Time To Back The Manager...

[SWP's back]

Try saying something less cryptic then.

Maybe on Sunday?

You going to be joining the cabal meeting on Sunday. Brave boy.

Depends if I can bring my Dad and whether he's bigger than yours.

Anyway, you'd never let me come. Dismal wouldn't allow it.

 

[Damocles]

I still stand by what i posted back in May last year on the thread below, it's what i've been told and led to believe.

http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176500&p=3247797&hilit=mourinho#p3247797

Until Mancini wins the League or Mourinho stops whoring himself to us then nothing will change my view.

I know it's not to everybodys liking but that's MY reality of it all..........

When the board don't back the manager (back on thread) with a new contract or funds for his players, then it makes it more suspicious.

Nothing will change your view?

I would sincerely hope that the owners are not myopic enough to implement a change in manager based on circumstances from 2 years ago. A lot has happened in 2 years and any change in manager must surely be based on a) what is happening currently ie results, performances etc and b) the long term vision for the club and the way it wishes to portray itself and the philosophy that underpins it.

What looks a good idea 2 years ago doesn't make it a good idea now. For the owners to preclude employing any other manager other than Jose based on what they thought 2 years ago is frankly stupid.

My view is based on what i was told about Mourinho making himself available to return to England in 2 years and making a beeline for us.

He's already been in contact with somebody to be his number 2 on his return so it'll happen, but who with?

Like any other manager, Mancini's future is in his own hands, if he delivers he stays, but whilst Mourinho is always in the background whoring himself to us the pressure is on Mancini.

Ask yourself, if the board have a long term vision and Mancini's in it, then why isn't a contract on the table now?

I hope that clears it up?

You're talking in absolutes which is building a strawman.

There's a big difference between not giving the manager backing he wants, and actively naming him unsackable. You are trying to point the argument to be diametrically opposed, which it isn't.

There's no reason to currently give Mancini a new contract. We might finish 9th after a run of 10 defeats, and then we'd have to sack him with a massive pay off.

However, there is a big difference between financial prudence in the most financially important time since the takeover, and purposefully not giving the manager the resources he desires because another manager "may" come up in a year.

One does not follow on to the other.

 

[Danamy]

Nothing will change your view?

I would sincerely hope that the owners are not myopic enough to implement a change in manager based on circumstances from 2 years ago. A lot has happened in 2 years and any change in manager must surely be based on a) what is happening currently ie results, performances etc and b) the long term vision for the club and the way it wishes to portray itself and the philosophy that underpins it.

What looks a good idea 2 years ago doesn't make it a good idea now. For the owners to preclude employing any other manager other than Jose based on what they thought 2 years ago is frankly stupid.

My view is based on what i was told about Mourinho making himself available to return to England in 2 years and making a beeline for us.

He's already been in contact with somebody to be his number 2 on his return so it'll happen, but who with?

Like any other manager, Mancini's future is in his own hands, if he delivers he stays, but whilst Mourinho is always in the background whoring himself to us the pressure is on Mancini.

Ask yourself, if the board have a long term vision and Mancini's in it, then why isn't a contract on the table now?

I hope that clears it up?

You're talking in absolutes which is building a strawman.

There's a big difference between not giving the manager backing he wants, and actively naming him unsackable. You are trying to point the argument to be diametrically opposed, which it isn't.

There's no reason to currently give Mancini a new contract. We might finish 9th after a run of 10 defeats, and then we'd have to sack him with a massive pay off.

However, there is a big difference between financial prudence in the most financially important time since the takeover, and purposefully not giving the manager the resources he desires because another manager "may" come up in a year.

One does not follow on to the other.

Why not offer him a new contract if he's the chosen one and they have the upmost confidence in him to be the future of MCFC?

It would also give the whole club a boost going into the title run in, don't you think?

I would also like to point out how i managed to reply to your post without having to use large font sizes, it's possible.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

The day mourinho sets foot in this club is the day city dies.

A one-dimensional, boring egotist playing dirty,cynical, cheating anti-football.

A poor mans Brian clough. Ie: without the ethics or the charm.

Let him go to the rags he'll fit right in there. Not for city. God no.

 

[Soulboy]

Well not that ruthless then. Ruthless would have seen Hughes sacked in the summer of '10. Very ruthless would have seen him sacked in December '09.

Mancini will be here as long as he delivers silverware and doesn't fall out with the powers that be. Playing good attractive football does him no harm either. That said I get no impression that Mansour is Abramovich where sacking the manager is the default option when displeased plus if we are interested in adhering to FFP then you need to look at coaches who are willing and prepared to bring academy prospects through to the first team which to date Mourinho has shown little inclination to do. Guardiola (for example) would be an interesting option bearing FFP in mind.

