Writing is on the wall

[johnmc]

Er, johnmc, this from 2 days ago. Mancini sanctioned the sale, Mario's last interview on the OS also confirms this:

http://www.goal.com/en-za/news/4682...o-milan-move?source=breakingnews&ICID=HP_HL_5

"They are very close (to an agreement) and we are also so sad because Mario was an important player for us," Mancini told reporters.

"With Mario we won the Premier League, the FA Cup, the Charity Shield. He's a fantastic player, but for him, this could be an important chance to come back to Italy and play for a top club like Milan and I hope he can continue to improve because he can become one of the best players in the world.

"It's difficult for me because I lost one striker and that could be important in the next 14 games.

"It is important for Mario to go back to Italy. It could be a good chance for him to stay with his family and to play for Milan. He can improve and I am happy for him. He can be one of the best players in the world."

Sorry bud.

Yes and he says "its difficult for me", a few weeks earlier he said Mario would get 100 chances and that he was the Sheiks fave player. He looked a shadow of his animated self on the bench at QPR and the interview after told me a lot.

 

[bluepieceofwire]

i dont understand this thread, why would his job be even remotely under threat?

 

[The Future's Blue]

The sale of Balo. The failure to land any of Mancini's top transfer targets in the summer window. The lack of activity in this window. Maybe his days are numbered?

What was the point in giving him a new contract if his fate was already decided?

I think you are missing the point of this thread

Definately lost on me :)

 

[coulsonblue]

For the record, I'm firmly Mancini in.

However, it's a myth that stability comes from having 1 guy in charge forever.

The correct way is to have the structure in place that remains the same. Directors of football are good, it's just the english don't like them. But they make far more sense. It's 1 strategy, 1 policy.

It certainly beats the english, harry redknapp/sam allardyce approach whereby they want to sign their old mates again. No coincidence that Redknapp didn't like not having sole control of transfers at Spurs.

Think you have got your wires crossed. Stability does come from having one person in charge long term. Success however maybe different. But I do think for the top sides stability is a better framework for success than regular changes. There are arguments for both sides. Whiskey nose is a prime example of sticking with your manager. Wenger the opposite. He had his day and will struggle to regain. Chelsea have had a level of success despite change but ask yourself if abramovich didn't fall out with mourinho would they have won more than they have since he left?

No I haven't got my wires crossed.

If you have the same structure in place it is better because it means when you change the manager there is no transition period.

By having a stable structure who decide on transfer policy etc... with the consultation of the manager of the moment, it means that stays constant.

So yes, stability. In terms of management structure, coaching setup and the financial stability of the club (with no great turnover of staff with each managerial change)

 

[The Future's Blue]

I think Mancini's brill.

 

[johnmc]

No I haven't got my wires crossed.

If you have the same structure in place it is better because it means when you change the manager there is no transition period.

By having a stable structure who decide on transfer policy etc... with the consultation of the manager of the moment, it means that stays constant.

So yes, stability. In terms of management structure, coaching setup and the financial stability of the club (with no great turnover of staff with each managerial change)

When we were changing managers every year the same chairman and board were in place.

 

[BobKowalski]

There's a lot of confidence in Ferran and Txiki but what if they can't replicate what they did at barca? All this talk of 4-5 world class signings that they guarantee - we had world class targets last year and look how that went (no doubt first to be blamed will be the guy who managed to sign yaya aguero and silva). Plus La Masia dealt with Spanish or at least Spanish speaking players who wanted to be in Spain.

If Messi had come through our academy about 8 years ago would he still be here now? People on here moan consistently about Garcia, Rodwell and Sinclair but as back-up goes they're textbook barca signings - either young and experienced or young home growns.

It's a remarkably exciting project but I hope it isn't as Barca-lite as often reported and I really hope it doesn't cost us a manager who was won in the league in two of Europe's top three or four countries.

