Pellegrini is the new manager (Malaga Newspaper reports)

[bluemoon32]

Hate to say it but for the 40th time Kiam has been proven right I did spend a thread after thread defending myself over claims that Guardiola would be joining us.

Even after he signed for Munich and people decided to take that as an opportunity to ridicule I still defended my corner and insisted Guardiola would come.

Are people starting to get it now? Look at the overall long term picture and listen to me.

So, why would Pep only stay at Bayern for 2 years ?

Cuz kiam said so ffs.

Shit, sorry for being dull

 

[levets]

No disrespect to salfordpaul but I dont buy these "Pep in 2 years" stories for a minute.

Clubs don't strategise like that. Noone knows what will happen to us, Pellegrini, Pep or Bayern over 2 years. Managers don't sign short term deals like that when they can get long ones elsewhere with bigger payoffs. They don't want to be relocating their family for a fixed term.

It doesn't ring true at all.

Agreed - watch this space to see who's on on MP's coaching staff (O:

Got to be Vieira

My sentiments too! Always saw him as a future manager

 

[kenzie115]

The Dye is set.

The utopian stability the Media and lots of us crave will come from the Director of Football and the structure of the club to be firmed up over the next year or so.

I have never had an problem with sacking managers if they weren`t doing the job. Why keep a duffer to continue to be a duffer for the sake of stability. Obviously in Mancinis` case he wasnt a duffer and I would have given him another year. But the stability we will get now will be club wide and not manager dependent . It will be bottom up not Manager down.

We are firmly going down the European route where the coach is the coach. We are the first top English club to fully embrace it (a risk but at least executed by people who understand the system). If the coach does a good job he will last 2,3 maybe 4 years and then be gone. The next coach will be one that is prepared to freshen things up within our stable system.

The difference for us now is rather than stumble from frizzell, to machin, to (kendal)Reid to Horton, Ball and clarke etc.. We will move from Mancini to Pellers(?) to A.N.Othet top coach.

Get over it, get used to it. We will follow the model which works for Madrid, Barca and Bayern not the Rag model.

Completely agree, and to be honest, it sounds pretty good.

United, and to some extent previously Arsenal, are exceptions. It appears to only be in England that managerial stability is considered a pre-requisite for success. The media will slate us for it, but to be honest, if we're winning trophies on a consistent basis, they'll look pretty stupid for doing so, and we shouldn't care.

Key players can come and go every 3-4 years, why should it be different for managers? Particularly when it will be the club as a whole that determines the style of play. If Pellegrini only lasts 2 years it's not as if we're suddenly going to hire Big Sam and have to have a complete overhaul of the playing staff to create a squad that suits his style of play. The club will have a solid identity, philosophy, style, call it what you will, and we will buy players and hire managers to suit.

We've had plenty of stick since Monday night for the 'holistic approach' statement but to me it's perfectly logical. English football fans have had the "Fergie-model" of management rammed down their throats for years, we expect the manager to have full control and essentially run, by himself, the key parts of the football club. Thinking about it, that's pretty stupid. Fergie was a one off. It makes much more sense to create a footballing identity throughout every level of the club and find executive staff, coaches, players, academy prospects and a manager who suit.

It's become pretty clear over the past couple of days that Mancini's fractious personality and need for control didn't fit this model. So whilst the timing of the sacking; the news breaking in cup final week and the actual sacking being a year to the date we won the league, wasn't ideal, it was really inevitable that he had to go. We all appreciate what he did for the club but we're moving in a different direction now, so we'll say our goodbyes on Sunday and move on. The future's blue.

 

[OB1]

No disrespect to salfordpaul but I dont buy these "Pep in 2 years" stories for a minute.

Clubs don't strategise like that. Noone knows what will happen to us, Pellegrini, Pep or Bayern over 2 years. Managers don't sign short term deals like that when they can get long ones elsewhere with bigger payoffs. They don't want to be relocating their family for a fixed term.

It doesn't ring true at all.

Agreed - watch this space to see who's on on MP's coaching staff (O:

Got to be Vieira

I do hope so.

 

[dctid]

Here is what I think he'll achieve in his first season.

3rd Place Premier League
Round of 16 / Quarter finals Champions League.
Semi final cup run.

On what basis have you decided that?

Thought and intuition.

I dont think he will hit the ground running like Mou and Ancelotti who won the league in their first season.
He'll do well in Europe no doubt but quarters is as far as he gets. City also dont have the right CM to make it pasts the quarters. Unless he gets someone in like Alonso.

Its much more difficult to get a result against English teams. He find that a cultural shock. He also has the press to deal with.

Its a double edged sword - teams wont really know what to expect so it can work in our favour.

If Kidd is there (remember it was kidd whom said to bobby last year not to give up) we will be ok. Ultimately we have an outstanding set of players and that is what is important.

 

[MSP]

Club structure and key players stability were, are and always will be the more important than managerial stability.

There is life and football behind rags for those that didn't know.