What is also clear and I assume is clear to the owners is that in addition to success on the pitch is the desirability of building a brand of football that is synonymous with City and builds a worldwide fanbase. Mancini has made a start with this and long may it continue because in the long run how you win is just as important to the identity of the club as winning itself and by identity I mean 'brand' and the ability to maximise revenues from merchandise/TV rights etc.

Mancini is here to establish solid foundations and a winning mentality. That he is demonstrably doing. How long he is here for is only important in the sense that the foundations are properly laid. Beyond that and as long as we have been sensible and established a culture and philosophy of football that not only brings success but is gorgeous to watch with an emphasis on bringing through academy players then debating how long Mancini is here for is irrelevant.

That said if we are to debate it, as we seemingly must, then it would be nice to discuss the merits or otherwise of other coaches other than Jose. Assuming we actually know any other coaches other than Mourinho that is.

Good post.

In terms of ruthlessness, it was more in regards the cack-handed way they eventually dispensed with Hughes' services.

Ruthless, all the same, in light of a QF Carling Cup victory over Arsenal and inspired win over Chelsea.

A debate on Guardiola's attributes outside of Barcelona would be a decent yarn.

It would be interesting to expand on the Mourinho/Mancini debate if only because City has evolved in the 2 years under Mancini and will continue to do so meaning that Jose may or may not be the right man for the job when Mancini finally leaves. It would also be refreshing to discuss what we would like to see City become, its style of play, philosophy and what other coaches are out there that would best suit.

The way we got rid of Hughes was cack handed because we dithered and we were not ruthless enough. The Arsenal and Chelsea results were irrelevant. Cook may have been slated for his trajectory explanation but he had a point and one off results should not mask a coache's deficiencies just as one off results or short term failure (ie Mancini failing to get CL qualification) should end in the sack. If you believe you have employed the right man then you allow for short term failure as long as you can see demonstrable improvements and ultimately tangible rewards in a 2 to 3 year span.

Jose waiting to take over from Mancini is old news. City has moved on. Jose is currently doing his best Captain Ahab impression. Circumstances have changed and will keep changing so let the debate reflect this.

Excellent post. I doubt that Mourinho will ever assume the manager's job at City as he no longer fits the profile for our next stage of development.

As has been stated by the owners, this is a "project". And a project has various phases, all requiring different managerial skills.

Phase 1 for us was Hughes. Got us away from the relegation zone (just about!) bought in a lot of big names, got us noticed, brought in a measure of modern managerial techniques and direction that was failing with the previous manager. He built the (shaky) foundations.

Phase 2 was Mancini. Cemented over the already laid foundations, buying real quality players, being a big enough managerial name to attract the best, transforming us tactically, imposing a winning mentality and most importantly, clearing the decks of the deadwood from the previous regimes. All done and dusted.

Phase 3 is winning things. Mancini has already achieved that. He has to keep on winning things now. But a manager of his nature may be too confrontational in his approach and it may grieve some the big earners. So he can just get rid of those players.

But he can't keep doing that. We couldn't afford it, and it is inevtiably a diminishing return... just like his final days at Inter.

Phase 4 will be the long-term manager. The one who smiles and is feted by the media, and develops the Academy. Who has a long-term strategy rather than the short-termism of the current regime. It's a "Father Figure" manager who will be the face of Manchester City for the next ten years.

And for me that's not going to be Mancini.

Outside bet? Guardiola. Ticks all the boxes.

 

[Damocles]

Why not offer him a new contract if he's the chosen one and they have the upmost confidence in him to be the future of MCFC?

Again, this is a ridiculous point. Nobody is calling him the 'chosen one', people are rightly stating that so far he is a success.

You are completely ignoring what I am writing. Literally.

First you made a strawman argument and now you are using a reduction to the absurd to try and dodge a point that you have yet to answer. Specifically, the points about "lack of spending = no backing" that you made. I made a valid comparison with Ferguson at Old Trafford and shown how this is a similar spending situation to Mancini without the questions marks, I showed the historical backing he's had, then talked about the impossibility of actually knowing the real situation behind many transfers due to the numerous factors involved.

You said something about a chosen one. Can you try and address the actual argument now? Directly>

It would also give the whole club a boost going into the title run in, don't you think?

Not particularly, it shows that the job is done, everybody is happy and rewards are forthcoming. Why would you want to show that to the team in the middle of a tense title run?

I would also like to point out how i managed to reply to your post without having to use large font sizes, it's possible.

Because you didn't actually reply to the specific points of my post, which is why the large text is used. There are two ways that the forum generally uses to answer points. The first, if they want to directly address multiple points, is by splitting it up like this. The second is to highlight a particular point as it leaves it within context but still enhances readability. I'm sorry if this offends you, I will not be stopping it.

 

[BobKowalski]

I still stand by what i posted back in May last year on the thread below, it's what i've been told and led to believe.

http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176500&p=3247797&hilit=mourinho#p3247797

Until Mancini wins the League or Mourinho stops whoring himself to us then nothing will change my view.

