There is no way the board could of accepted his resignation in May 2012 after winning the title, his status with City fans was at an all time high, his stock as a manager was the same. To accept it would of thrown the club into a PR disaster which would've overshadowed the title win.BobKowalski said:Prestwich_Blue said:I'm going to summarise the sequence of events as I understand it from various sources. Most of it has been on here before but maybe not in one place.
I don't think even his most fervent supporter could deny Mancini was a fractious character but he was winning things and that counts for something. However the problems really started when he was told about the appointment of Soriano & Begiristain and that he would be expected to work closely with (or possibly even report to) the latter. This was just before we won the title and he wasn't pleased.
Once we'd secured the title, he presumably felt he was invulnerable so he formally resigned. I'm told the letter arrived on acting CEO John Macbeath's desk the day after the QPR game (i.e. the day of the victory parade). The club were nervous about the PR impact so, despite the misgivings about his abrasive style, they starting persuading him to stay. That took two months and may well explain why our summer transfer dealings were so poor and done late in the window. The reasons why we didn't get Hazard and others have been detailed before and were to do with FFP and our strict policy on agent fees. Mancini certainly knew the score on that. We had to agree to a 5-yr contract to keep him but that was largely symbolic as there was a cast-iron break clause that limited compensation.
When the Soriano & Bergiristain arrived in October, Mancini made it clear that he didn't accept their authority by his attitude towards the new executives. There would be meetings where he would ignore them and make no contribution, even avoiding eye contact and staring at his shoes most of the time. Mancini felt he only needed to answer to Khaldoon, who was getting increasingly frustrated, with both sides were moaning bitterly to him. Plus the players were also complaining and wouldn't commit to new contracts or were talking about leaving. I understand that Kompany's people were talking to Barcelona and they showed the club the offer they'd had.
Within a few months things were completely chaotic. Mancini was constantly threatening to walk and stormed off after the Everton game back to his villa in Sardinia. I think we'd already started looking for a successor by then but that was possibly precautionary rather than definite, in order to give us our own bargaining tool or Plan B.
A final effort was made to sort things out at the end of March, with Mancini ordered out to Abu Dhabi after the Newcastle game. I'm not sure whether he saw Sheikh Mansour face-to-face or not or just saw Simon Pearce but it didn't go well and the decision was made to sack him at the end of the season and replace him with Pellegrini. The next game was the derby at The Swamp and a board meeting took place just before that game to formally ratify the decision. I think he was due to be gone after the USA post season game against Chelsea.
However the news that we'd approached Pellegrini was leaked, probably by Barcelona, on the eve of the FA Cup Final and the club were forced onto the back foot and decided to bring forward the sacking. So the fact he may have been a bit rude to Chappy or the assistant groundsman has little bearing on his demise. That came from his attitude to his peers and superiors.
A most excellent summation dude.
Should have accepted Bobby's resignation. With F&T on board it was regime change and Bobby was never going to fit in the new world order. I can see why the board ducked the issue but it was still a mistake. Hindsight and all that.
Bilboblue said:Silva and Nasri too..... think it was a fair few
Damocles said:The only people who would actually know the answer to this don't tend to post on internet forums. So essentially youll get 12th hand stories or a bunch of guessing.
Such as the resigning thing which has been categorically denied by all and Brennan, a man who has some of the best sources and literally wrote the book on Mancinis tenure here, once called a ridiculous and bizarre fabrication. No other sports journo heard it either despite City having more leaks than the Titanic at the time.
At some point in the future, all subsequent replacements will probably suffer the same, its a game called football management.Damocles said:Mister Appointment said:lancs blue said:Judging by this forum it appears that he pissed off quite a few City fans by winning trophies. ;-)
Seems he managed to piss the owners off so much they sacked him despite his 2 trophies with us. ;)
Seems his replacement will suffer the same
Damocles said:The only people who would actually know the answer to this don't tend to post on internet forums. So essentially youll get 12th hand stories or a bunch of guessing.
Such as the resigning thing which has been categorically denied by all and Brennan, a man who has some of the best sources and literally wrote the book on Mancinis tenure here, once called a ridiculous and bizarre fabrication. No other sports journo heard it either despite City having more leaks than the Titanic at the time.
