Mourinho

[MyJeckyllDoesntHyde]

MARTIN O'NEILL.

This.
Sunderland 3rd in the league since he took over. Look at what he did at Villa and the state of them since he left. Proven Premier League manager. Him or Moyes for me.

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

The least I would expect is that we go down fighting. Six more chances and then I'll decide. At the moment I am shocked and disappointed. And crap performances makes all this corruption talk irreleveant now !

WELL PISSIED OFF !

 

[Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot]

Its fuckin shit threads like this one that makes us look like fickle Chelsea fans.....

Boo hoo we've not win a trophy this year.... Fuckin give over and look where we've come from in the past 5 years...

Disgraceful blues! the lot of you should be ashamed!!

 

[Originals]

MARTIN O'NEILL.

This.
Sunderland 3rd in the league since he took over. Look at what he did at Villa and the state of them since he left. Proven Premier League manager. Him or Moyes for me.

I hope you're taking the piss? David fucking Moyes, If Mancini goes (which I hope he doesn't) and we get O'neil or Moyes in we have gone backwards by a big step.

 

[Little Robin]

Aye.

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

OK then

Lets relax

Step back

AND LEARN FROM THE MISTAKES.

Six games

FIGHT BACK. FIGHT THE SYSTEM. FIGHT BACK

 

[taleofbluehalves]

MARTIN O'NEILL.

Too many beers mate!

 

[Fame Monster]

I think the turning point for me was the Chelsea/Stoke games.

I've always thought Bobby to be a good manager, but nothing more than that and nothing less than that.

I was pissed off against United at home last year when we pretty let them have a point, but I thought we were improving, especially in defence (with the zonal marking etc). Despite that though, I never called for his head, and strongly defended him when he became unpopular with the defeat at Anfield. I thought he'd get us the FA cup and he did just that.

But this season, his misuse of the fullbacks (especially Kolarov - another player who people are wrong about), his misuse of Adam Johnson, his handling of Tevez and his inability to get the best out of Dzeko all indicate that he's not a great manager. And to do what we want to do, he does need to be great.

But the clown which seals his fate is...well, he doesn't even have to be named. No manager in the world can play a player so out of his depth and expect to get away with it. What's worse (in terms of judging Bobby Manc as a person) is that he plays someone so lazy, so average, so fragile minded, having a pretty good idea of how things will play out, and then when things do play out that way, he tears the boy apart in the press.

It is actually difficult to put into words how incompetent it is to rely on the most unreliable player in the league (world?). I suppose the simile to use is Mancini is like the maths teacher who is quite good at quadratic equations, algebra, trigonometry and all that jazz, but when he plays Balotelli, you realise he doesn't know what 5 + 5 is.

Good luck to him but time to move on and bring in Mourinho.

 

[Masonicity]

I love London but i'd move where the best job is and what motivates me. He could get bored but that's football, some of our players like Aguero and Silva might get bored of us.

Of course it's not just about the city. London is great but it also has ambitious teams. It's not like he's going to Queens Park Rangers. Tottenham, Arsenal and Chelsea are all good enough clubs for him to manage. All three are capable of winning big, domestically and internationally. So that by itself makes them more lucrative to join than joining City. Yes, City's financial capabilities are, until this point, better. But it's not like any of the aforementioned names aren't financially equipped to attract the best of Europe. So it's a non-argument, in my opinion. City are simply too low in the priority for a top manager like Mourinho to even look at. It's also risky. You never know what might happen. City may end up losing their Abu Dhabi owners while Mourinho's in charge. Mourinho took that risk with Chelsea when he was trying to build his name and reputation. He no longer needs to take those risks. Going back to Chelsea will be less risky than joining City, and more understandable from everybody's point of view, since he once managed them. Taking over an ambitious Spurs is also understandable. They're a bit like Chelsea pre-Mourinho. Taking over Arsenal is as good as taking over United or Liverpool. And if any club outside London takes him, it's most likely United, when Ferguson's gone, or Liverpool, where he has his best shot of building a so-called "legacy" (after all, Pool haven't won the league in ages).

If Mourinho gets bored that's not us sacking him is it? If he wins the league and several cups i could go a season without winning anything knowing we have the best manager available.

Well, he can get bored and leave us after only a few years, which isn't good for us. Then we'll have to shop for managers all over again and that'll only take us backwards. Or, he might go trophy-less for a few years, after spending the first few winning domestic trophies. By then City fans will want something greater, ala Champions League glory, and the spoiled ones who are now calling for Mancini's head will come on here analyzing the "tactical failures" of Mr. Special One. Mancini dilemma 2.0 all in the writing.

Like I said,

 

[burning blue soul]

the powers that be will decide the best way forward for the club. if that means bob goes then he goes.

however, i would say that jose is the only manager that has consistantly got one over ferguson. from porto to chelsea he has come out on top and i believe that if bob does go it would be the best chance of overtaking the rags as the dominant force in footy in england with jose in charge.

i personally think bob has lost the dressing room, the Balo faith he keeps is causing problems. disillussionment may have set in and from the performances recently, i think some players are just not in with the 'project' anymore.