Why The Hell Would Anyone Want Mancini Sacked ?

[Didsbury Dave]

It's getting to the big decision time for the board now, because it seems that at least Mourinho & Pep will be available in the summer.

They either have to decide that whatever happens this season they will back Mancini, give him within reason what he wants in the transfer market unlike last season and say that we believe for the next couple of years he can deliver what we want, as Mou and Pep won't be available after the summer for a couple of years most likely.

If they don't then if, as is likely, we go for one of the above then there are pitfalls to consider. Mou likes investment in his squad, likes having wingers, a grafter in midfield alongside a creator and doesn't favour bringing through youth, contrary to what we're trying to do and will want rid of players such as Balo and the likes of Maicon I suspect, however he is proven in England and in Europe and has a lot of experience, especially of winning trophies. Pep will bring through youth, will want a smaller squad(cuts the wage bill) and there may will be then a lack of investment in the squad and as shown by last summer when we don't spend the money properly we struggle. It may also see the end of the likes of Yaya and the transition on the pitch may need some patience and time that at present some members of the fanbase don't seem to want to give Mancini, and he has no other managerial experience outside of Barca, and the setup would have to be created here and at present the talent pool is nowhere near as fruitful.

Either way we have to spend our money right, it's probably the biggest decision the owners will have to make as it will see us into the FFPR era with a certain philosophy.

It's a good post, but you forget another part of the decision.

The club are obviously driving towards a model where it can "wash it's own face" financially in the long term. If they are looking at the three options which everyone believes, they also have to consider which of the three will drive top line revenue up. That's where things get interesting.

If we are looking to wash our own face long term then surely Mourinho is ouot of the running straight away?

(see, I can do it)

Whilst I don't believe Mourinho is favourite should we be in the market, I think the strongest argument (beyond trophies) for his appointment would be the impact he would have on our revenues very quickly through prize money, TV money, corporate revenue and sponsorship deals. He's an enormous name and would push our profile through the roof.

I know it's fashionable to say he doesn't stay long, and that's an area ADUG would have to probe hard on should they be interested, as he claims he wants a club to settle down at. But if he delivered English dominance and the Champions League then buggers off, well I'd take that.

 

[Anonymous]

If we are looking to wash our own face long term then surely Mourinho is ouot of the running straight away?

(see, I can do it)

Why ? The team Mourinho built at Chelsea is only just being taken apart now. The team he's built at Madrid will be there for the most part for another four or five years.

Simply spending isn't the issue - it's having a manager who has a record of identifying talent, buying that talent, then getting the best out of the talent.

That's not entirely right though is it?

Petr Cech - Ranieri signing
The Racist - really established himself in their side in 2001, came up through their youth I think?
Lampard - Ranieri signing

Obviously there are still some from the Mourinho era (eg Mikel) and Drogba has finally gone.

Looking at Mourinho's track record in terms of youth development, commitment to contract and transfer spend, it's going to be very expensive. You'd expect him to win things which should offset that, but there is no guarantee is there?

In terms of "fit" with the owners, and given Soriano's and Begiristain's presence, Guardiola seems the natural choice over Mourinho.

I get the feeling the Mourinho circus is possibly too much for us.

 

[OB1]

Whilst I don't believe Mourinho is favourite should we be in the market, I think the strongest argument (beyond trophies) for his appointment would be the impact he would have on our revenues very quickly through prize money, TV money, corporate revenue and sponsorship deals. He's an enormous name and would push our profile through the roof.

I know it's fashionable to say he doesn't stay long, and that's an area ADUG would have to probe hard on should they be interested, as he claims he wants a club to settle down at. But if he delivered English dominance and the Champions League then buggers off, well I'd take that.

Didn't Jose just buy a house in Prestbury called Dunrowmin?

 

[Anonymous]

It's a good post, but you forget another part of the decision.

