Mourinho or Mancini

[glassyeyes]

Mourinho

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I don't get that

If the owners aren't happy with Mancini and did not have confidence with giving him money to invest in the team, why did they extend his contract. If they were that unhappy they'd change manager, or at the very least let his old contract unwind unrenewed.

Or give him an extension of two or three years instead of a big fat five year contract.

Or negotiate favourable release clauses ;-)

Just a suggestion before anyone starts...

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I don't think he ever managed to make City squad to be more that sum of it's parts.

I disagree. Last season I thought that United had a better squad than us, or should I say higher quality players the deeper into their squad you went. Our centre half cover was Savic and Kolo, and our wide options were Johnson; whereas United had Evans Smalling Jones and even played Carrick at CB a few times, and Valencia Young Nani Park and Giggs who could play wide. We had a stronger central midfield depth but the rest were even.

With that, we beat them to the title. To me that shows a manager who made his squad greater than the sum of its parts.

This twaddle theory irritates me. We played them twice and totally fucking murdered them both times. In fact we almost beat them with ten men and a shadow team. That suggests to me like we have a much better team and squad, and should have won the league well before the last kick of the season.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I think we need to separate the two when we talk about what might have gone down last summer.

The transfer policy and Mancini's new deal I don't believe are mutually exclusive.

Van Persie chose the added prestige in his eyes, and comparable wages to anything on offer from us. We never went higher than a £15m valuation I heard.

Hazard, he was a little prick tease who chose the easier option of a guaranteed spot at the European champs with the lure of London. Again, we rightly fucked off an agent asking £5m (we 'only' spent £10m in the whole of the previous financial year)

Re Bobby, he held all the cards, having won the title. Our owners would have been very wary of sacking him after that and with no outstanding candidate in the marketplace.

Similar to Chelsea, perhaps. Even Roman was forced to retain Di Matteo, and with Pep declaring he could not be tempted from his sabattical.

 

[Dextersmate]

I don't think he ever managed to make City squad to be more that sum of it's parts.

I disagree. Last season I thought that United had a better squad than us, or should I say higher quality players the deeper into their squad you went. Our centre half cover was Savic and Kolo, and our wide options were Johnson; whereas United had Evans Smalling Jones and even played Carrick at CB a few times, and Valencia Young Nani Park and Giggs who could play wide. We had a stronger central midfield depth but the rest were even.

With that, we beat them to the title. To me that shows a manager who made his squad greater than the sum of its parts.

This twaddle theory irritates me. We played them twice and totally fucking murdered them both times. In fact we almost beat them with ten men and a shadow team. That suggests to me like we have a much better team and squad, and should have won the league well before the last kick of the season.

Unfortunately we didn,t play them every week,football isn,t a science,sods law and refs have a part to play.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I think we need to separate the two when we talk about what might have gone down last summer.







Re Bobby, he held all the cards, having won the title. Our owners would have been very wary of sacking him after that and with no outstanding candidate in the marketplace.

Similar to Chelsea, perhaps. Even Roman was forced to retain Di Matteo, and with Pep declaring he could not be tempted from his sabattical.

Agree with this. Also not dissimilar to a certain mr mourinho at Real Madrid who got a new contract

 

[Anonymous]

I say. No problem. There's a reason the cheque book was closed for as long and as firmly as it was last summer, just as it no doubt will be this January. And it ain't because HRH has run out of Barclays play money ... :)

Mm..if it's true that we didn't spend on Hazard and RVP for the reasons you're suggesting, then the senior management of our club are out of their trees.

I think my point is more that there was a general discord behind the scenes even though we'd won the title. I've no idea why, but it's clear from Mancini's comment "we only moved in the last three days of the market" that something was way off. Regardless of the money/wage budgets that the ownership wanted to adhere to, it smells of someone somewhere not being happy with something when the book is seemingly closed in that way. Marwood has taken a lot of stick but there is a train of thought that it was Marwood's intervention late in the window in talking to Khaldoun which finally got some money out the door to bring players in.

As for Mancini's five year contract ... it'll be incentivised up to the nines I suspect.

 

[Danamy]

I don't get that

If the owners aren't happy with Mancini and did not have confidence with giving him money to invest in the team, why did they extend his contract. If they were that unhappy they'd change manager, or at the very least let his old contract unwind unrenewed.

That was before two of the best managers in the world made themselves available

 

[Anonymous]

That has really got under your skin, hasn't it billy?

Because it reinforced some of my opinions of Mancini and what type of character and person he is. Simply put, he doesn't see the enormous favour our owners did his career by giving him a job when previously he was eyeing up the likes of Sunderland. He seems himself as bigger than us somehow and therefore in a position to do and say what he wants when he wants.

 

[Ray78]

The reason why Sheikh Mansour did extend Mancini's contract could be a Thank You for the Trophies he had given us.