Mancini's future

[waspish]

Me, I'd like to see O' Neill at the Club. (fire away)

You're having a laugh surely. He's a typical "on a budget" manager like Hughes. He's been in management since 1987 now and the most he's won is the SPL with Celtic (I could do that).

Mancini has been a manager since 2001 and has won Serie A x4, Coppa Italia x4, Supercoppa Italiana x2, and FA Cup x1, and has us playing a style of football you'd never see under O'Neill who'd have us back playing vintage British football, two wingers and all. His Villa team were functional more than entertaining.

Some people really need to look at themselves before they call for Mancini's head, we have one of the best managers in European football who is still young as far as top managers go and will continue to get better (unlike O'Neill who is almost 60 and can't get a job).

Well, he's never yet been blessed with transfer firepower such as ours, so I admit it would be anyone's guess how he would handle that, but I'd like to see him try.

Two wingers? yum, yum...

He's always done well wherever he's been and turned sow's ears into silk purses on the pitch. What worries me with Roberto is that he seems to do the opposite, in some cases.
I hope you are right in saying that Mancini will continue to improve, there seems to be a lot of room for it.

You haven't got a scooby o'neil will take us back to midtable

 

[Sigh]

One thing being overlooked here......

Whilst some posters thing Mancini should have 'kept his counsel'....

It was Jeff Shreeves the Sky touchline reporter who broke the news initially....

Mancini 'COULD NOT' keep quiet.... The damage was already done... courtesy of Jeff Shreeves

They don't care. It doesn't fit their narrative about Mancini.

 

[Scooby Blue]

Didn't Mancini says if it was up to him Tevez wouldn't play again?

But ultimately it isn't up to him, its up to the owners, so could that comment really be used against us in court?

No, it's upto him. A key part of his job description is picking the playing squad. So yes, it would stand up in court.

The only way to legally void the statement would be to dismiss Mancini. THIS IS NOT A SUGGESTION ON MY PART, JUST AN OBSERVATION.

The only way Tevezs lawyer can void that statement is if they can prove that Tevez didnt refuse to play, if indeed Tevez did refuse to play he is in breach of contract thus giving Mancini cause to dismisss him.

Mancini didnt actually dismiss him with that statement though, Tevez has no right to expect to play only a right to train at the club and to get paid.

To bluefandk:

Mate: just please shut up with your attempts to shout down anyone who sees this situation with a bit more nuance than you can muster.

Point (1):
Fans who do not consider Mancini's post-match rants to be the 100% full monty King James version of the full story are not necessarily Rags or agitators or members of some cabal or Mancini-haters....but simply level-headed City fans trying to make sense of a disappointing evening + working out what are City's realistic options going forward in how to handle a player (tevez) who would clearly rather be somewhere else.

Point (2):
Having personally fought a number of high-profile employment disputes involving multi-year contracts / breach of contract / reputational damages / constructive dismissal etc....the complacency / naivety with which City fans are effectively saying f**k Tevez off / sue him / sack him ....does not square up with modern employment law.
( I prepared a long post earlier...which I decided against posting because I felt it was too long drawn-out + tedious ....but the gist of it would be that Tevez probably has more grounds for pursuing an action vs Man City than vice versa...given the lack of procedure that was observed in RM's post-match comments)

Point (3):
Whilst I appreciate that feelings are running high over the Tevez affair...and the natural instinct is to rally behind the manager...this should not mean that anyone who chooses to raise valid points over RM's managerial "style" is a traitor or somehow "less worthy".
We all want the same thing: City to be successful + there is no-one on this planet who wants City to thrash Blackburn more than I do...but this does not mean that I slavishly believe RM has handled every "personnel" situation that he has been confonted with in the best possible way.

e.g. away from handling the "difficult" players (bellamy / adebayor etc) ... I thought it was rather inept of Mancini to bleat on at every press conference about City's inability to close the deal with Arsenal over signing Samir Nasri.
In what was clearly a stand-off between City / arsenal / Nasri's agents...all Mancini was doing was piling the pressure on City's negotiating team to be the ones that blinked first + gave in to the other's demands (which I think we did in the end).

This was an example of him putting his own livelihood (I want the player no matter how much he costs) ahead of the club's concerns (trying to comply with FFP).
Fergie / wenger / Mourinho / guardiola etc all play this game a bit cuter than RM.

 

[Jumanji]

Mancini said "if it was up to me"....

What does lack of procedure have to do with that....do explain, i'm all ears.

 

[Scooby Blue]

Mancini said "if it was up to me"....

What does lack of procedure have to do with that....do explain, i'm all ears.

RM gave post-match interviews to Sky / BBC / MCFC tv / general media etc
and I don't claim to have fully transcripted all of his comments with all broad casters...but with the interview available on BBC website...RM says:

"..for me he can never play"

"..with me , he is finished"

Since performance + appearance fees will form a meaningful part of Tevez's remuneration at MCFC...RM is effectively foreclosing his future opportunity to be selected for the first team (whilst RM is manager).

