Matty
Well-Known Member
BLOOMUEN said:
I'm of the opinion that Option 2 is the most likely situation we find ourselves in.
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.
I'm of the opinion that Option 2 is the most likely situation we find ourselves in.
bluetonium
Well-Known Member
Good questions and I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the meeting they come up in. I think we have to believe that there was something else about Hughes that didn't sit right with management - aside from the draws we played ok under him and got resulsts, rarely go beaten. Maybe the 3 wise men, as you put it, didn't see Hughes style of management or play as sustainable or compatible with our development plans.
Obviously things have not gone as we wished under Mancini - out of the Carling Cup, looking a bit limp every week on the pitch, and struggling to make the next round of the FA Cup, but we are still 4th with the chance to build on it. I guess our Honeymoon period with Mancini ended quite abruptly.
At the end of the day, I don;t think we have anything to gain by getting rid of him before Summer, if at all. But this is to an extent a situation that the club's management have created all by themselves - players and fans wondering how much support Mancini and the players themselves actually have, and with an all-or-bust policy there is no time for change or reflection, even though it's accepted as a necessary process by most.
I have to say that the only logical conclusions are either:
1) Nothing to see here. Manicini is in charge and it is what it is.
2) Mancini is as rumoured just the fill-in for Jose. In which case he must have been brought in partly because of his motivational abilities, to avoid the playing staff's heads getting down.
Both eventualities are covered by this 6mths + 3 yrs contract.
Obviously things have not gone as we wished under Mancini - out of the Carling Cup, looking a bit limp every week on the pitch, and struggling to make the next round of the FA Cup, but we are still 4th with the chance to build on it. I guess our Honeymoon period with Mancini ended quite abruptly.
At the end of the day, I don;t think we have anything to gain by getting rid of him before Summer, if at all. But this is to an extent a situation that the club's management have created all by themselves - players and fans wondering how much support Mancini and the players themselves actually have, and with an all-or-bust policy there is no time for change or reflection, even though it's accepted as a necessary process by most.
I have to say that the only logical conclusions are either:
1) Nothing to see here. Manicini is in charge and it is what it is.
2) Mancini is as rumoured just the fill-in for Jose. In which case he must have been brought in partly because of his motivational abilities, to avoid the playing staff's heads getting down.
Both eventualities are covered by this 6mths + 3 yrs contract.
Matty
Well-Known Member
bluetonium said:Good questions and I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the meeting they come up in. I think we have to believe that there was something else about Hughes that didn't sit right with management - aside from the draws we played ok under him and got resulsts, rarely go beaten. Maybe the 3 wise men, as you put it, didn't see Hughes style of management or play as sustainable or compatible with our development plans.
Obviously things have not gone as we wished under Mancini - out of the Carling Cup, looking a bit limp every week on the pitch, and struggling to make the next round of the FA Cup, but we are still 4th with the chance to build on it. I guess our Honeymoon period with Mancini ended quite abruptly.
At the end of the day, I don;t think we have anything to gain by getting rid of him before Summer, if at all. But this is to an extent a situation that the club's management have created all by themselves - players and fans wondering how much support Mancini and the players themselves actually have, and with an all-or-bust policy there is no time for change or reflection, even though it's accepted as a necessary process by most.
I have to say that the only logical conclusions are either:
1) Nothing to see here. Manicini is in charge and it is what it is.
2) Mancini is as rumoured just the fill-in for Jose. In which case he must have been brought in partly because of his motivational abilities, to avoid the playing staff's heads getting down.
Both eventualities are covered by this 6mths + 3 yrs contract.
If City were going to stick with Mancini beyond this season then I'm certain we'd have backed him in the transfer window far more than we did. Given our resources, and our squad deficiencies, it speaks volumes that all we brought in a was 33 year old midfielder on a free and an exciting prospect from the Championship for approx £8m.
cleavers
Moderator
Prestwich_Blue said:That's already been done. Why won't people believe some of the credible and serious posters on here who are saying it? We are not making this up. In fact it's highly likely these approaches at the latter end of 2009 caused the problem with Hughes.BillyShears said:And of course....