I know it's not to everybodys liking but that's MY reality of it all..........

When the board don't back the manager (back on thread) with a new contract or funds for his players, then it makes it more suspicious.

Nothing will change your view?

I would sincerely hope that the owners are not myopic enough to implement a change in manager based on circumstances from 2 years ago. A lot has happened in 2 years and any change in manager must surely be based on a) what is happening currently ie results, performances etc and b) the long term vision for the club and the way it wishes to portray itself and the philosophy that underpins it.

What looks a good idea 2 years ago doesn't make it a good idea now. For the owners to preclude employing any other manager other than Jose based on what they thought 2 years ago is frankly stupid.

My view is based on what i was told about Mourinho making himself available to return to England in 2 years and making a beeline for us.

He's already been in contact with somebody to be his number 2 on his return so it'll happen, but who with?

Like any other manager, Mancini's future is in his own hands, if he delivers he stays, but whilst Mourinho is always in the background whoring himself to us the pressure is on Mancini.

Ask yourself, if the board have a long term vision and Mancini's in it, then why isn't a contract on the table now?

I hope that clears it up?

No

Firstly my argument is not about Jose making himself available to us 2 years down the line. Whether he did or he didn't is largely irrelevant given how much circumstances of both parties have changed in that 2 years and I am sure there are lot of managers, for example Benetiz or until recently Ancelotti, who undoubtedly have had their agents make it known to us that they are available and interested should the opportunity arise and have made these overtures comparatively recently.

I don't think anyone disputes the reality of the situation in that Mancini will stay as manager whilst successful and will be removed as manager when he is unsuccessful and unsuccessful on a consistent basis. The caveat to that is if he falls out with the powers that be and is dismissed irrespective of success or leaves of his own accord for a job that appeals to him (national coach or whatever).

My doubts about Mourinho as a successor has nothing to do with his abilities to win trophies which is second to none. I even enjoy his antics but I just don't see him as a natural fit with the owners. Jose doesn't bring through young players which with FFP is a necessary requirement and is the route we are chasing. Jose is a polarising figure with the authorities especially UEFA and we want to make nice with the authorities - the best Mancini can come up with is waving a few imaginary cards. Jose is a psychological based coach whereas Mancini is a technically based coach which again when you are bringing through youth players is a better approach and is a more solid foundation going forward.

What may have looked an attractive scenario 2 years ago may not look so attractive 2 years down the line. There are other coaches other than Mourinho or even Mancini. If Mancini goes for whatever reason the next coach needs to fit in with the style, philosophy and approach that the club is seemingly adopting and take it forward accordingly. If the judgement is made that the best person available to do that is Mourinho then fine. If the owners decide they want someone like Guardiola then equally fine but the choice should be made based on where we are currently and where we want to be in the future and not on some wishful thinking of 2 years ago.

I personally think the owners would be more comfortable with someone like Guardiola than Mourinho but that's just an observation on my part.

Mancini's contract has 18 months to run. Addressing that issue in the summer is the logical move especially as it allows you to see how the season pans out. Its such an obvious play I just don't see it as a factor either way.

 

[Rammy Blue]

Excellent post. I doubt that Mourinho will ever assume the manager's job at City as he no longer fits the profile for our next stage of development.

As has been stated by the owners, this is a "project". And a project has various phases, all requiring different managerial skills.

Phase 1 for us was Hughes. Got us away from the relegation zone (just about!) bought in a lot of big names, got us noticed, brought in a measure of modern managerial techniques and direction that was failing with the previous manager. He built the (shaky) foundations.

Phase 2 was Mancini. Cemented over the already laid foundations, buying real quality players, being a big enough managerial name to attract the best, transforming us tactically, imposing a winning mentality and most importantly, clearing the decks of the deadwood from the previous regimes. All done and dusted.

Phase 3 is winning things. Mancini has already achieved that. He has to keep on winning things now. But a manager of his nature may be too confrontational in his approach and it may grieve some the big earners. So he can just get rid of those players.

But he can't keep doing that. We couldn't afford it, and it is inevtiably a diminishing return... just like his final days at Inter.

Phase 4 will be the long-term manager. The one who smiles and is feted by the media, and develops the Academy. Who has a long-term strategy rather than the short-termism of the current regime. It's a "Father Figure" manager who will be the face of Manchester City for the next ten years.

And for me that's not going to be Mancini.

Outside bet? Guardiola. Ticks all the boxes.

That's a very good post although I'd certainly consider Jose to be capable of being the "Phase 4" manager.

I think people are letting what they see at Real Madrid cloud their judgement somewhat, which is understandable of course, but he is in an incredibly difficult situation of trying to out smart one of the greatest football sides to have ever played the game.