The club are obviously driving towards a model where it can "wash it's own face" financially in the long term. If they are looking at the three options which everyone believes, they also have to consider which of the three will drive top line revenue up. That's where things get interesting.

If we are looking to wash our own face long term then surely Mourinho is ouot of the running straight away?

(see, I can do it)

Whilst I don't believe Mourinho is favourite should we be in the market, I think the strongest argument (beyond trophies) for his appointment would be the impact he would have on our revenues very quickly through prize money, TV money, corporate revenue and sponsorship deals. He's an enormous name and would push our profile through the roof.

I know it's fashionable to say he doesn't stay long, and that's an area ADUG would have to probe hard on should they be interested, as he claims he wants a club to settle down at. But if he delivered English dominance and the Champions League then buggers off, well I'd take that.

It's not so much fashionable as fact that he doesn't. He fluttered his lashes at us before and used us to get a better deal - that's business so we deal with it.

He's doing the same again to get the deal he wants, but we don't know what that deal is - us, rags, Chelsea etc. Therefore, in spite of his stellar reputation, we know unequivocably (from a City perspective based on the last time) we cannot trust we are what he wants, so why would we put ourselves in that position?

He's the local prick tease, in my opinion of course.

 

[Anonymous]

That's not entirely right though is it?

Petr Cech - Ranieri signing
The Racist - really established himself in their side in 2001, came up through their youth I think?
Lampard - Ranieri signing

Obviously there are still some from the Mourinho era (eg Mikel) and Drogba has finally gone.

You've mentioned 5 players out of a squad of 25. Go back and look at Chelsea's squad list for the 10/11 season. You'll find the overwhelmingly vast majority were Mourinho's signings.

Looking at Mourinho's track record in terms of youth development, commitment to contract and transfer spend, it's going to be very expensive. You'd expect him to win things which should offset that, but there is no guarantee is there?

It can't be more expensive than Mancini wanting fucking Hazard, RVP, and De Rossi. All manager require funds. It's just some get the best out of the players they've bought, and then some want to throw them all out every 18 months and buy new ones.

In terms of "fit" with the owners, and given Soriano's and Begiristain's presence, Guardiola seems the natural choice over Mourinho.

I get the feeling the Mourinho circus is possibly too much for us.

The "circus" of which you speak is actually a case of ridiculous success. That's the circus Mourinho brings. Before you say "but but he's 11 points behind" we're in November. Come talk to me in May about what he achieves this season. Last season he won the league against the best team in the history of football, and got to the CL semi final.

Having said all that, i agree that Ferran and Txiki will perfer Guardiola over Mourinho.

A question for you. How many expensive "failures" does Mourinho have from his Chelsea/Madrid/Porto players. I purposely left out Inter because he spent a lot of Quaresma and he was a total flop.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

He's a clever political player mate. Not dissimilar to Mancini to be honest.

They all are at this level, it's a cut-throat world.

Anyway, how do you know we didn't flutter our own eyes at Jose, or Pep, last year then slam shut the jockstrap?

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

If we are looking to wash our own face long term then surely Mourinho is ouot of the running straight away?

(see, I can do it)

Why ? The team Mourinho built at Chelsea is only just being taken apart now. The team he's built at Madrid will be there for the most part for another four or five years.

Simply spending isn't the issue - it's having a manager who has a record of identifying talent, buying that talent, then getting the best out of the talent.

It's more than just looking at the actual squad isn't it though, Chelsea's an odd case study because of the antics of Roman you can't judge fairly what Jose's legacy was, but Inter have crumbled since he left and this Real are really underachieving under his watch this year, it's an odd situation really, I don't want him to be here for 3 years, win everything, leave and leave us trying to piece it back together again, I'd hope if he came here he could win everything and leave a really positive and solid legacy for the next guy to build upon, as of yet he hasn't managed to do that wherever he's been for whatever reason, and at least part of that has to be down to him.