"Should we now act responsibly and go back to Hiddink, and Mourinho, arrange an immediate back up plan, in case the wheels again come off the wagon in the next few weeks..."
If you realise the context you will be able to answer all your questions.
No offence Prestwich, but are you claiming to be "in the know" there, or just posting what you hope because you didn't want MH out, and/or RM in ?
There's nothing worse than innuendo for me, if you know facts post them, if you can't stop teasing people until you can.
In reply to Billy, I hope your latter statement proves correct, and that Mancini is the man. I've my doubts about his ability in the Premier League, but I do think he would be a big asset in the Champions League should we get there. People keep posting that we've become boring under Mancini, and how we don't create enough chances, but we were often boring under Hughes as well, Birmingham and Liverpool away this season to mention 2. For me there is little difference between the 2, and the stats back it up, until the last 2 games at least, we were less likely to draw matches, and we were winning more than we were losing. I'd take a draw on Sunday, but if we do, that'll be 3 in a row, and the comparisons will start in the media no doubt.
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
Prestwich_Blue said:That's already been done. Why won't people believe some of the credible and serious posters on here who are saying it? We are not making this up. In fact it's highly likely these approaches at the latter end of 2009 caused the problem with Hughes.BillyShears said:And of course....
"Should we now act responsibly and go back to Hiddink, and Mourinho, arrange an immediate back up plan, in case the wheels again come off the wagon in the next few weeks..."
If you realise the context you will be able to answer all your questions.
PB - I do know what you're talking about. I guess so as to spell it out as loads of people seem to want to know:
ALLEGEDLY - Mark Hughes got wind that Cook and Marwood were sounding out other managers, and came to them with a back me (new contract etc.) or sack me ultimatum. He had already submitted his list of transfer targets (not all cheap), to the board, and they knew that there was no way they could placate him this time. Hughes knew Marwood wanted him sacked, and he knew Cook's support was waning. The board for their part had hoped to keep Hughes in place until their #1 target (whoever that was) became available. Unfortunately, in football's murky waters, where no secrets are worth keeping, Hughes, Bowen, et al, knew after Hull, it was a matter of WHEN and not IF the were dispensed with...
My OP was of course slightly tongue in cheek - I'm just curious how they're feeling now.
FWIW, I think Mancini is a coach, and is used to working with a director of football. So I think that Marwood needs to take advice from Kidd (that's gotta be why he's there), and then speak to Mancini about what's going on. Results? Yes, we're getting them. We are in the top 4 with a game in hand. However, anyone with two eyes who has been to recent matches will tell you there is somewhat of a morale problem within the squad. Players are as baffled as the supporters by the tactics, by the sudden omission of players like Ireland and SWP, by the sheer bloody minded negativity of the football being played...
Results are one thing - but if performances don't improve, the results will eventually turn too...
BillyShears said:Prestwich_Blue said:That's already been done. Why won't people believe some of the credible and serious posters on here who are saying it? We are not making this up. In fact it's highly likely these approaches at the latter end of 2009 caused the problem with Hughes.
If you realise the context you will be able to answer all your questions.
PB - I do know what you're talking about. I guess so as to spell it out as loads of people seem to want to know:
ALLEGEDLY - Mark Hughes got wind that Cook and Marwood were sounding out other managers, and came to them with a back me (new contract etc.) or sack me ultimatum. He had already submitted his list of transfer targets (not all cheap), to the board, and they knew that there was no way they could placate him this time. Hughes knew Marwood wanted him sacked, and he knew Cook's support was waning. The board for their part had hoped to keep Hughes in place until their #1 target (whoever that was) became available. Unfortunately, in football's murky waters, where no secrets are worth keeping, Hughes, Bowen, et al, knew after Hull, it was a matter of WHEN and not IF the were dispensed with...
My OP was of course slightly tongue in cheek - I'm just curious how they're feeling now.
FWIW, I think Mancini is a coach, and is used to working with a director of football. So I think that Marwood needs to take advice from Kidd (that's gotta be why he's there), and then speak to Mancini about what's going on. Results? Yes, we're getting them. We are in the top 4 with a game in hand. However, anyone with two eyes who has been to recent matches will tell you there is somewhat of a morale problem within the squad. Players are as baffled as the supporters by the tactics, by the sudden omission of players like Ireland and SWP, by the sheer bloody minded negativity of the football being played...
