ST Coleridge
Well-Known Member
johnny crossan said:
Dave and his dad beatify each other off in the bath.
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.
Nedum Onuoha
- Thread starter Freestyler
- Start date
Dave and his dad beatify each other off in the bath.
the goats backside
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 4,897
I was thinking about starting a thread about Ned but realised some would use this area to satisfy themselves
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
BillyShears said:johnny crossan said:New depths plumbed here. Mancini keen to manage Sunderland = desperate & second rate. But if someone said that if Mourinho is keen to manage City therefore he was desperate and second rate? Billy's sense of our superiority would no doubt remain intact. It's a case of the Grouchos
"PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".
Oh Jonny, Jonny, Jonny. It was an admittedly poor attempt at injecting a bit of humour into the proceedings...I don't think Mancini was desperate or second rate...
...Sunderland on the other hand...;- )
this is not you is it Billy?
<a class="postlink" href="http://soccerlens.com/fergie-should-snap-up-the-new-frank-lampard/45083/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://soccerlens.com/fergie-should-sna ... ard/45083/</a>?
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
johnny crossan said:BillyShears said:Oh Jonny, Jonny, Jonny. It was an admittedly poor attempt at injecting a bit of humour into the proceedings...I don't think Mancini was desperate or second rate...
...Sunderland on the other hand...;- )
this is not you is it Billy?
<a class="postlink" href="http://soccerlens.com/fergie-should-snap-up-the-new-frank-lampard/45083/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://soccerlens.com/fergie-should-sna ... ard/45083/</a>?
Nah, I've already got a pretty good idea of what the future holds for the boy Ireland. No need for me to go speculating...
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Getting tedious now so let me just give my final summary so no one is in any doubt.
1) Mancini was a good manager in Italy (even allowing for the help that the match-fixing scandal gave him) but that does not equate to him being a success in England, as some are claiming. We will have to wait and see. I have my doubts but that's my opinion.
2) Hughes average points (2.25 H and 1.22 A) would have given us 66 points over a full season. Mancini got us 67 so I don't think he has been a significant improvement on Hughes, as some are claiming. He's done better in some areas and worse in others. If he can put right the bits that still aren't right then I'll be happy but I'm not convinced as yet that he can.
3) Once it was clear to City that Mourinho wasn't going to commit, they publvily affirmed their faith in Mancini. While I wasn't thrilled I recognise and agree that further instability serves no purpose and that the club probably took the right option under the circumstances.
4) I have been consistent about giving managers time (3 seasons at least) and I extend that to Mancini, as long as he can demonstrate improvement over that time. If he can then we should be successful, whatever my doubts about his ability to do that. and being successful is all I care about.
If we are successful then I'll have been wrong in my opinion but it won't be the first time. I remember being really pleased about the appointment of Billy McNeill as I thought he was a successful manager who would win us things. I was also underwhelmed by the appointment of Ron Saunders so I was wrong on one and right on the other. But that's football.
1) Mancini was a good manager in Italy (even allowing for the help that the match-fixing scandal gave him) but that does not equate to him being a success in England, as some are claiming. We will have to wait and see. I have my doubts but that's my opinion.
2) Hughes average points (2.25 H and 1.22 A) would have given us 66 points over a full season. Mancini got us 67 so I don't think he has been a significant improvement on Hughes, as some are claiming. He's done better in some areas and worse in others. If he can put right the bits that still aren't right then I'll be happy but I'm not convinced as yet that he can.
3) Once it was clear to City that Mourinho wasn't going to commit, they publvily affirmed their faith in Mancini. While I wasn't thrilled I recognise and agree that further instability serves no purpose and that the club probably took the right option under the circumstances.
4) I have been consistent about giving managers time (3 seasons at least) and I extend that to Mancini, as long as he can demonstrate improvement over that time. If he can then we should be successful, whatever my doubts about his ability to do that. and being successful is all I care about.
If we are successful then I'll have been wrong in my opinion but it won't be the first time. I remember being really pleased about the appointment of Billy McNeill as I thought he was a successful manager who would win us things. I was also underwhelmed by the appointment of Ron Saunders so I was wrong on one and right on the other. But that's football.