The owners won't want to look at a 3 year plan and I think we as fans should always have the long term in mind as to where we want to be.

 

[fbloke]

Mark Hughes is available.

 

[Dobsy]

I think Guardiola and Mourinho are better managers.

They are in a small elite group right at the top. Mancini is in a group just behind them.

 

[City_Sean]

i do wish youth would get a chance more under bobby, rather than spend spend spend, lets see what our youth can do as apart from suarez and rekik they never really get a chance.

 

[blueyorkie]

Because the Fleet St tossers want a story?

 

[cyprustavern]

i do wish youth would get a chance more under bobby, rather than spend spend spend, lets see what our youth can do as apart from suarez and rekik they never really get a chance.

hmmmm...which games would you like them to play?


the kids are alright

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/user/jbilotta11?v=55WSztakg4w[/youtube]

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

That's not entirely right though is it?

Petr Cech - Ranieri signing
The Racist - really established himself in their side in 2001, came up through their youth I think?
Lampard - Ranieri signing

Obviously there are still some from the Mourinho era (eg Mikel) and Drogba has finally gone.

You've mentioned 5 players out of a squad of 25. Go back and look at Chelsea's squad list for the 10/11 season. You'll find the overwhelmingly vast majority were Mourinho's signings.

Looking at Mourinho's track record in terms of youth development, commitment to contract and transfer spend, it's going to be very expensive. You'd expect him to win things which should offset that, but there is no guarantee is there?

It can't be more expensive than Mancini wanting fucking Hazard, RVP, and De Rossi. All manager require funds. It's just some get the best out of the players they've bought, and then some want to throw them all out every 18 months and buy new ones.

In terms of "fit" with the owners, and given Soriano's and Begiristain's presence, Guardiola seems the natural choice over Mourinho.

I get the feeling the Mourinho circus is possibly too much for us.

The "circus" of which you speak is actually a case of ridiculous success. That's the circus Mourinho brings. Before you say "but but he's 11 points behind" we're in November. Come talk to me in May about what he achieves this season. Last season he won the league against the best team in the history of football, and got to the CL semi final.

Having said all that, i agree that Ferran and Txiki will perfer Guardiola over Mourinho.

A question for you. How many expensive "failures" does Mourinho have from his Chelsea/Madrid/Porto players. I purposely left out Inter because he spent a lot of Quaresma and he was a total flop.

That's like having a go at me ages ago because I left out Mourinho's record with Porto in stats comparing him against Mancini.

As it is I was doing an update to that with other managers before my laptop crashed a few days ago.

As it is I can't find his Porto transfers, but there was a steady £15m spent on Tiago & Kezman in his first season at Chelsea, though Roman did manage to only lose £2m on them. Then add in £12m on Del Horno and £21m on SWP, we all know Shevchenko was Roman's signing so we'll leave that out but then another £8.5m went on Boulahrouz, £13.5m went on Malouda(who never fulfilled his potential) so there was a fair amount wasted at Chelsea. Inter saw Quaresma and Mancini for over 30m Euros.

At Madrid Canales and Leon came in in his first summer at 15m Euros(not sure if he had any say, especially in the former). Nuri Sahin at 10m Euros didn't work out and Modric has struggled at 30m Euros but it's early days.

I'd say in general when they get the players they want both Mourinho & Mancini are pretty good in the transfer market, there are obviously failings in both's history as there are with everyone including Guardiola, I think the most noticeable part is when non-managers stick the nose in and buy who they want that you see the biggest flops(ie. Marwood & Roman).