Results are one thing - but if performances don't improve, the results will eventually turn too...
I have to say you're bang on the money with that post.
hgblue said:BillyShears said:PB - I do know what you're talking about. I guess so as to spell it out as loads of people seem to want to know:
ALLEGEDLY - Mark Hughes got wind that Cook and Marwood were sounding out other managers, and came to them with a back me (new contract etc.) or sack me ultimatum. He had already submitted his list of transfer targets (not all cheap), to the board, and they knew that there was no way they could placate him this time. Hughes knew Marwood wanted him sacked, and he knew Cook's support was waning. The board for their part had hoped to keep Hughes in place until their #1 target (whoever that was) became available. Unfortunately, in football's murky waters, where no secrets are worth keeping, Hughes, Bowen, et al, knew after Hull, it was a matter of WHEN and not IF the were dispensed with...
My OP was of course slightly tongue in cheek - I'm just curious how they're feeling now.
FWIW, I think Mancini is a coach, and is used to working with a director of football. So I think that Marwood needs to take advice from Kidd (that's gotta be why he's there), and then speak to Mancini about what's going on. Results? Yes, we're getting them. We are in the top 4 with a game in hand. However, anyone with two eyes who has been to recent matches will tell you there is somewhat of a morale problem within the squad. Players are as baffled as the supporters by the tactics, by the sudden omission of players like Ireland and SWP, by the sheer bloody minded negativity of the football being played...
Results are one thing - but if performances don't improve, the results will eventually turn too...
I have to say you're bang on the money with that post.
Really? I thought it was quite poor. Partial ITK claims without any backing, then a contrived reasoning over Mancini and his position.
No player who I have spoken to is confused about the tactics. The football is negative because of the players, not the manager. It's the same stuff we saw later under Hughes, but we keep possession now instead.
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
Damocles said:Really? I thought it was quite poor. Partial ITK claims without any backing, then a contrived reasoning over Mancini and his position.
No player who I have spoken to is confused about the tactics. The football is negative because of the players, not the manager. It's the same stuff we saw later under Hughes, but we keep possession now instead.
LOL. Very poor. partial ITK claims without any backing, and some contrived reasoning about why the football is negative...
Ooh, the ironing.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
More than happy to apologise if I'm wrong. Although I think I've previously posted that it's not out of the equation that RM will still be here if he's spectacularly successful. But the way they are playing currently I can't see it.Soulboy said:Prestwich_Blue said:Yeah right.
I know you are convinced Mourinho is lined up... but I am just as convinced he isn't.
I would have no problem in him taking over, but I just can't see it happening for a number of reasons.
You also stated Hiddink was in the frame... and he's now gone to manage Turkey... which leaves one.
If you are proved right on this I will make a public apology... will you do similar if Mancini is still managing our first game next season?
Bet?
Prestwich_Blue said:More than happy to apologise if I'm wrong. Although I think I've previously posted that it's not out of the equation that RM will still be here if he's spectacularly successful. But the way they are playing currently I can't see it.Soulboy said:I know you are convinced Mourinho is lined up... but I am just as convinced he isn't.
I would have no problem in him taking over, but I just can't see it happening for a number of reasons.
You also stated Hiddink was in the frame... and he's now gone to manage Turkey... which leaves one.
If you are proved right on this I will make a public apology... will you do similar if Mancini is still managing our first game next season?
Bet?
But if Mancini is not "spectacularly successful" that will mean we are not in the Champions League placings.
And do you really think Jose woiuld come to a club without that on offer?
This summer, Real Madrid, Liverpool and the Rags might very well be looking for a new manager... all will want "the best"... which is Mourinho. Do you think he would pick City above any of those clubs? I very much doubt it. Mouirinho is a clever man and maps out his future with military precision.
PS I think you're hedging your bets a bit by saying that Mancini is nailed on... but only if Mancini isn't here next season. I've put my head on the block and stated that I believe Mancini will be here next season COME WHAT MAY!
Will you be as definite?