What if we win 'nowt?

[Berkovic_blue]

To win nothing would be a backward step. It's a title winning squad plus £100m of improvements after all.

A backward step from last season ? Or did last season just not happen for all you Mancini acolytes ?

Are you trying to pick an argument over your favourite pass time of slagging off our former manager? Truly pathetic agenda.

And of course it would be a backward step from last season. Pellegrini was given full backing in the transfer market. Winning nothing would be a failure and no doubt leave you running around like a blue-arsed fly trying to put a positive spin on it.

 

[Anonymous]

City is so much bigger than the City inside Mancini's head and even if he would have won the treble they'd be looking for an excuse to sack him because he was no longer the man for the job. This isn't a slight on him as a manager, it's a fact of what City was turning into. We wanted a Guardiola and he was a Ferguson if you follow my meaning, his methods are totally wrong for what City are now.

You're preaching to the preacher. It was clear to some of us a year ago what was going on and where we were heading. My light hearted comment about the P45 was just that, I light hearted comment.

In a way TGR is right, the players grossly under performed on the day, but it's totally ridiculous and unfair to suggest that they threw the final to get Mancini sacked, which is what has been postulated many times.

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

Those questions had been asked long before the Wigan game in the corridors of power. Unfortunately everyone in the stadium had heard the answer before the game even kicked off.

Argh! You beat me to it ... although I'd have just gone with "they were answered with a P45 for the man responsible". :)

I think this is a bit of a rewrite of history.

City don't sack managers any more for having a bad season. Hughes was sacked because he was woefully underqualified and wasn't chosen by Abu Dhabi. Mancini was sacked because he couldn't or wouldn't fit into the structure that Soriano and Begiristan are building.

City is so much bigger than the City inside Mancini's head and even if he would have won the treble they'd be looking for an excuse to sack him because he was no longer the man for the job. This isn't a slight on him as a manager, it's a fact of what City was turning into. We wanted a Guardiola and he was a Ferguson if you follow my meaning, his methods are totally wrong for what City are now.






I tend to agree. I'd be very disappointed if we won nothing this year but thankfully our owners are not kneejerk.
They are very much looking at the long term and getting out of our CL Group for the first time is already seen by
them to represent progress.

If Pellegrini wins nowt, he isn't getting the sack because he's had a bad season and Mancini didn't get the sack for that reason. Think we need to remember this when talking about any repercussions of winning nothing this year.

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

I tend to agree. I'd be very disappointed if we won nothing this year but thankfully our owners are not kneejerk.
They are very much looking at the long term and getting out of our CL Group for the first time is already seen by
them to represent progress.

If Pellegrini wins nowt, he isn't getting the sack because he's had a bad season and Mancini didn't get the sack for that reason. Think we need to remember this when talking about any repercussions of winning nothing this year.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Damocles]

City is so much bigger than the City inside Mancini's head and even if he would have won the treble they'd be looking for an excuse to sack him because he was no longer the man for the job. This isn't a slight on him as a manager, it's a fact of what City was turning into. We wanted a Guardiola and he was a Ferguson if you follow my meaning, his methods are totally wrong for what City are now.

You're preaching to the preacher. It was clear to some of us a year ago what was going on and where we were heading. My light hearted comment about the P45 was just that, I light hearted comment.

In a way TGR is right, the players grossly under performed on the day, but it's totally ridiculous and unfair to suggest that they threw the final to get Mancini sacked, which is what has been postulated many times.

I couldn't see it at the time. I saw a man winning trophies then getting no support in the transfer market and two Spanish lads elbowing their way in and trying to turn us into a different club. Then we appointed a manager who has won nowt in his entire time in Europe.

I couldn't have fathomed the ideas of where those two were taking City and why Mancini was such a barrier to that, and as such still supported the idea of keeping the manager well past his last day. My problem was the same ultimately as Mancini's, I had analog ideas of what a football club is in a digital age and I thought I knew better than two people who are redefining that notion. If I was in charge of City, we'd still have Hughes and be bidding for Scott Parkers and Joe Allens and anyone that United showed an interest in because fuck the rags.

It's a horrible feeling to take stock one day and realise that you're akin to Peter Swales criticising Martin Edwards .

 

[Wilf Wild 1937]

I think most people on here, me included, loved Mancini because he ended the years of humiliation and misery.
What we didn't really buy into was that our owner's ambition was so much bigger than that. He really is
determined to make us the biggest club in the world and do so in an innovative way by setting up the
feeder clubs around the world. The vision was simply too big for us to fully grasp.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

City is so much bigger than the City inside Mancini's head and even if he would have won the treble they'd be looking for an excuse to sack him because he was no longer the man for the job. This isn't a slight on him as a manager, it's a fact of what City was turning into. We wanted a Guardiola and he was a Ferguson if you follow my meaning, his methods are totally wrong for what City are now.

You're preaching to the preacher. It was clear to some of us a year ago what was going on and where we were heading. My light hearted comment about the P45 was just that, I light hearted comment.

In a way TGR is right, the players grossly under performed on the day, but it's totally ridiculous and unfair to suggest that they threw the final to get Mancini sacked, which is what has been postulated many times.

I couldn't see it at the time. I saw a man winning trophies then getting no support in the transfer market and two Spanish lads elbowing their way in and trying to turn us into a different club. Then we appointed a manager who has won nowt in his entire time in Europe.