 

[Nils]

It's an obvious line to take from the papers regarding Mancini's future following our exit from Europe. However, none of us know what the owners think, certainly not the likes of Ian Herbert etc, they just make it up. If we get to the end of the season and fail to win the title, then obviously the board has a very big decision to make. That's only natural with mourinho and Guardiola available. Either one would be great, the former guarantees success as far as you can in football, the latter would be more of a gamble but would fit with plans for the academy etc. Like all city fans though, if Mancini wins the title, he deserves to stay and have another shot in Europe with some quality signings brought in to strengthen the midfield and we can build from there. Let's just stuff united on Sunday and take it from there

 

[Didsbury Dave]

It's an obvious line to take from the papers regarding Mancini's future following our exit from Europe. However, none of us know what the owners think, certainly not the likes of Ian Herbert etc, they just make it up. If we get to the end of the season and fail to win the title, then obviously the board has a very big decision to make. That's only natural with mourinho and Guardiola available. Either one would be great, the former guarantees success as far as you can in football, the latter would be more of a gamble but would fit with plans for the academy etc. Like all city fans though, if Mancini wins the title, he deserves to stay and have another shot in Europe with some quality signings brought in to strengthen the midfield and we can build from there. Let's just stuff united on Sunday and take it from there

I honestly think when all the hystrionics and bullshit is taken away, that what you've calmly surmised is what the vast majority of City fans believe and want.

 

[Anonymous]

That's like having a go at me ages ago because I left out Mourinho's record with Porto in stats comparing him against Mancini.

As it is I was doing an update to that with other managers before my laptop crashed a few days ago.

As it is I can't find his Porto transfers, but there was a steady £15m spent on Tiago & Kezman in his first season at Chelsea, though Roman did manage to only lose £2m on them. Then add in £12m on Del Horno and £21m on SWP, we all know Shevchenko was Roman's signing so we'll leave that out but then another £8.5m went on Boulahrouz, £13.5m went on Malouda(who never fulfilled his potential) so there was a fair amount wasted at Chelsea. Inter saw Quaresma and Mancini for over 30m Euros.

At Madrid Canales and Leon came in in his first summer at 15m Euros(not sure if he had any say, especially in the former). Nuri Sahin at 10m Euros didn't work out and Modric has struggled at 30m Euros but it's early days.

I'd say in general when they get the players they want both Mourinho & Mancini are pretty good in the transfer market, there are obviously failings in both's history as there are with everyone including Guardiola, I think the most noticeable part is when non-managers stick the nose in and buy who they want that you see the biggest flops(ie. Marwood & Roman).

You make some very fair points and have some good examples in there JMW. For me all managers make mistakes in the transfer market. I just always find it odd when certain comments are made about Mourinho as negatives when the same apply to Mancini in the same manner. Both are managers who have spent large amounts of money at their respective clubs down the years.

If you look at the long term strategy of the club it may well be to develop it's own talent, however I think the reality of this is that you simply cannot guarantee to produced a certain number of players who are good enough for the first team. What you need are a pool of scouts who can identify talents who can compliment your squad without falling into the silly money bracket. Nastasic is an excellent example of this. I think Lewandowski at Dortmund is another excellent example of a player who bigger clubs should have looked at. The lad at Celtic is another example.

The overriding disappointment for me over the last summer was how we seemed only to be aware of players which even me and you could "recommend" so to speak. With the exception of Nastasic of course.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

That's like having a go at me ages ago because I left out Mourinho's record with Porto in stats comparing him against Mancini.

As it is I was doing an update to that with other managers before my laptop crashed a few days ago.

As it is I can't find his Porto transfers, but there was a steady £15m spent on Tiago & Kezman in his first season at Chelsea, though Roman did manage to only lose £2m on them. Then add in £12m on Del Horno and £21m on SWP, we all know Shevchenko was Roman's signing so we'll leave that out but then another £8.5m went on Boulahrouz, £13.5m went on Malouda(who never fulfilled his potential) so there was a fair amount wasted at Chelsea. Inter saw Quaresma and Mancini for over 30m Euros.

At Madrid Canales and Leon came in in his first summer at 15m Euros(not sure if he had any say, especially in the former). Nuri Sahin at 10m Euros didn't work out and Modric has struggled at 30m Euros but it's early days.

