When did it all start to go wrong?

[mancity1]

Mancini was feuding with Marwood before Txiki joined

As I understand it, for much the same reason as he did with Tixki. Marwood was an average player and has never managed a club before, so what qualifies him to make better judgement calls on player recruitment than any experienced manager.

When results start to go tits up, its usually the manager who gets the bullet. If I were a manager I would want to stand or fall by my own decisions, not to be held responsible for those of others.

Mancini mentioned on many ocassions that he wanted autonomy over team affairs and when Cooke was here he mostly did. All that changed when Cooke resigned and Marwood stepped in temporarily. Marwood immediately started to meddle in team affairs and that's when Mancini saw his arse. Whether for better or for worse there was a upper level management vacuum and that's where our structure fell apart and internal strife begun.

I'm big on strong management and I prefer to have a strong person who is responsible for all decisions at the head, that way there is only one person to look at if it all goes well or awry.

Your version of the management structure isn't correct. Marwood was always effectively our DoF except he was called 'Football Administrator' to keep Mancini happy. Which he wasn't naturally.

John Macbeath took over as acting CEO when Cook left, with him and Marwood moved to other roles when the two amigos arrived.

In hindsight it certainly seems like we fudged it after 2012's title win and just hoped that the situation would resolve itself. It's a valid argument to wonder if we should have left Mancini to run things but that's not the way the owner wanted to work as they wanted to build a longer term platform that didn't involve a new manager ripping things apart every 2 or 3 years.

Plus we'd have probably needed a whole new team!

Where have heard that before (LOL).

If Txiki doesn't get it right in appointments and improving the squad for combat home and in Europe he goes the same way as the manager which is a good thing a healthy thing for a football club who prides itself on accountability.

If I do my job poorly I don't get paid and I don't have the things I have now and the family having the things they have and enjoy which includes good friends and healthy relationships , its no different to our DOF and our manager.

MP has failed on a number of fronts he has to go ad so will Txiki as in part his job rests on the success of his appointments.

Our transfers have been a shambles for a long time so our owners and their support staff are very patient people clearly but it will run out because Txiki has no more excuses , he has failed to deliver on his charter to date.

 

[Dribble]

Mancini was feuding with Marwood before Txiki joined

As I understand it, for much the same reason as he did with Tixki. Marwood was an average player and has never managed a club before, so what qualifies him to make better judgement calls on player recruitment than any experienced manager.

When results start to go tits up, its usually the manager who gets the bullet. If I were a manager I would want to stand or fall by my own decisions, not to be held responsible for those of others.

Mancini mentioned on many ocassions that he wanted autonomy over team affairs and when Cooke was here he mostly did. All that changed when Cooke resigned and Marwood stepped in temporarily. Marwood immediately started to meddle in team affairs and that's when Mancini saw his arse. Whether for better or for worse there was a upper level management vacuum and that's where our structure fell apart and internal strife begun.

I'm big on strong management and I prefer to have a strong person who is responsible for all decisions at the head, that way there is only one person to look at if it all goes well or awry.

Your version of the management structure isn't correct. Marwood was always effectively our DoF except he was called 'Football Administrator' to keep Mancini happy. Which he wasn't naturally.

John Macbeath took over as acting CEO when Cook left, with him and Marwood moved to other roles when the two amigos arrived.

In hindsight it certainly seems like we fudged it after 2012's title win and just hoped that the situation would resolve itself. It's a valid argument to wonder if we should have left Mancini to run things but that's not the way the owner wanted to work as they wanted to build a longer term platform that didn't involve a new manager ripping things apart every 2 or 3 years.

Plus we'd have probably needed a whole new team!

I can understand that our owners were eager to follow the Barca model after Cooke left, but as you correctly point out it seems it was just hoped the ensuing situation would resolve itself somewhere down the line, but instead all out war broke out and there was only ever going to be one winner.

I suppose part of the reason I felt for Mancini is because I have a tendancy to be short with people if I haven't got time to explain in detail why I want something doing, so I'll just say get it done & I'll explain why, if and when I get the time.

