SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,779
mackenzie said:
Will look forward to it.
See you there, think we are getting to Victoria about the same time for a wee drinky.
It's gonna be warm don't forget, so ladies in skirts. ;-)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mancini's future
- Thread starter larderland
- Start date
Will look forward to it.
See you there, think we are getting to Victoria about the same time for a wee drinky.
It's gonna be warm don't forget, so ladies in skirts. ;-)
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Just to widen the discussions on footballers refusing to play, here's a little snippet from 1967;
Lee spent the next three seasons terrorising second division defences before, frustrated at the clubs lack of progress, he requested a transfer early in the 1967 season.
This request was promptly refused but Lee was not going to be bullied by the BWFC board of directors any more than he was by the strapping centre halves he came up against every week and promptly went on strike. Within weeks he had won his point and had moved to Manchester City for a fee of £60,000.
God knows how you have confused me with MCFCliam but you just have!!!de niro said:mackenzie said:And what are you trying to say Bill? ;-)de niro said:isnt it a 3pm KO?
you know very well you'll be drunk by half one, you wont know where you are, you'll think your in shambles sq and starting singing anti utd songs every minute or so, the only saving grace is me pam and a few others will be in the same state:)
;-)
bluemanc
Well-Known Member
No it's you that are wrong:),when i said he threw the boot i KNOW he threw the boot,believe it or not it's a fact.SWP's back said: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: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.
<a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/2778353.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 778353.stm</a>
wrong again mate ;-)
As for answering the question, Mancini wanted to put Tevez on as the 2nd sub. De Jong coming on was entirely different, Mancini said he did that to calm the game down.
As for the Nige sub when asked why he didm't put a striker on when he took Edin off he said that that he did not want to concede a 3rd goal,this was the catalyst for the shitfest that followed.
It doesn't matter though when he was supposed to come on though wether it was 1,2.or fuckin 3 he deserves a fuckin slaughtering for what he's done..............have you noticed that the radio,tv,newspapers are all using allegedly or we believe.
He's had a payrise aswell $283,000 rising to £286,000 on page 8 of the M.E.N
flb said:SWP
Link for Dzeko apology fella
Talk Shite and co are hardly falling over themselves to report this, surprise, surprise.
Bluemoon115
Well-Known Member
OK, a couple of things to clear up, because I've seen quite a bit of nonsense on here.
Firstly, I don't blame Mancini for the incident in the slightest. It was entirely Tevez/Kia's fault, and I think Mancini has been very patient throughout.
I will be singing Mancini's name on Saturday as a mark of solidarity, and should any creative "anti-Tevez" songs surface, I'll be joining in with those also.
My post earlier was trying to look at the view from the City hierarchy, let's take Khaldoon Al Mubarak for example. He's a well respected, and very respectable man. He oozes class, and always picks and chooses his words carefully. He will not have been impressed with Mancini going mad in that conference, and saying things he cannot take back. The most important bit being about Tevez "Never playing again".
Now I made this point earlier, it got shot down as being "stupid" or some other irrelevent description. The fact is, that line does give Tevez/Kia an angle to get what they want. And just so you understand, here's a quote on teh BBC from a sports lawyer (who I imagine would probably know more than someone going on about "cabals" and "agendas")
In other words, we could now be seen to be just as guilty as Tevez. Now I'm not for a minute saying I think we actually are, I'm saying from a legal standpoint, they have that opportunity.
That one line aside, I don't think Mancini could have done anything differently, and I personally think he's handled the whole Tevez saga superbly. But it's whether or not the board of directors see it that way, especially if that "gaff" costs us in a legal battle.
Anyway, Forward With Bobby!
Firstly, I don't blame Mancini for the incident in the slightest. It was entirely Tevez/Kia's fault, and I think Mancini has been very patient throughout.
I will be singing Mancini's name on Saturday as a mark of solidarity, and should any creative "anti-Tevez" songs surface, I'll be joining in with those also.
My post earlier was trying to look at the view from the City hierarchy, let's take Khaldoon Al Mubarak for example. He's a well respected, and very respectable man. He oozes class, and always picks and chooses his words carefully. He will not have been impressed with Mancini going mad in that conference, and saying things he cannot take back. The most important bit being about Tevez "Never playing again".
Now I made this point earlier, it got shot down as being "stupid" or some other irrelevent description. The fact is, that line does give Tevez/Kia an angle to get what they want. And just so you understand, here's a quote on teh BBC from a sports lawyer (who I imagine would probably know more than someone going on about "cabals" and "agendas")
FrontRow Legal specialist sports lawyer Richard Cramer speaking to BBC Sport: "Mancini has come out and said he will never pay for this club again. That in itself could be regarded as breach of contract on the part of Manchester City.
"It is called a repudiatory breach - to say to a player that you will never play for this club again effectively deprives the player of the opportunity to carry out his work.
In other words, we could now be seen to be just as guilty as Tevez. Now I'm not for a minute saying I think we actually are, I'm saying from a legal standpoint, they have that opportunity.
That one line aside, I don't think Mancini could have done anything differently, and I personally think he's handled the whole Tevez saga superbly. But it's whether or not the board of directors see it that way, especially if that "gaff" costs us in a legal battle.
Anyway, Forward With Bobby!
bluefandk said:remoh said:bluefandk said:Hughes had pemiership experience and he failed.
Hughes had a crap defence coach and a third of the quality playing staff that we have now.
Fair point but he still failed and that proves that a maneger with prem experince does not guarentee success.
No, it doesn't and I never said it did, but it is an enormous help. Had Roberto had it, he would never have made the mistake of trying Italian tactics and getting rid of good players who didn't fit the system. He's learning now, I think, but so much time and money has been lost while he's been feeling his way along.
The problem with Tevez goes back to Mancini's very early days at the Club and has led to the situation that we have with him now, possibly.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,779
Who deserves a slaughtering?bluemanc said:No it's you that are wrong:),when i said he threw the boot i KNOW he threw the boot,believe it or not it's a fact.SWP's back said: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.
btw off topic a bit but fergie actually threw the boot in beckhams face,he didn't kick it.
<a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/2778353.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 778353.stm</a>
wrong again mate ;-)
As for answering the question, Mancini wanted to put Tevez on as the 2nd sub. De Jong coming on was entirely different, Mancini said he did that to calm the game down.
As for the Nige sub when asked why he didm't put a striker on when he took Edin off he said that that he did not want to concede a 3rd goal,this was the catalyst for the shitfest that followed.
It doesn't matter though when he was supposed to come on though wether it was 1,2.or fuckin 3 he deserves a fuckin slaughtering for what he's done..............have you noticed that the radio,tv,newspapers are all using allegedly or we believe.
He's had a payrise aswell $283,000 rising to £286,000 on page 8 of the M.E.N
bluefandk
Well-Known Member
remoh said:bluefandk said:remoh said:Hughes had a crap defence coach and a third of the quality playing staff that we have now.
Fair point but he still failed and that proves that a maneger with prem experince does not guarentee success.
No, it doesn't and I never said it did, but it is an enormous help. Had Roberto had it, he would never have made the mistake of trying Italian tactics and getting rid of good players who didn't fit the system. He's learning now, I think, but so much time and money has been lost while he's been feeling his way along.
The problem with Tevez goes back to Mancini's very early days at the Club and has led to the situation that we have with him now, possibly.
Whilst he is learning as you call it he has won the FA-cup and gotten us champions league football not a bad return if you ask me.
You seem eager to get rid of Mancini who would you repalce him with then?