I'd say in general when they get the players they want both Mourinho & Mancini are pretty good in the transfer market, there are obviously failings in both's history as there are with everyone including Guardiola, I think the most noticeable part is when non-managers stick the nose in and buy who they want that you see the biggest flops(ie. Marwood & Roman).

You make some very fair points and have some good examples in there JMW. For me all managers make mistakes in the transfer market. I just always find it odd when certain comments are made about Mourinho as negatives when the same apply to Mancini in the same manner. Both are managers who have spent large amounts of money at their respective clubs down the years.

If you look at the long term strategy of the club it may well be to develop it's own talent, however I think the reality of this is that you simply cannot guarantee to produced a certain number of players who are good enough for the first team. What you need are a pool of scouts who can identify talents who can compliment your squad without falling into the silly money bracket. Nastasic is an excellent example of this. I think Lewandowski at Dortmund is another excellent example of a player who bigger clubs should have looked at. The lad at Celtic is another example.

The overriding disappointment for me over the last summer was how we seemed only to be aware of players which even me and you could "recommend" so to speak. With the exception of Nastasic of course.

I agree, we go out and I do think the likes of Rodwell, Sinclair were Marwood signings and let's be honest they are rubbish signings, Garcia is obviously a compromise and a "who can we get who is cheaper than De Rossi?" without doing much scouting seemingly.

You can look at Shaqiri who Bayern signed, Reus who Dortmund signed, everyone now talks about Benat, Isco, the lads at Shakhtar(Fernandinho, Mkhitaryan, Willian), and the guys who now would cost £25m who were relatively cheap a few years ago, like Vidal at Juve. Would Cazorla have cost us that much more than Arsenal paid?, Liverpool got Sahin on loan, Dembele wasn't expensive. Alba went to Barca for what, £12m? Afellay went to Schalke on loan, Lassana Diarra to Anzhi for 5m Euros.

If you look back at 2010 you see Soldado go to Valencia(would be perfect for an Arsenal now), Bonucci to Juve for £15m, Cavani to Napoli, Sandro to Spurs for £9m, Adriano to Barca for £10m, Moutinho to Porto for £11m, Papadopoulos to Schalke, Lewandowski to Dortmund(rated him at Lech), Khedira to Real for £12m, Godin to Atletico for £8m, Ozil to Real for £12m, Hernanes to Lazio.

We don't seem to sign players like that, spotting good talent in Europe, buying it at a reasonable price and then turning it into a £20-30m player.

 

[cyprustavern]

good post @ JMW


I think the cost of our (possible) back 5 was as frugal in relation to price paid and current ability as any team in the world if you take Hart,Zab,Vinny,Nasty,Gael as the 5......we struggle to find value for money in more advanced positions thus far i agree without a doubt.

 

[Cellarite]

Can anyone who'd want to see Guardiola as our next manager tell me why they aren't worried about the very same problem which he stated he wanted a new challenge for, that he wondered whether he was a great manager or was simply lucky to inherit Messi, Xavi and Iniesta?

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Can anyone who'd want to see Guardiola as our next manager tell me why they aren't worried about the very same problem which he stated he wanted a new challenge for, that he wondered whether he was a great manager or was simply lucky to inherit Messi, Xavi and Iniesta?

And I'd also be concerned that as he got tired at Barca whilst winning everything how he will fare when the job's a lot harder, he doesn't seem the "I'm committed to being a full time manager" type so in terms of a long term plan he hasn't proven his longevity so doesn't have an advantage over Jose in that respect.<br /><br />-- Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:52 pm --<br /><br />

good post @ JMW


I think the cost of our (possible) back 5 was as frugal in relation to price paid and current ability as any team in the world if you take Hart,Zab,Vinny,Nasty,Gael as the 5......we struggle to find value for money in more advanced positions thus far i agree without a doubt.

True but we also spent over £35m on Lescott and Kolo so it shows even in that department we have struggled.