Tbh, I couldn't give a rats arse if my colleagues get offended as it isn't they who have to take work home with them every evening. I have spoken to former colleagues who've said it was hard to get me at first, but when they saw I was a flexible real world type who'd go out of my way to help anyone, they would then put the offence they took into context. I suppose it would be a bit different if it was a dressing room full of multi-millionaires I was talking to, but tbh my attitude is what it is and I am who I am take me or leave me. Those traits are something I identified at a distance in Mancini and I suppose why I identified and empathised with him.

It's not easy being the person with the ultimate responsibility, and it must be worse if others can tell you what to do but if it all goes tits up, you're responsible. I don't envy Mancini's position one iota if that was the case......

 

[crystal_mais]

As I understand it, for much the same reason as he did with Tixki. Marwood was an average player and has never managed a club before, so what qualifies him to make better judgement calls on player recruitment than any experienced manager.

When results start to go tits up, its usually the manager who gets the bullet. If I were a manager I would want to stand or fall by my own decisions, not to be held responsible for those of others.

Mancini mentioned on many ocassions that he wanted autonomy over team affairs and when Cooke was here he mostly did. All that changed when Cooke resigned and Marwood stepped in temporarily. Marwood immediately started to meddle in team affairs and that's when Mancini saw his arse. Whether for better or for worse there was a upper level management vacuum and that's where our structure fell apart and internal strife begun.

I'm big on strong management and I prefer to have a strong person who is responsible for all decisions at the head, that way there is only one person to look at if it all goes well or awry.

Your version of the management structure isn't correct. Marwood was always effectively our DoF except he was called 'Football Administrator' to keep Mancini happy. Which he wasn't naturally.

John Macbeath took over as acting CEO when Cook left, with him and Marwood moved to other roles when the two amigos arrived.

In hindsight it certainly seems like we fudged it after 2012's title win and just hoped that the situation would resolve itself. It's a valid argument to wonder if we should have left Mancini to run things but that's not the way the owner wanted to work as they wanted to build a longer term platform that didn't involve a new manager ripping things apart every 2 or 3 years.

Plus we'd have probably needed a whole new team!

I can understand that our owners were eager to follow the Barca model after Cooke left, but as you correctly point out it seems it was just hoped the ensuing situation would resolve itself somewhere down the line, but instead all out war broke out and there was only ever going to be one winner.

I suppose part of the reason I felt for Mancini is because I have a tendancy to be short with people if I haven't got time to explain in detail why I want something doing, so I'll just say get it done & I'll explain why, if and when I get the time.

Tbh, I couldn't give a rats arse if my colleagues get offended as it isn't they who have to take work home with them every evening. I have spoken to former colleagues who've said it was hard to get me at first, but when they saw I was a flexible real world type who'd go out of my way to help anyone, they would then put the offence they took into context. I suppose it would be a bit different if it was a dressing room full of multi-millionaires I was talking to, but tbh my attitude is what it is and I am who I am take me or leave me. Those traits are something I identified at a distance in Mancini and I suppose why I identified and empathised with him.

It's not easy being the person with the ultimate responsibility, and it must be worse if others can tell you what to do but if it all goes tits up, you're responsible. I don't envy Mancini's position one iota if that was the case......

It wasn't just the players he pissed off. He also pissed some of the execs off especially the big boss man. The club had to sweep up a few messes he created. Unfortunately for all his strengths (coaching football teams), he has clear weaknesses (behaviour) which seem to stop him getting the biggest jobs in football. He just doesn't learn. 1 more year at City and their would have been a massive mess which would have included a lot of players and staff pissing off and more shite press.

I also believe 1 of his key targets after the prem win decided not to come to us because he did not want to play for him.

For me it started to go wrong
- the minute we won the 1st Prem and decided to stand up to agents etc. Too early to make a stand
- UEFA and the big clubs introduced FFP - we probably needed another 2 big windows (1 in 2012/13 & 2014/15) -

 

[DD]

If you take signings out (and it's the transfer policy that has probably been the true turning point), on the pitch I'd say as early as Stoke at home.

