Mourinho or Mancini

[dancity19]

You lot are easily seduced by big names. Once you push the revolving door it's not easy to stop....look at Chelsea. A new manager would have 12 months to do the job, and then you lot would hound him out. We need to establish some firm foundations in football, before we start acting like Real Madrid and Barcelona who know their place at the top table is assured long term

Our owners will see, "Firm foundations in football" as Europe

Firm foundations are a 60k stadium, a strong young squad and a manager who has the confidence of players and fans. Sustainability first then you can gamble if you must

Not sure. I think with the talent at our disposal, and the money we have spent, and can spend, we have been 'fast tracked' effectively into having firm foundations.

Indeed, if we win the league again this year, then that indicates firm foundations to me.

No team wants to chop and change managers consistently, but I think you are underestimating City.

Just because we don't have the history of Barca, Real and United doesn't mean we don't have 'firm foundations'. We aren't as big as those clubs, but no doubt we will be one of the favourites to win the champions league next year, despite 2 poor campaigns.

We are recognised as a top team in Europe, and in terms of 'firm foundations' I can't think of too many clubs who are necessarily better prepared to really be the next top team and create a dynasty, certainly in England.

 

[daztrueblue91]

You really think the club would want the adverse publicity (especially after Hughes) that sacking a league winning, or even double winning manager would bring?

I do think they are pragmatic, but also ruthless.

They will have had their eyes opened as to those who wants us to fail at every turn.

I also think a decision such as the one I have opinionated, would be quickly assuaged by the hypocrisy of landing a world renowned manager such as Jose or Pep?

As would their ability to attract the absolute top drawer players in the world.

I fear having our pants pulled down in Europe for two successive years has created a narrative which will impact our ability to attract those types.

To be fair I don't think the publicity would be half as bad if we brought Mourinho in. Hughes was seen as the golden boy British manager when he was at us and that was the reason we got so much stick. Also Mancini was not really respected in England when he took over and would not have been in anyones top 5 managers to replace Hughes so there is no doubt that this played a massive part in the press we recieved.

Difference with Mou is that he is widely regarded as the best manager in the world and apart from Fergie is probably the most respected coach in England so bringing him in for Bobby would make perfect sense. It wouldn't be like were changing a manager for the sake of it, we would be doing it cos the best is available.

 

[Skashion]

Come on mate, respond to my post.

There's a small African village with a permanent water supply resting on it.

It's a generous offer and as there's no clause that would impact me, of course I accept. As the search engine ignores the word 'never', it is tricky. I would have to look through every one of your posts almost. There's 1233 results using the terms 'league never' on your posts which then ignores the term never. I've already found quite a nice one using difference search terms:

Well I'm not so sure about that.

If City won the premier league the whole profile of the club would be hugely changed. In terms of the calibre of player we could attract, in terms of sponsorship deals, supporter numbers etc.

If I had the choice of a manager coming in for three years and winning the league and a few other cups then leaving, I'd take it.

Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. In this case that is certainly true.

So you likened keeping Mancini to never having loved at all, this being the lesser option than someone who came in for three years and winning a few trophies including the league (loving and losing). So you certainly never expected Mancini to win trophies.

I'd also forgotten the gem where you were praising Dalglish for his heroics in winning the League Cup.

 

[Malty]

Don't worry about the image; it's all about winning. Mourinho would turn us into a real club instead of the plastic one we are currently. It will give us clout and credence. Papers will speak fondly of us. Rummenigge will no longer bad mouth us. Dortmund's president will invite us for tea instead of lambasting us. Punks, skins and rastas will all join hands.

The media love Mourinho, and would love us.

 

[Rammy Blue]

Similar to TH's views, I have complete faith nowadays that in Soriano and Burgerstain we have people who are highly experienced that will be casting their eyes over the manager and playing staff and drawing their own conclusions.

I'll leave it to them to make the correct decision but I think it's rather naive to not think there will be a consideration of changing the manager when Pep and Jose are on the market to come to the Prem.

The main issue for me is as to why we, as a team, although unbeaten are going backwards in the quality of our play. Surely with the talent at our disposal we should still be improving as more of the players benefit from improving with the lingo and spending time with the squad. The summer window was an utter shambles, whether that falls at the feet of Marwood or Mancini, who knows.

 

[Anonymous]

Don't worry about the image; it's all about winning. Mourinho would turn us into a real club instead of the plastic one we are currently. It will give us clout and credence. Papers will speak fondly of us. Rummenigge will no longer bad mouth us. Dortmund's president will invite us for tea instead of lambasting us. Punks, skins and rastas will all join hands.

The media love Mourinho, and would love us.

Which is what I've said. Moo for me. Bring him in now.

Moo

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Come on mate, respond to my post.

There's a small African village with a permanent water supply resting on it.

It's a generous offer and as there's no clause that would impact me, of course I accept. As the search engine ignores the word 'never', it is tricky. I would have to look through every one of your posts almost. There's 1233 results using the terms 'league never' on your posts which then ignores the term never. I've already found quite a nice one using difference search terms:

Well I'm not so sure about that.

If City won the premier league the whole profile of the club would be hugely changed. In terms of the calibre of player we could attract, in terms of sponsorship deals, supporter numbers etc.

If I had the choice of a manager coming in for three years and winning the league and a few other cups then leaving, I'd take it.

Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. In this case that is certainly true.

So you likened keeping Mancini to never having loved at all, this being the lesser option than someone who came in for three years and winning a few trophies including the league (loving and losing). So you certainly never expected Mancini to win trophies.

I'd also forgotten the gem where you were praising Dalglish for his heroics in winning the League Cup.

So that's a few more starving Africans then.

Oh well. It's a good job I have a direct debit to Oxfam or I'd feel a bit more guilty.

 

[fablue]

Neither.
Sign Klopp!

 

[Skashion]

So that's a few more starving Africans then.

Oh well. It's a good job I have a direct debit to Oxfam or I'd feel a bit more guilty.

Surely this should remain a standing offer?

 

[Anonymous]

So that's a few more starving Africans then.

Oh well. It's a good job I have a direct debit to Oxfam or I'd feel a bit more guilty.

Surely this should remain a standing offer?

It was me who said it not Dave mate. On that fateful night after that defeat at Anfield. It's also the night I called Mancini the Italian Benitez. It's amazing what one jet lagged Jack Daniels fuelled posting session can do for a man's reputation ... :)