Citizen Green said:There is no way the board could of accepted his resignation in May 2012 after winning the title, his status with City fans was at an all time high, his stock as a manager was the same. To accept it would of thrown the club into a PR disaster which would've overshadowed the title win.BobKowalski said:Prestwich_Blue said:I'm going to summarise the sequence of events as I understand it from various sources. Most of it has been on here before but maybe not in one place.
I don't think even his most fervent supporter could deny Mancini was a fractious character but he was winning things and that counts for something. However the problems really started when he was told about the appointment of Soriano & Begiristain and that he would be expected to work closely with (or possibly even report to) the latter. This was just before we won the title and he wasn't pleased.
Once we'd secured the title, he presumably felt he was invulnerable so he formally resigned. I'm told the letter arrived on acting CEO John Macbeath's desk the day after the QPR game (i.e. the day of the victory parade). The club were nervous about the PR impact so, despite the misgivings about his abrasive style, they starting persuading him to stay. That took two months and may well explain why our summer transfer dealings were so poor and done late in the window. The reasons why we didn't get Hazard and others have been detailed before and were to do with FFP and our strict policy on agent fees. Mancini certainly knew the score on that. We had to agree to a 5-yr contract to keep him but that was largely symbolic as there was a cast-iron break clause that limited compensation.
When the Soriano & Bergiristain arrived in October, Mancini made it clear that he didn't accept their authority by his attitude towards the new executives. There would be meetings where he would ignore them and make no contribution, even avoiding eye contact and staring at his shoes most of the time. Mancini felt he only needed to answer to Khaldoon, who was getting increasingly frustrated, with both sides were moaning bitterly to him. Plus the players were also complaining and wouldn't commit to new contracts or were talking about leaving. I understand that Kompany's people were talking to Barcelona and they showed the club the offer they'd had.
Within a few months things were completely chaotic. Mancini was constantly threatening to walk and stormed off after the Everton game back to his villa in Sardinia. I think we'd already started looking for a successor by then but that was possibly precautionary rather than definite, in order to give us our own bargaining tool or Plan B.
A final effort was made to sort things out at the end of March, with Mancini ordered out to Abu Dhabi after the Newcastle game. I'm not sure whether he saw Sheikh Mansour face-to-face or not or just saw Simon Pearce but it didn't go well and the decision was made to sack him at the end of the season and replace him with Pellegrini. The next game was the derby at The Swamp and a board meeting took place just before that game to formally ratify the decision. I think he was due to be gone after the USA post season game against Chelsea.
However the news that we'd approached Pellegrini was leaked, probably by Barcelona, on the eve of the FA Cup Final and the club were forced onto the back foot and decided to bring forward the sacking. So the fact he may have been a bit rude to Chappy or the assistant groundsman has little bearing on his demise. That came from his attitude to his peers and superiors.
A most excellent summation dude.
Should have accepted Bobby's resignation. With F&T on board it was regime change and Bobby was never going to fit in the new world order. I can see why the board ducked the issue but it was still a mistake. Hindsight and all that.
BobKowalski said:Citizen Green said:There is no way the board could of accepted his resignation in May 2012 after winning the title, his status with City fans was at an all time high, his stock as a manager was the same. To accept it would of thrown the club into a PR disaster which would've overshadowed the title win.BobKowalski said:A most excellent summation dude.
Should have accepted Bobby's resignation. With F&T on board it was regime change and Bobby was never going to fit in the new world order. I can see why the board ducked the issue but it was still a mistake. Hindsight and all that.
Yep and I can see why they ducked the issue. That said a Bobby/F&T combo was never going to work and the board is paid to make the big decisions so make them. Plus Bobby has been sacked before after winning a title and Real Madrid do it all the time so if it's the right decision going forward then make it. Should have sacked Hughes in the summer of '09 and ducked that one as well.
Mister Appointment said:Bilboblue said:Silva and Nasri too..... think it was a fair few
Think Sami's said subsequently that he accepted that criticism Mancini levelled at him and it was probably fair enough.
The truth is it didn't really matter what the players thought. Mancini was sacked because nobody at board level could be arsed with his shite anymore. It just made it much easier to fuck him off knowing some of the players would be delighted too.
Eccles Blue said:Unless you were actually in the board/team meetings or you are the Sheikh you cannot categorically say who he upset, he has been gone now for nearly two seasons and City are still going strong so why the heck does it matter now??
This is one of the most pointless threads I have ever read!!!
I loved Mancini as much as the next fan but the only time he upset me was when he dropped Pantillimon for the Cup Final. That was all wrong.