bluemanc said:Not sure who you're asking but he put Nige on so as not to concede a 3rd that's why he didn't put a striker on,he said that.SWP's back said:bluemanc said:It's not a condition that you have to answer a question in a specific way,perhaps no one around him had the balls to tell him to calm down and think before he spoke.
He's shite at TV interviews at the best of times,that's just the way it is.
I ask again and it seems you are an expert.
How does Mancini answer the question "Why did you not put Tevez [a striker] on?"
Oh that's it, you can't.
btw off topic a bit but fergie actually threw the boot in beckhams face,he didn't kick it.
SWP's back said:remoh said:SWP's back said:We chant for both fella. Shocked you aren't aware of this.
And you see no contradiction in that? I would if it was my money going in there.
Well you aren't the owner.
I ask again. How should Mancini have handled the question (5th time I've asked and no one has answered).
I also see no contradiction as Mancini has the full backing of the owner, so singing for both seems to dovetail beautifully.
I notice the cabal wannabes come out at night.
Fair enough but I am very chilled and feel I am holding the corner fairly well whilst drinking a bottle of quality red.flb said:Forgive my ignorance football expert chaps but are not the facts that a gormless looking fuckpig has refused to enter the play in a football match? It doesn't matter one iota who or how good that wankstain is at football but refusing to do your job is a sackable offence? SWP, listen fella you know and I know he's a ****,along with 1 or two others- let's chill and sing Mancinis name and let that ugly little pleb what City means.
To all those willing to suck Tevez's dick go ahead
Taste the corn beef
They call it a 'squad'. They're all the rage at the moment don't cha know.BosnianDiamond said:I'm not excusing what Tevez did, in fact even the article says that it's the wrong thing to do. What this article does is make a good point that having too many players on the squad is extremely difficult to manage. Man City has too many players who rightfully feel they should get equal opportunities to start. This creates an atmosphere of tension and nervousness, and it affects the players performance because they constantly play with the fear of making a mistake and getting benched.mcmanus said:In that bullshit article I just read BosnianDiamond it says
"People are saying that he is a disgrace because he refused to play in Munich on Tuesday night, but did you see the faces of the other players on that bench? They all looked dejected."
Zabs could not have put it more simply to Tevez than with that look of disgust like he was a bronzed 80 year old sicilian boss who had found a cheating rat. Love ya Zabs
It's easy to say "they get paid for it" but a true competitor never wants to warm the bench.
Balti said:remoh said:SWP's back said:This and only this.
If people looked a little deeper, perhaps they'd be chanting for our owner, rather than Roberto.
What League position do you think we 'd have had in more normal financial circumstances under Mancini? and how far ahead of the Rags might we have been with a manager who could have handled, and seen the value of, Bellamy, Adebayor, Ireland, Tevez and Petrov and Given, who have all been sold cheaply or sent on loan?
Loyalty is essential, but it should be to the Club, not our present, blundering manager
Is that Bellers the Liverpool reserve? Ade the lazy mardarse who stopped trying at City? Ireland the Villa reserve? Petrov the Bolton player and Given the Villa keeper? Hardly ripping up trees are they?
And if Roberto Mancini blunders his way to more silverware and Champions League football then that's the sort of blundering we like.
But of course yes Thank You Sheikh Mansour once again for investing in our club and attracting a better calibre of player for our best manager in a generation.
Our loyalty is to the club. Unlike you we are clearly happy with the progress that the club and the team under Mancini are making.
remoh said:SWP's back said:This and only this.Balti said:Listen to the support for Bobby at the weekend and you'll know everything you need to about how the true supporters feel.
If people looked a little deeper, perhaps they'd be chanting for our owner, rather than Roberto.
What League position do you think we 'd have had in more normal financial circumstances under Mancini? and how far ahead of the Rags might we have been with a manager who could have handled, and seen the value of, Bellamy, Adebayor, Ireland, Tevez and Petrov and Given, who have all been sold cheaply or sent on loan?
Loyalty is essential, but it should be to the Club, not our present, blundering manager
BosnianDiamond said:I'm not excusing what Tevez did, in fact even the article says that it's the wrong thing to do. What this article does is make a good point that having too many players on the squad is extremely difficult to manage. Man City has too many players who rightfully feel they should get equal opportunities to start. This creates an atmosphere of tension and nervousness, and it affects the players performance because they constantly play with the fear of making a mistake and getting benched.mcmanus said:In that bullshit article I just read BosnianDiamond it says
"People are saying that he is a disgrace because he refused to play in Munich on Tuesday night, but did you see the faces of the other players on that bench? They all looked dejected."
Zabs could not have put it more simply to Tevez than with that look of disgust like he was a bronzed 80 year old sicilian boss who had found a cheating rat. Love ya Zabs
It's easy to say "they get paid for it" but a true competitor never wants to warm the bench.
SWP's back said:remoh said:SWP's back said:We chant for both fella. Shocked you aren't aware of this.
And you see no contradiction in that? I would if it was my money going in there.
Well you aren't the owner.
I ask again. How should Mancini have handled the question (5th time I've asked and no one has answered).
I also see no contradiction as Mancini has the full backing of the owner, so singing for both seems to dovetail beautifully.
I notice the cabal wannabes come out at night.
hgblue said:SWP's back said:remoh said:And you see no contradiction in that? I would if it was my money going in there.
Well you aren't the owner.
I ask again. How should Mancini have handled the question (5th time I've asked and no one has answered).
I also see no contradiction as Mancini has the full backing of the owner, so singing for both seems to dovetail beautifully.
I notice the cabal wannabes come out at night.
He could have said that he felt we were being overrun in midfield and we needed De Jongs energy to stem the tide. He could have said that he wanted to release Yaya to get further forward. He could have said he did it 'for tactical reasons'. He could have said that he felt Tevez hadn't had enough game time to come into such a high profile game and make a difference. I could go on, but the basic point is that he could have said fucking anything, but he chose not to because he wanted to hang Tevez, because he was angry and doesn't like the guy. He wasn't thinking about the long term best interests of MCFC. That's what has pissed me off.