherwise is fanciful, players have short careers and can get paid lots of money elsewhere. Taking a punt on Mancini is also taking a punt on keeping stars like Silva and Aguero. Are they meant to stick around hoping Mancini comes good in Europe and sees sense and plays wingers? Or will a move to Real tempt them?

Being potless come end of season can and does happen. I'm not worried about it happening again but its too simple to just state it like that. You can get potless by end of season by losing in the FA cup semis/final, chase down league to withing a few points etc. Then theres crashing out to Villa in the CC, gaining a solitary point v Ajax over 2 legs in Europe and losing the league by mid Feb.

Eyes don't lie, just hearts bias sight.

excellent post mate, I honestly don't know where all this loyalty to mancini comes from! We have a real chance to dominate the prem with our squad and get Europe talking about how good man city is as a club, sadly we fail on both counts under mancini, yes he won the league but if we're being honest here with that squad it was expected, mancini is stalling the clubs growth big time and he needs to be sacked can any man city fan honestly say hand on heart that the football we play isn't frustrating? That the European performances haven't been pathetic! We have great players who need a great coach and mancini is not the man to take us to the next level. We can keep singing his name supporting him and give him time to grow and change his flaws but by doing that your stalling us as a club and that in my eyes is ludicrous. I've never rated mancini and I never will if anything he's just proved all the worries I had when we hired him. It would be interesting to know the players thoughts on this. My bet is mancini wouldn't be top of the list of managers they would like to work with!

Well which one is it?

We have a great squad who are underperforming?

Or is it our squad lacks wingers and thats the reason, we're struggling?

While i'm not pretending things are rosy in the garden because they obviously aren't, this squad is almost the same as the one last year which tore teams, domestically at least, a new arsehole until Xmas.

Things changed for some reason until we had nothing to lose. (personally i think the sunderland loss last season caused him to put the shackles back on).

The facts are certain players haven't performed for whatever reason this year, if that's down to them knowing he's a dead man walking i don't know, but Yaya, Silva, Aguero haven't been anywhere near the levels they were last year, and when you add that to key personnel missing through injuries (Richards has been a huge blow regardless of how well Zabs done) Kompany being the most important then you can see why we've struggled.

Jesus, never thought i'd class 2nd as struggled!!

 

[NipHolmes]

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.

The board protected their interests. We just won the league and Mancini was entering final year. I suppose they hoped he'd build on it but wanted to test him rather than spend.

As I said, nobody of ilk was knocking around and Mancini had the ball in his court and most likely played hardball using the Russia job as leverage. You can bet your bollocks that if he goes he does so with less than 4 years pay off. Most likely a set fee pay off depending on length of contract and wages until suitable employment is found. In our case, if Mancini goes to Monaco after being sacked (hopefully he resigns) then it'll just be a set fee.

I don't expect the sheikh to have hard feelings about paying Bobby a fee after his service, call it a farewell gesture for food service. Some get a nicw watch, some get a clock for the mantlepiece. He will get a multimillion pound pay off.

He may just get his wish of being manager of De Rossi too. Roma currently have an 'interim' manager' FWIW.

 

[Rolee]

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?

At the time yes. He had just finished a decent campaign (forget us losing CC to Liverpool in semis) and no candidates of qaulity were knocking around and as I said, its harsh to sack so soon after a league.

We look at the here and now, Jose is available in summer and Mancini flopped this season. The sheikhs got the better hand. Bobby can get his pay off but the balls not in his court on this one like it was in the summer.

There was no need to sack though and there was also no need to give him such a long contract if he is not their man long term.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Do you get some perverse kick out of being an arrogant patronising prick?

A polite and respectful way to answer a query, fair play Chippy Boy. Take note Billy.

How about practicing what you preach?

 

[Didsbury Dave]

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.

It's not the length of the contract which particularly matters, it's the break clauses/agreements. PArdew has an 8 year contract at Newcastle but it's commonly accepted there is a 1 year compensation limit. None of us know what Mancini signed, but we knew he negotiated it hard because it took a long time and his people let it be known other clubs wanted him. You can bet City negotiated it hard too, because both parties knew that the relationship might sour.

The thing about a manager's contract, though, is that even upon dismissal, it is never paid "in full". For that to happen the manager needs to take garden leave, not work, and get his salary monthly. That will often mean the end of his career, though, and managers nearly always want to work. What happens is a one-off settlement figure is negotiated to sever the contract. This might be, say, half the value of the remainder of the contract. So let's make an assumption that Mancini goes in summer and there are no significant break clauses (which I doubt very much). The figure quoted was £7m per year, of which you can be sure at least £2m will be bonus. So that would leave him due £20m for the 4 years of his contract, and this might be negotiated down to £8 or £10m so he can work again. WE know he does want to work becuase he'd already done a deal with Monaco last year, so that would give City the upper hand in any negotiation.

PErsonally I have heard various things about there being all kinds of protective measures in the contract for City, but I don't know anything as fact. But regardless, In the scheme of things I don't for a second think that sort of figure will stop ADUG doing what's right for the club.

Lots of "ballpark" figures in this post by me of course, it's just meant by way of illustration.

 

[The Flash]

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 ?

What a condescending twat you really are Billy.

 

[emiratblu]

It's also my understanding that Mancini was never seen by the owners as the ideal choice for our long-term manager

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.

And where did you become party to this dialogue ?

Let me assure you, the above isn't correct. Mancini was always first choice.