 

[Dubai Blue]

The Dye is set.

The utopian stability the Media and lots of us crave will come from the Director of Football and the structure of the club to be firmed up over the next year or so.

I have never had an problem with sacking managers if they weren`t doing the job. Why keep a duffer to continue to be a duffer for the sake of stability. Obviously in Mancinis` case he wasnt a duffer and I would have given him another year. But the stability we will get now will be club wide and not manager dependent . It will be bottom up not Manager down.

We are firmly going down the European route where the coach is the coach. We are the first top English club to fully embrace it (a risk but at least executed by people who understand the system). If the coach does a good job he will last 2,3 maybe 4 years and then be gone. The next coach will be one that is prepared to freshen things up within our stable system.

The difference for us now is rather than stumble from frizzell, to machin, to (kendal)Reid to Horton, Ball and clarke etc.. We will move from Mancini to Pellers(?) to A.N.Othet top coach.

Get over it, get used to it. We will follow the model which works for Madrid, Barca and Bayern not the Rag model.

Completely agree, and to be honest, it sounds pretty good.

United, and to some extent previously Arsenal, are exceptions. It appears to only be in England that managerial stability is considered a pre-requisite for success. The media will slate us for it, but to be honest, if we're winning trophies on a consistent basis, they'll look pretty stupid for doing so, and we shouldn't care.

Key players can come and go every 3-4 years, why should it be different for managers? Particularly when it will be the club as a whole that determines the style of play. If Pellegrini only lasts 2 years it's not as if we're suddenly going to hire Big Sam and have to have a complete overhaul of the playing staff to create a squad that suits his style of play. The club will have a solid identity, philosophy, style, call it what you will, and we will buy players and hire managers to suit.

We've had plenty of stick since Monday night for the 'holistic approach' statement but to me it's perfectly logical. English football fans have had the "Fergie-model" of management rammed down their throats for years, we expect the manager to have full control and essentially run, by himself, the key parts of the football club. Thinking about it, that's pretty stupid. Fergie was a one off. It makes much more sense to create a footballing identity throughout every level of the club and find executive staff, coaches, players, academy prospects and a manager who suit.

It's become pretty clear over the past couple of days that Mancini's fractious personality and need for control didn't fit this model. So whilst the timing of the sacking; the news breaking in cup final week and the actual sacking being a year to the date we won the league, wasn't ideal, it was really inevitable that he had to go. We all appreciate what he did for the club but we're moving in a different direction now, so we'll say our goodbyes on Sunday and move on. The future's blue.

I agree with all of this.

The first thing that struck me when united appointed Moyes wasn't that he plays shit football or that he's never won a trophy; it was that they are absolutely mind-bendingly obsessed with trying to recreate the only system they have known for the last 27 years. But you can't possibly force or manufacture a Ferguson/Wenger-type dynasty, it just occurs organically over time and is primarily driven by the personalities of the men involved.

When you look over the last 20 years of football management in any country, Ferguson and Wenger are very much the exceptions to the rule, and united will have to have got very lucky if they manage to recreate that at the first attempt.

 

[nickson71]

The Dye is set.

The utopian stability the Media and lots of us crave will come from the Director of Football and the structure of the club to be firmed up over the next year or so.

I have never had an problem with sacking managers if they weren`t doing the job. Why keep a duffer to continue to be a duffer for the sake of stability. Obviously in Mancinis` case he wasnt a duffer and I would have given him another year. But the stability we will get now will be club wide and not manager dependent . It will be bottom up not Manager down.

We are firmly going down the European route where the coach is the coach. We are the first top English club to fully embrace it (a risk but at least executed by people who understand the system). If the coach does a good job he will last 2,3 maybe 4 years and then be gone. The next coach will be one that is prepared to freshen things up within our stable system.

The difference for us now is rather than stumble from frizzell, to machin, to (kendal)Reid to Horton, Ball and clarke etc.. We will move from Mancini to Pellers(?) to A.N.Othet top coach.

Get over it, get used to it. We will follow the model which works for Madrid, Barca and Bayern not the Rag model.

Completely agree, and to be honest, it sounds pretty good.

United, and to some extent previously Arsenal, are exceptions. It appears to only be in England that managerial stability is considered a pre-requisite for success. The media will slate us for it, but to be honest, if we're winning trophies on a consistent basis, they'll look pretty stupid for doing so, and we shouldn't care.

Key players can come and go every 3-4 years, why should it be different for managers? Particularly when it will be the club as a whole that determines the style of play. If Pellegrini only lasts 2 years it's not as if we're suddenly going to hire Big Sam and have to have a complete overhaul of the playing staff to create a squad that suits his style of play. The club will have a solid identity, philosophy, style, call it what you will, and we will buy players and hire managers to suit.