You don't have to be a rocket scientist / genius / or legal expert to realise that this is tantamount to a summary judgement on an employee's future employment / remuneration prospects ....without allowing him the opportunity to invoke whatever employment procedures + appeals etc are stipulated within City's internal staff guidelines.

No matter how annoyed you get with an employee....the reality of modern (UK) employment law is that there is a procedure to be followed before you effectively kick him out of the door.
Whether Tevez's actions on Tuesday night constitute a breach of contract so grievous as to warrant instant dismissal without recourse to his normal forms of appeal....will be a matter for City's internal review....and possibly a subsequent employment tribunal / court of law to pass judgement on.

 

[intheknow!]

I've said all along Mancini is not the right manager for City. And I've took abuse on here but I don't care, I feel that more than ever.

Mancini has screwed up. I believe Tevez said he wasn't warming up again NOT that he wasn't going to play but because Mancini was flustered, worried, losing the plot because HIS tactics, team selection etc etc had spectacularly flopped and City were being taught a footballing lesson by Bayern. He overreacted and thought Tevez was refusing to play.

Mancini is a terrible man manager and it's not just Tevez, look at other players who have been jettisoned and how much it's cost the club, all because Mancini doesn't like them!!

 

[I Hart Man City]

Mancini said "if it was up to me"....

What does lack of procedure have to do with that....do explain, i'm all ears.

RM gave post-match interviews to Sky / BBC / MCFC tv / general media etc
and I don't claim to have fully transcripted all of his comments with all broad casters...but with the interview available on BBC website...RM says:

"..for me he can never play"

"..with me , he is finished"

Since performance + appearance fees will form a meaningful part of Tevez's remuneration at MCFC...RM is effectively foreclosing his future opportunity to be selected for the first team (whilst RM is manager).

You don't have to be a rocket scientist / genius / or legal expert to realise that this is tantamount to a summary judgement on an employee's future employment / remuneration prospects ....without allowing him the opportunity to invoke whatever employment procedures + appeals etc are stipulated within City's internal staff guidelines.

No matter how annoyed you get with an employee....the reality of modern (UK) employment law is that there is a procedure to be followed before you effectively kick him out of the door.
Whether Tevez's actions on Tuesday night constitute a breach of contract so grievous as to warrant instant dismissal without recourse to his normal forms of appeal....will be a matter for City's internal review....and possibly a subsequent employment tribunal / court of law to pass judgement on.

The above all assumes that contractually Mancini has absolute carte blance over decisions as to who plays/who does not play.

Granted, one would hope that the manager has for the most part ultimate authority as to who is on the pitch, and I would be surprised if this was not the case. However, technically, who plays or is eligible to do so or not will be decided at a higher level within the City corporate hierarchy than Mancini's position, and it would be amazing to presume that this will not be sufficiently expressed in the contracts of all involved.

As such, Mancini's comments (made in the heat of the moment - it could be argued); might not bear the legal weight of your predictions.

 

[MSP]

Didn't Mancini says if it was up to him Tevez wouldn't play again?

But ultimately it isn't up to him, its up to the owners, so could that comment really be used against us in court?

No, it's upto him. A key part of his job description is picking the playing squad. So yes, it would stand up in court.

The only way to legally void the statement would be to dismiss Mancini. THIS IS NOT A SUGGESTION ON MY PART, JUST AN OBSERVATION.

Picking the playing squad is one thing, sacking someone completely different. Mancini backed himself with "it's up to owner" and it's definitely up to owner, he is the one who hires and sacks, not Mancini.

So I don't see how that would be used on court though I'm not a pro at it. Mancini should be careful about his public speech though.

 

[citymad]

I've said all along Mancini is not the right manager for City. And I've took abuse on here but I don't care, I feel that more than ever.

Mancini has screwed up. I believe Tevez said he wasn't warming up again NOT that he wasn't going to play but because Mancini was flustered, worried, losing the plot because HIS tactics, team selection etc etc had spectacularly flopped and City were being taught a footballing lesson by Bayern. He overreacted and thought Tevez was refusing to play.

Mancini is a terrible man manager and it's not just Tevez, look at other players who have been jettisoned and how much it's cost the club, all because Mancini doesn't like them!!

that had crossed my mind too.

 

[Bill]

I've said all along Mancini is not the right manager for City. And I've took abuse on here but I don't care, I feel that more than ever.

Mancini has screwed up. I believe Tevez said he wasn't warming up again NOT that he wasn't going to play but because Mancini was flustered, worried, losing the plot because HIS tactics, team selection etc etc had spectacularly flopped and City were being taught a footballing lesson by Bayern. He overreacted and thought Tevez was refusing to play.

Mancini is a terrible man manager and it's not just Tevez, look at other players who have been jettisoned and how much it's cost the club, all because Mancini doesn't like them!!

that had crossed my mind too.

I was always critical of mancini's man management but like him or not he has achieved success for our club, you can't pick and choose what part of the guy you want i.e the coach or the diplomat. To me he's done enough to be given the leeway to leave him to manage his own way.