Told you to brace yourself BH, but what this poster thinks is important is not a very convincing basis for discussion perhaps.Damocles said:Do you think it's important to make this argument on a thread dedicated to his post-City life on a forum that is cracking down on this type of shite? Because I'm not convinced.
Damocles said:Blue Haze said:Thanks, George. I don't mind if supporters want to fondly remember Mancini. But it is important to remember that he was sacked for a reason, and those reasons weren't arbitrary nor unfair.
We weren't just happily sailing along and suddenly Saint Roberto found himself out of favour with the capricious sheikh and got sacked. Granted Marwood and our executive team spectacularly fucked that last transfer window, which shouldn't be forgotten. However, just as Mancini didn't get RVP and DDR, Pellegrini didn't get Cavani, Pepe or Isco, yet found alternatives that became key members of the squad. One article described Mancini at a transfer meeting after he had lost his primary targets, he sat unresponsive and wouldn't communicate with the DOF/transfer committee about alternatives, so Marwood started buying players when left to himself. Mancini after all did not believe that a DOF should have authority over him. That's the reason we got Sinclair, and it fits logically with what we saw: Sinclair was purchased but never given a chance. Mancini obviously didn't rate him as Sinclair never saw the pitch, so clearly he was bought without Mancini's input.
You can't know for certain whether the accounts of what happened behind the scenes are true down to every detail, but you can match up the hundreds of leaks with what happened on the pitch and in the transfer market, and come to some reasonable level of certainty that it must roughly describe what happened.
Or we can dismiss it all as media bollocks. But then we'd have to believe that Mancini was sacked for no reason, and that the problems we were seeing on the pitch also happened for no reason attributable to Mancini, and the bust ups in public were just all isolated incidents or the faults of the players, and the cup final was just an anomaly caused by our shit players (defending champions btw)...
Do you think it's important to make this argument on a thread dedicated to his post-City life on a forum that is cracking down on this type of shite? Because I'm not convinced.
Didsbury Dave said:Damocles said:Blue Haze said:Thanks, George. I don't mind if supporters want to fondly remember Mancini. But it is important to remember that he was sacked for a reason, and those reasons weren't arbitrary nor unfair.
We weren't just happily sailing along and suddenly Saint Roberto found himself out of favour with the capricious sheikh and got sacked. Granted Marwood and our executive team spectacularly fucked that last transfer window, which shouldn't be forgotten. However, just as Mancini didn't get RVP and DDR, Pellegrini didn't get Cavani, Pepe or Isco, yet found alternatives that became key members of the squad. One article described Mancini at a transfer meeting after he had lost his primary targets, he sat unresponsive and wouldn't communicate with the DOF/transfer committee about alternatives, so Marwood started buying players when left to himself. Mancini after all did not believe that a DOF should have authority over him. That's the reason we got Sinclair, and it fits logically with what we saw: Sinclair was purchased but never given a chance. Mancini obviously didn't rate him as Sinclair never saw the pitch, so clearly he was bought without Mancini's input.
You can't know for certain whether the accounts of what happened behind the scenes are true down to every detail, but you can match up the hundreds of leaks with what happened on the pitch and in the transfer market, and come to some reasonable level of certainty that it must roughly describe what happened.
Or we can dismiss it all as media bollocks. But then we'd have to believe that Mancini was sacked for no reason, and that the problems we were seeing on the pitch also happened for no reason attributable to Mancini, and the bust ups in public were just all isolated incidents or the faults of the players, and the cup final was just an anomaly caused by our shit players (defending champions btw)...
Do you think it's important to make this argument on a thread dedicated to his post-City life on a forum that is cracking down on this type of shite? Because I'm not convinced.
"Cracking down on this sort of shite"?
Pathetic. Fucking pathetic.
Blue Haze said:Hmm... I didn't realise that anything was being cracked down on. Having been absent from the Mancini debates since Pellegrini was hired, this seemed the most appropriate place to discuss Mancini's final year at the club, especially when two people openly asked whether he would have been here had he won over Wigan.
Others like LoveCity and DD will actually know more than me, they followed this more extensively. It's just what I remember as an avid reader of any article about Mancini from the summer transfer window 2012 through till May 2013.
If this isn't appropriate then this will be my final post on the topic.
Damocles said:Blue Haze said:Hmm... I didn't realise that anything was being cracked down on. Having been absent from the Mancini debates since Pellegrini was hired, this seemed the most appropriate place to discuss Mancini's final year at the club, especially when two people openly asked whether he would have been here had he won over Wigan.
Others like LoveCity and DD will actually know more than me, they followed this more extensively. It's just what I remember as an avid reader of any article about Mancini from the summer transfer window 2012 through till May 2013.
If this isn't appropriate then this will be my final post on the topic.
It's bad timing more than anything. The "Mancini was great"/"Mancini was awful" debate is something in the main forum that spills into constant back and forth and bans/warnings are handed out. It's a hot button topic that people cannot seem to discuss properly so there's been a more concerted effort to discourage it and lock topics as they start to get out of hand.
This thread represented a sort of "safe zone" where people could discuss his post-City life without it spilling over into the same arguments hence why it's in the General Football Forum rather than the City forum.
Nobody wants to lock and move threads but these types of debates have been happening on the forum for years and nobody likes it.
Damocles said:Didsbury Dave said:Damocles said:Do you think it's important to make this argument on a thread dedicated to his post-City life on a forum that is cracking down on this type of shite? Because I'm not convinced.
"Cracking down on this sort of shite"?
Pathetic. Fucking pathetic.
No-one's forcing you to be here. It's why we keep locking threads that descend into this manager tit for tat.
bobmcfc said:Too many just won't let people remember bobby with fondness.
80s Shorts said:bobmcfc said:Too many just won't let people remember bobby with fondness.
With all due respect, there are about 5 or 6 of them.