Txiki is here to lead us to the promised land where the sun always shines and we never lose plus he will sort out the squad and the team and unicorns will graze on the playing fields of the new training complex.

On the other hand Txiki only got the job because Marwood had first dibs and declined opting instead to move to fresh pastures - possibly to look after the grazing unicorns.

Not sure what that tells us in terms of Txiki's position and influence at City but I delighted we have him and Ferran on board as I think we missed executive leadership in the summer and I think Roberto and Txiki will work well together which I accept is very boring and in no way takes into account Roberto's demeanour, body language or choice of hat wear which all confidently point to an early exit in the summer - by the way do we have a titfer watch committee? Analysis of Roberto's choice of head wear may prove revealing as to his future and lets face it he does wear some shockers specifically the 'bobble hat double'.

That we are emotionally investing in Txiki is not unsurprising given the view in some quarters that Roberto is a gibbering numpty who sulked during the summer and didn't identify proper transfer targets as back up although I happen to think Nasty is looking good, Garcia is improving and Rodwell was, according to Platt, on Mancini's wish list. Sinclair was just someone who could fill an AJ sized hole and was cheap and and available and frankly no one cares anyway.

Yes it is exciting and like it or not the owners have a gameplan which involves the academy and investing in youth and trying to turn us into a successful and sustainable business and football model. I for one am eager to see how it progresses and given the people we have running it am optimistic it will succeed.

And yes I know that this sort of misplaced confidence has no future on BM

 

[OB1]

No I haven't got my wires crossed.

If you have the same structure in place it is better because it means when you change the manager there is no transition period.

By having a stable structure who decide on transfer policy etc... with the consultation of the manager of the moment, it means that stays constant.

So yes, stability. In terms of management structure, coaching setup and the financial stability of the club (with no great turnover of staff with each managerial change)

When we were changing managers every year the same chairman and board were in place.

But we didn't have the structure that Coulson is referring to; we didn't have a coherent long-term strategy backed by serious investment; we didn't have a Director of Football...

Managerial (as in head coach) stability and a stable club are not necessarily the same thing. Also, changing the manager after three years for a better model does not imply a lack of stability, it should imply progress: stability should never become a barrier to progress. Progress means something should be changing and that might be the manager.

Changing the manager at the drop of a hat is not to be recommended and I do not believe our club will do that but they will make a change if they think it is the best way forward.

 

[mayo31]

i don't want Mourinho! He will bring a bad name to the club and only be a short term manager.

I see where you're coming from but Mourinho = Trophies. and that's a fact.

I agree he'd only be here as long as it suits him but I would not mind if Mourinho came for couple seasons, we won something nice and during his tenure we would already have in mind who is the next Long term manager who would take over after Jose

What has Mancini won then a lucky dip?

All that is really left to win of note is the Champions League. The club has been in the competition just twice. It takes years as has been proven by other clubs. Mourinho did not win it with Chelsea or Madrid yet.

Give Bob another go at a minimum.

 

[johnmc]

But we didn't have the structure that Coulson is referring to; we didn't have a coherent long-term strategy backed by serious investment; we didn't have a Director of Football...

Managerial (as in head coach) stability and a stable club are not necessarily the same thing. Also, changing the manager after three years for a better model does not imply a lack of stability, it should imply progress: stability should never become a barrier to progress. Progress means something should be changing and that might be the manager.

Changing the manager at the drop of a hat is not to be recommended and I do not believe our club will do that but they will make a change if they think it is the best way forward.

I appreciate that but we arent talking about a change every 3 years. We were talking Chelsea like changes year in year out depending on success. You can't say Chelsea portray a stable club although behind the scenes they could have a rock solid set up away from the manager.

Thing is once the manager is changes then usually the assistant manager is, then the coach, then the goalkeeping coach, then they bring their own players in, then the scouts, then how they play the reserve games etc etc. So to me, regardless of the set up in the directors box, a stable club has a long term manager at the helm.