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
Prestwich_Blue said:Getting tedious now so let me just give my final summary so no one is in any doubt.
...Once it was clear to City that Mourinho wasn't going to commit, they publvily affirmed their faith in Mancini.
Just how do you know this?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Because I had three separate sources (at least one very much an insider) tell me on the day after we sacked Hughes that Mancini was purely temporary and Mourinho had provisionally agreed to come to us next season.johnny crossan said:Prestwich_Blue said:Getting tedious now so let me just give my final summary so no one is in any doubt.
...Once it was clear to City that Mourinho wasn't going to commit, they publvily affirmed their faith in Mancini.
Just how do you know this?
I had one of those sources tell me about 5 or 6 weeks ago that the plan was still that Mourinho would take up his position on July 1st.
I also know that Ciy tried to get him to commit up to about 3 weeks ago but felt he was stringing them along so gave up and publicly put their faith in Mancini via Khaldoon's statement.
Make no mistake jc, if the man from Inter had said "Yes", Mancini would have been on his way back to Italy. I don't know if you know this but Joe Mercer wasn't the first choice in 1965. I can't remember who was off the top of my head but Albert Alexander couldn't get hold of him to offer him the job so offered it to Joe instead. A happy accident.
Prestwich_Blue said:Because I had three separate sources (at least one very much an insider) tell me on the day after we sacked Hughes that Mancini was purely temporary and Mourinho had provisionally agreed to come to us next season.johnny crossan said:Just how do you know this?
I had one of those sources tell me about 5 or 6 weeks ago that the plan was still that Mourinho would take up his position on July 1st.
I also know that Ciy tried to get him to commit up to about 3 weeks ago but felt he was stringing them along so gave up and publicly put their faith in Mancini via Khaldoon's statement.
Make no mistake jc, if the man from Inter had said "Yes", Mancini would have been on his way back to Italy. I don't know if you know this but Joe Mercer wasn't the first choice in 1965. I can't remember who was off the top of my head but Albert Alexander couldn't get hold of him to offer him the job so offered it to Joe instead. A happy accident.
Not surprised as he had already taken both Sheffield Utd and Villa down. Which just goes to show you never know. But in the grand scheme of things past performance is a reasonable indicator of the future. It therefore makes sense to employ a manager who has a decent CV. And we haven't done that very often. As far as I am aware we have only employed two men previously who had won a major league before they arrived at City. Sven and Kendall.
johnny crossan said:Prestwich_Blue said:Getting tedious now so let me just give my final summary so no one is in any doubt.
...Once it was clear to City that Mourinho wasn't going to commit, they publvily affirmed their faith in Mancini.
Just how do you know this?
he's making it up as he goes along..;)
Didsbury Dave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 37,725
Prestwich_Blue said:Because I had three separate sources (at least one very much an insider) tell me on the day after we sacked Hughes that Mancini was purely temporary and Mourinho had provisionally agreed to come to us next season.johnny crossan said:Just how do you know this?
I had one of those sources tell me about 5 or 6 weeks ago that the plan was still that Mourinho would take up his position on July 1st.
I also know that Ciy tried to get him to commit up to about 3 weeks ago but felt he was stringing them along so gave up and publicly put their faith in Mancini via Khaldoon's statement.
Make no mistake jc, if the man from Inter had said "Yes", Mancini would have been on his way back to Italy. I don't know if you know this but Joe Mercer wasn't the first choice in 1965. I can't remember who was off the top of my head but Albert Alexander couldn't get hold of him to offer him the job so offered it to Joe instead. A happy accident.
Have the kiddies gone away?
That's my understanding of it too.
The wind changed the day that Mourinho issued his "come and get me" plea on Sky after they'd won the Champions League Quarter Final.
I also believe that Mancini has always been aware of this so fair play to him.
And City were pretty much left with no alternative.
I think it's fairly apparent what he has been asked to do by his recent statement.
Whilst I remain unconvinced by him, I admire him for the difficult circumstances he has worked. There's no doubt that these circumstances have undermined him hugely with the playing staff.