He's 5 points clear in La Liga (I think...) which is no mean feat and still in with a decent shout in the Chumps - should he win either of these this year he will achieved his goal.

Jose has mentioned about wanting his return to the Prem to be where he provides a legacy as a long term manager, I still reckon he wants this job and has belief that once he clicks his fingers the Sheikh will do his utmost to employ him.

 

[SWP's back]

Excellent post. I doubt that Mourinho will ever assume the manager's job at City as he no longer fits the profile for our next stage of development.

As has been stated by the owners, this is a "project". And a project has various phases, all requiring different managerial skills.

Phase 1 for us was Hughes. Got us away from the relegation zone (just about!) bought in a lot of big names, got us noticed, brought in a measure of modern managerial techniques and direction that was failing with the previous manager. He built the (shaky) foundations.

Phase 2 was Mancini. Cemented over the already laid foundations, buying real quality players, being a big enough managerial name to attract the best, transforming us tactically, imposing a winning mentality and most importantly, clearing the decks of the deadwood from the previous regimes. All done and dusted.

Phase 3 is winning things. Mancini has already achieved that. He has to keep on winning things now. But a manager of his nature may be too confrontational in his approach and it may grieve some the big earners. So he can just get rid of those players.

But he can't keep doing that. We couldn't afford it, and it is inevtiably a diminishing return... just like his final days at Inter.

Phase 4 will be the long-term manager. The one who smiles and is feted by the media, and develops the Academy. Who has a long-term strategy rather than the short-termism of the current regime. It's a "Father Figure" manager who will be the face of Manchester City for the next ten years.

And for me that's not going to be Mancini.

Outside bet? Guardiola. Ticks all the boxes.

That's a very good post although I'd certainly consider Jose to be capable of being the "Phase 4" manager.

I think people are letting what they see at Real Madrid cloud their judgement somewhat, which is understandable of course, but he is in an incredibly difficult situation of trying to out smart one of the greatest football sides to have ever played the game.

He's 5 points clear in La Liga (I think...) which is no mean feat and still in with a decent shout in the Chumps - should he win either of these this year he will achieved his goal.

Jose has mentioned about wanting his return to the Prem to be where he provides a legacy as a long term manager, I still reckon he wants this job and has belief that once he clicks his fingers the Sheikh will do his utmost to employ him.

Rammy fella, when has JM ever given any evidence that he would stay somewhere 10 years?

 

[Anonymous]

Excellent post. I doubt that Mourinho will ever assume the manager's job at City as he no longer fits the profile for our next stage of development.

As has been stated by the owners, this is a "project". And a project has various phases, all requiring different managerial skills.

Phase 1 for us was Hughes. Got us away from the relegation zone (just about!) bought in a lot of big names, got us noticed, brought in a measure of modern managerial techniques and direction that was failing with the previous manager. He built the (shaky) foundations.

Phase 2 was Mancini. Cemented over the already laid foundations, buying real quality players, being a big enough managerial name to attract the best, transforming us tactically, imposing a winning mentality and most importantly, clearing the decks of the deadwood from the previous regimes. All done and dusted.

Phase 3 is winning things. Mancini has already achieved that. He has to keep on winning things now. But a manager of his nature may be too confrontational in his approach and it may grieve some the big earners. So he can just get rid of those players.

But he can't keep doing that. We couldn't afford it, and it is inevtiably a diminishing return... just like his final days at Inter.

Phase 4 will be the long-term manager. The one who smiles and is feted by the media, and develops the Academy. Who has a long-term strategy rather than the short-termism of the current regime. It's a "Father Figure" manager who will be the face of Manchester City for the next ten years.

And for me that's not going to be Mancini.

Outside bet? Guardiola. Ticks all the boxes.

That's a very good post although I'd certainly consider Jose to be capable of being the "Phase 4" manager.

I think people are letting what they see at Real Madrid cloud their judgement somewhat, which is understandable of course, but he is in an incredibly difficult situation of trying to out smart one of the greatest football sides to have ever played the game.

He's 5 points clear in La Liga (I think...) which is no mean feat and still in with a decent shout in the Chumps - should he win either of these this year he will achieved his goal.

Jose has mentioned about wanting his return to the Prem to be where he provides a legacy as a long term manager, I still reckon he wants this job and has belief that once he clicks his fingers the Sheikh will do his utmost to employ him.

Thanks for keeping the thread on topics gentlemen .... ;)

I'm on Soulboy's side of this particular fence to be honest. I just think the Mourinho ship has sailed for us. The one caveat is though, that I think Mancini is more than capable of being the Phase 4 manager too. Maybe not developing the academy, but that role needs to be given to someone else. Mancini should simply be ensuring that the way in which we play is implemented from youth teams upwards. If a player has the ability, and can play the way Mancini wants, and most importantly is good enough, he'll get his chance one way or another.