Until that game, we'd had two good wins we were certain for a third. For three years we'd been nigh on invincible at home, banging in 3, 4 and more on a regular basis, losing to just United, Chelsea and Norwich (in a game that didn't count). It almost seemed like nobody outside of the top level would beat us on our home patch again. Stoke blew that away that day and we never particularly looked like hitting back during that game. Our infallibility was destroyed and our home form has never really recovered.

Away from home we were superb until the last five games, but we've been a shadow of the side we come to expect at the Etihad ever since that day. We were largely awful until that run of kind fixtures before Christmas and even that blew up with another soft one at home; i.e. Burnley.

So, on the pitch, I'd definitely say as early as Stoke at home rather than Everton away or Arsenal at home. We've not looked right all season.

 

[Dribble]

Your version of the management structure isn't correct. Marwood was always effectively our DoF except he was called 'Football Administrator' to keep Mancini happy. Which he wasn't naturally.

John Macbeath took over as acting CEO when Cook left, with him and Marwood moved to other roles when the two amigos arrived.

In hindsight it certainly seems like we fudged it after 2012's title win and just hoped that the situation would resolve itself. It's a valid argument to wonder if we should have left Mancini to run things but that's not the way the owner wanted to work as they wanted to build a longer term platform that didn't involve a new manager ripping things apart every 2 or 3 years.

Plus we'd have probably needed a whole new team!

I can understand that our owners were eager to follow the Barca model after Cooke left, but as you correctly point out it seems it was just hoped the ensuing situation would resolve itself somewhere down the line, but instead all out war broke out and there was only ever going to be one winner.

I suppose part of the reason I felt for Mancini is because I have a tendancy to be short with people if I haven't got time to explain in detail why I want something doing, so I'll just say get it done & I'll explain why, if and when I get the time.

Tbh, I couldn't give a rats arse if my colleagues get offended as it isn't they who have to take work home with them every evening. I have spoken to former colleagues who've said it was hard to get me at first, but when they saw I was a flexible real world type who'd go out of my way to help anyone, they would then put the offence they took into context. I suppose it would be a bit different if it was a dressing room full of multi-millionaires I was talking to, but tbh my attitude is what it is and I am who I am take me or leave me. Those traits are something I identified at a distance in Mancini and I suppose why I identified and empathised with him.

It's not easy being the person with the ultimate responsibility, and it must be worse if others can tell you what to do but if it all goes tits up, you're responsible. I don't envy Mancini's position one iota if that was the case......

It wasn't just the players he pissed off. He also pissed some of the execs off especially the big boss man. The club had to sweep up a few messes he created. Unfortunately for all his strengths (coaching football teams), he has clear weaknesses (behaviour) which seem to stop him getting the biggest jobs in football. He just doesn't learn. 1 more year at City and their would have been a massive mess which would have included a lot of players and staff pissing off and more shite press.

I also believe 1 of his key targets after the prem win decided not to come to us because he did not want to play for him.

For me it started to go wrong
- the minute we won the 1st Prem and decided to stand up to agents etc. Too early to make a stand
- UEFA and the big clubs introduced FFP - we probably needed another 2 big windows (1 in 2012/13 & 2014/15) -

I'm not disputing what you say as I was not privvy to the goings on behind closed doors, but I have a saying by which I place a lot of importance - Never curse a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.

We were a new club, with new execs, managers, coaches & players and just like in any organisation the alpha males will all be jostling for position. To be the manager in those situations must have been hell because Manchester City at that time was as volatile as the planet earth in its early history.

Things take time to settle down and the early pioneers generally never get the understanding or credit they deserve. As it stood with all the volatile characters we had at the time, someone had to lay down the law and become top dog and that dubious pleasure fell to Mancini.

Like I said earlier, I wouldn't envy the thankless task in front of him one iota. A good comparison was Ferguson. Whilst he had the support of his peers in laying down the law, Mancini didn't so it was always going to end in tears......

 

[crystal_mais]

The other 2 things that come to my mind -
- Has the restructure of player contracts had an impact on these bufoons
- If it is true and Mourinho did want the job - then we should have give it to him

 

[adrianr]

Not pushing on with high quality first 11 signings the summer after winning the league, again!!. If we'd bought in Fabregas and Sanchez we'd be looking at another title. Instead the two teams who bought those players are 1st and 2nd. And we let Yaya spend the summer having a strop deciding when or if he was going to grace us with his presence next season. The summer, again, set the tone for the following season.