I couldn't have fathomed the ideas of where those two were taking City and why Mancini was such a barrier to that, and as such still supported the idea of keeping the manager well past his last day. My problem was the same ultimately as Mancini's, I had analog ideas of what a football club is in a digital age and I thought I knew better than two people who are redefining that notion. If I was in charge of City, we'd still have Hughes and be bidding for Scott Parkers and Joe Allens and anyone that United showed an interest in because fuck the rags.

It's a horrible feeling to take stock one day and realise that you're akin to Peter Swales criticising Martin Edwards .

I'm going to have this conversation with you because I know that you will probably debate it sensibly, but I suspect we won't get long.

History is a series of lies repeated often enough to become the truth And the current "Mancini couldn't work with a D of F structure" is not the truth. It's a tiny part of it, adopted by many to enable them to accept it. It wouldn't have mattered a jot if he had the best working relationship in world football with both Txiki and Soriano, and had Holistic as his middle name. He would still have been sacked because of his total inability to manage relationships with the people around him. You cannot, in any walk of life, be a leader of men for any length of time if everyone thinks you are a prick.

I'm not trying to argue with you, and I know you are partly acknowledging this point, but I just wanted to say it. I will leave it at that, anyway, because we both know where this will go with others.

 

[The_Mo]

City is so much bigger than the City inside Mancini's head and even if he would have won the treble they'd be looking for an excuse to sack him because he was no longer the man for the job. This isn't a slight on him as a manager, it's a fact of what City was turning into. We wanted a Guardiola and he was a Ferguson if you follow my meaning, his methods are totally wrong for what City are now.

You're preaching to the preacher. It was clear to some of us a year ago what was going on and where we were heading. My light hearted comment about the P45 was just that, I light hearted comment.

In a way TGR is right, the players grossly under performed on the day, but it's totally ridiculous and unfair to suggest that they threw the final to get Mancini sacked, which is what has been postulated many times.

If Bobby Manc was give 100m last season, we would have won the premier league again and walked the FA Cup.

If Manuel fails to win a single pot this season then it will be classed as a failure. 1bn pounds have been poured into the club since the takeover, and let me tell you mate, the sheikh didn't do it out of the kindness of his heart. It was to showcase Abu Dhabi on a world stage, and to do that, we will have to push all the way in EVERY SINGLE competition.

I really like Manuel and he obviously won't be sacked if we do in fact win nothing. But you can bet your ass he's going to have the weight of the world on his shoulders going into his second season in charge.

 

[Damocles]

I'm going to have this conversation with you because I know that you will probably debate it sensibly, but I suspect we won't get long.

History is a series of lies repeated often enough to become the truth And the current "Mancini couldn't work with a D of F structure" is not the truth. It's a tiny part of it, adopted by many to enable them to accept it. It wouldn't have mattered a jot if he had the best working relationship in world football with both Txiki and Soriano, and had Holistic as his middle name. He would still have been sacked because of his total inability to manage relationships with the people around him. You cannot, in any walk of life, be a leader of men for any length of time if everyone thinks you are a prick.

I'm not trying to argue with you, and I know you are partly acknowledging this point, but I just wanted to say it. I will leave it at that, anyway, because we both know where this will go with others.

That sort of ties into my point about a Guardiola rather than a Ferguson. Mancini needed total control and total authority of everything around him. This isn't about a DoF but more because of his temperament towards staff under his management. If you have total control then there's nobody to answer to which is the structure that he craves the most.

Putting total control in the hands of a single person cannot be achieved here because of the approach we have taken. Mancini needed to manage relationships not just with those under him as players but also with Vieira and Wilcox, with Begiristain and Marwood. With Jason Kreis and the Melbourne Heart lads. With the players in the Women's team and their staff, all working together to play a similar style and share resources.

Having everybody pulling in the same direction and a whirlwind in the middle fucks up not just City's first team but everything that everybody is trying to accomplish at the three clubs.

Mancini went because he didn't fit City. He fit City if we would have gotten taken by a local businessman in 1995 who would have handed him the keys to the castle and let him run with it. In a modern multi-national organisation that relies on connectivity, he was a brick wall because he couldn't, as you point out, manage his relationships with those around him.

This is why I say he's an old style manager. Those guys didn't need that type of diplomatic awareness that a City manager in the future does. This is also why he will never ever be coming back no matter how much people dream of it. We've surpassed him, and I say that as probably his biggest fan.

 

[Anonymous]

If Manuel fails to win a single pot this season then it will be classed as a failure. 1bn pounds have been poured into the club since the takeover, and let me tell you mate, the sheikh didn't do it out of the kindness of his heart. It was to showcase Abu Dhabi on a world stage, and to do that, we will have to push all the way in EVERY SINGLE competition.

I really like Manuel and he obviously won't be sacked if we do in fact win nothing. But you can bet your ass he's going to have the weight of the world on his shoulders going into his second season in charge.

You misunderstand me mate. I've got every confidence we'll win the league cup and the league this season as a minimum. I've said that all along and I don't think my confidence in the team or the management is misplaced.

What I don't understand, is why everyone isn't at least confident enough to not be discussing 'what if we win nowt'. We're playing Sunderland in the league cup final. Does anyone really believe that our big players aren't going to perform in that match after the way they've performed so far this season?

As I've said if I'm wrong I'll hold my hands up but I don't think I am.