We've had plenty of stick since Monday night for the 'holistic approach' statement but to me it's perfectly logical. English football fans have had the "Fergie-model" of management rammed down their throats for years, we expect the manager to have full control and essentially run, by himself, the key parts of the football club. Thinking about it, that's pretty stupid. Fergie was a one off. It makes much more sense to create a footballing identity throughout every level of the club and find executive staff, coaches, players, academy prospects and a manager who suit.

It's become pretty clear over the past couple of days that Mancini's fractious personality and need for control didn't fit this model. So whilst the timing of the sacking; the news breaking in cup final week and the actual sacking being a year to the date we won the league, wasn't ideal, it was really inevitable that he had to go. We all appreciate what he did for the club but we're moving in a different direction now, so we'll say our goodbyes on Sunday and move on. The future's blue.

I agree with all of this.

The first thing that struck me when united appointed Moyes wasn't that he plays shit football or that he's never won a trophy; it was that they are absolutely mind-bendingly obsessed with trying to recreate the only system they have known for the last 27 years. But you can't possibly force or manufacture a Ferguson/Wenger-type dynasty, it just occurs organically over time and is primarily driven by the personalities of the men involved.

When you look over the last 20 years of football management in any country, Ferguson and Wenger are very much the exceptions to the rule, and united will have to have got very lucky if they manage to recreate that at the first attempt.

It could take decades to find the right man if at all

 

[The perfect fumble]

The Dye is set.

The utopian stability the Media and lots of us crave will come from the Director of Football and the structure of the club to be firmed up over the next year or so.

I have never had an problem with sacking managers if they weren`t doing the job. Why keep a duffer to continue to be a duffer for the sake of stability. Obviously in Mancinis` case he wasnt a duffer and I would have given him another year. But the stability we will get now will be club wide and not manager dependent . It will be bottom up not Manager down.

We are firmly going down the European route where the coach is the coach. We are the first top English club to fully embrace it (a risk but at least executed by people who understand the system). If the coach does a good job he will last 2,3 maybe 4 years and then be gone. The next coach will be one that is prepared to freshen things up within our stable system.

The difference for us now is rather than stumble from frizzell, to machin, to (kendal)Reid to Horton, Ball and clarke etc.. We will move from Mancini to Pellers(?) to A.N.Othet top coach.

Get over it, get used to it. We will follow the model which works for Madrid, Barca and Bayern not the Rag model.

Completely agree, and to be honest, it sounds pretty good.

United, and to some extent previously Arsenal, are exceptions. It appears to only be in England that managerial stability is considered a pre-requisite for success. The media will slate us for it, but to be honest, if we're winning trophies on a consistent basis, they'll look pretty stupid for doing so, and we shouldn't care.

Key players can come and go every 3-4 years, why should it be different for managers? Particularly when it will be the club as a whole that determines the style of play. If Pellegrini only lasts 2 years it's not as if we're suddenly going to hire Big Sam and have to have a complete overhaul of the playing staff to create a squad that suits his style of play. The club will have a solid identity, philosophy, style, call it what you will, and we will buy players and hire managers to suit.

We've had plenty of stick since Monday night for the 'holistic approach' statement but to me it's perfectly logical. English football fans have had the "Fergie-model" of management rammed down their throats for years, we expect the manager to have full control and essentially run, by himself, the key parts of the football club. Thinking about it, that's pretty stupid. Fergie was a one off. It makes much more sense to create a footballing identity throughout every level of the club and find executive staff, coaches, players, academy prospects and a manager who suit.

It's become pretty clear over the past couple of days that Mancini's fractious personality and need for control didn't fit this model. So whilst the timing of the sacking; the news breaking in cup final week and the actual sacking being a year to the date we won the league, wasn't ideal, it was really inevitable that he had to go. We all appreciate what he did for the club but we're moving in a different direction now, so we'll say our goodbyes on Sunday and move on. The future's blue.

I agree with all of this.

The first thing that struck me when united appointed Moyes wasn't that he plays shit football or that he's never won a trophy; it was that they are absolutely mind-bendingly obsessed with trying to recreate the only system they have known for the last 27 years. But you can't possibly force or manufacture a Ferguson/Wenger-type dynasty, it just occurs organically over time and is primarily driven by the personalities of the men involved.

When you look over the last 20 years of football management in any country, Ferguson and Wenger are very much the exceptions to the rule, and united will have to have got very lucky if they manage to recreate that at the first attempt.

Well. they have got a manager who spent 11 years at his previous club, so he comes with a reputation for not hop, skipping and jumping, still that doesn't preclude a push.

 

[EricBrooksGhost]

Here is what I think he'll achieve in his first season.

3rd Place Premier League
Round of 16 / Quarter finals Champions League.
Semi final cup run.

On what basis have you decided that?

Thought and intuition.

I dont think he will hit the ground running like Mou and Ancelotti who won the league in their first season.
He'll do well in Europe no doubt but quarters is as far as he gets. City also dont have the right CM to make it pasts the quarters. Unless he gets someone in like Alonso.

Its much more difficult to get a result against English teams. He find that a cultural shock. He also has the press to deal with.

I thought city was "dead" to you?