 

[crystal_mais]

I can understand that our owners were eager to follow the Barca model after Cooke left, but as you correctly point out it seems it was just hoped the ensuing situation would resolve itself somewhere down the line, but instead all out war broke out and there was only ever going to be one winner.

I suppose part of the reason I felt for Mancini is because I have a tendancy to be short with people if I haven't got time to explain in detail why I want something doing, so I'll just say get it done & I'll explain why, if and when I get the time.

Tbh, I couldn't give a rats arse if my colleagues get offended as it isn't they who have to take work home with them every evening. I have spoken to former colleagues who've said it was hard to get me at first, but when they saw I was a flexible real world type who'd go out of my way to help anyone, they would then put the offence they took into context. I suppose it would be a bit different if it was a dressing room full of multi-millionaires I was talking to, but tbh my attitude is what it is and I am who I am take me or leave me. Those traits are something I identified at a distance in Mancini and I suppose why I identified and empathised with him.

It's not easy being the person with the ultimate responsibility, and it must be worse if others can tell you what to do but if it all goes tits up, you're responsible. I don't envy Mancini's position one iota if that was the case......

It wasn't just the players he pissed off. He also pissed some of the execs off especially the big boss man. The club had to sweep up a few messes he created. Unfortunately for all his strengths (coaching football teams), he has clear weaknesses (behaviour) which seem to stop him getting the biggest jobs in football. He just doesn't learn. 1 more year at City and their would have been a massive mess which would have included a lot of players and staff pissing off and more shite press.

I also believe 1 of his key targets after the prem win decided not to come to us because he did not want to play for him.

For me it started to go wrong
- the minute we won the 1st Prem and decided to stand up to agents etc. Too early to make a stand
- UEFA and the big clubs introduced FFP - we probably needed another 2 big windows (1 in 2012/13 & 2014/15) -

I'm not disputing what you say as I was not privvy to the goings on behind closed doors, but I have a saying by which I place a lot of importance - Never curse a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.

We were a new club, with new execs, managers, coaches & players and just like in any organisation the alpha males will all be jostling for position. To be the manager in those situations must have been hell because Manchester City at that time was as volatile as the planet earth in its early history.

Things take time to settle down and the early pioneers generally never get the understanding or credit they deserve. As it stood with all the volatile characters we had at the time, someone had to lay down the law and become top dog and that dubious pleasure fell to Mancini.

Like I said earlier, I wouldn't envy the thankless task in front of him one iota. A good comparison was Ferguson. Whilst he had the support of his peers in laying down the law, Mancini didn't so it was always going to end in tears......

I get where you are coming from - Unfortunately for Mancini - he was trying to pick fights with too many - We don't really know what else was going on. But the minute he apparently upset the Sheikh his P45 was signed

Mourinho for all his faults is mellowing when it comes to working in a structure - he has now done it at Madrid and doing it at Chelsea - there comes a time when people need to tow the line and accept some change.

This thread ain't about Mancini - the rot had already set in during the championship winning season with Mancini

 

[nellyonthewing]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt that the Sheik grew up kicking a ball around playing 'walley' or 'centering and heading', nor did he stand with an oxo on some windswept terrace. He is not a football person per se.
So when he acquired a Football Club he naturally looks around at whose the best in the business and then headhunts some of their staff.
You have to trust these 'experts' to deliver when they give their counsel. However when things start going tits up ,you then have to forego the 'expert opinion' strategy and fallback on what you've learnt in that period and realise your own life experience and judgement probably make you equally if not better able to make decisions than many of these so called well paid experts.
Is it time for the Sheik to take over more control.

 

[BlueDeadHead]

The appointment of the Spanish duo. And before anyone tells me how great we are commercially, stop to think about how many other top class commercial directors there are and how much money has been spent on business development.

I don't care how much we spent in business development. Only five teams in the world have higher revenue than us. I say that is a job well done.