I actually want rid now

[Slim]

Without replying to the whole thing at the moment john cause I am a bit busy.

Mercer got us promoted and then won the league all in the space of 3 years, ignoring the first year ignores where he started us from.

Mancini started from 6th(I think) finished 5th and at this point I would not bet against us finishing there again.

And feel free to answer the question I posed in the first post. What have you seen in Mancini that makes you think he is the right man for the job?

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

>>>Reid was sacked because of club politics not football reasons. We had 2 5th place finishes under him.

I have to take issue with this John. It WAS for football reasons. As now we were playing the most dreadful football. We hammered the ball long to Quinn and had White lurking round trying to pick up flick ons. It had been found out. Plus the form we were showing under Reid in the second half of his second full season was truly alarming. Just four wins from February onwards culminating in a 2-5 home defeat to Everton on the final day of the season, meant we actually finished 9th then. We then started the next season in shocking form managing just one goal and one point in the first four games. Reid didn't know how to change it. As now we were going backwards and playing awful football.
Reid was a manager I was truly delighted to see the back of. Probably the closest I ever got to calling it a day and not renewing my season ticket was in the summer of 1993.

[john68]

@ Piccs,
Though what you say is true mate, you are not telling the whole story.
Peter Reid's finishes were 5th, 5th and 9th. You are right, the football was dire but you fail to address the political situation in the club at the time. I don't seek to defend Reid nor attack Swales but the facts are that Swales had refused to speak to Reid for some 18 months, over an issue concerning Sam Ellis and had also refused to sanction 2 of Reids targetted signings during the close season.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of those events, the point I was making reagrding this thread was that after finishing 5th twice, Reid was not fully backed by the chairman. I am in no doubt that the inner club politics played some part of our failures in the latter half that season and the start of of the next and the refusal by Swales to sanction the signings of Andy Townsend and Paul Stewart would seem to strengthen my point.

That a newpaperman John Maddock was brought in as a director of football over Reid's head is another example of Swales's political machinations. Sometimes we just cannot aimply blame managers for their failure, without looking a little deeper. Whatever Reid's style was, he was, as were other City managers of that time, a victim of Club politics and not allowed to develop his squad.

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

Sure there were problems behind the scenes. But Reid had two and half years to develop his squad, he kept buying defenders. Yes we were skint but he did spunk big money on defenders when we needed creativity. Ultimately he paid the price for piss poor boring form that was taking us backwards. Sound familiar? The only difference is we aint broke now.

[Im From Manchester]

Slim, I have a great regard for your intelligence and usual analytical skills....but i am so sorry mate you and the others are so fucking wrong...it reeeally beggers belief.

What bit of "stability breeds success and constant change breeds failure don't any of you understand"...and dikdik...one appearance in a losing final after a change of manager is NOT sustained success...in fact we lost.
What bit of "money buys you players but teams win trophies and teams take time to build" can't you get your heads round?

The needle is stuck, simply because it is the truth and there is no other way of hammering home the message.
Busby took from the 40s to the late 50s to build his babes. After Munich, it took another 5 years to build his next dominant team.
Liverpool had it's stable boot room mentality that gave them sustained success even after Shankly disappeared. it was Souness playing billy big bollox, believing his way was better that fucked it up. Any success they have had since was not sustained.
Taggart failed miserably initially and took around seven years to build his empire.
Wenger may not have won anything for a few years, but they are the the nearest England has to challenging taggart's title charge.
Revie...Clough...Stein...all had time....and by the way didn't our own ron saunders go onto win the European Cup? How long did he last under Swales?
Our own success under Mercer/Allison took 3 years to build and they reigned for around 6 years. It was reverting back to our version of City's stable boot room mentality under book that brought success back.

I have never suggested that all those old City managers were any good. Some should never have been employed, simply because the old manager should never have been sacked in the 1st place.
The crucial bit is that when each one of them arrived with their own ideas, they demolished the previous work done and started their own projects, none were ever allowed the time to finish them.

...and Dikdik...changing a manager and getting ONE trip to a losing final is NOT sustained success.

So how do you explain away Real Madrid and AC Milan's considerable success amongst constant turmoil?

Ac Milan's most recent success was when they had Saachi for 4 years and Capello for 5 years plus in those days they were the big spenders of the day.

Real Madrid have always been big spenders and a very big club with quality players which will always tend to overcome a lack of stability. Had they had some stability then maybe we would be looking at even more trophy success. Quite simply, if you've got good players then put a manager with some football nouse in charge and its inevitable you will win things. Good tactics and set up from a manager will rarely overcome a team with better players over a season.

I can see that we are moving in the right direction and I don't buy into this boring football apart from a few games I feel I've been thoroughly entertained this season when compared to many others. Simply we don't yet yet have the players and the squad at the level that we need to challenge the top three in the prem but anyone can see we are getting closer.

Another summer of re-shaping the squad, letting some players go and bringing in new one's and we will in a better position to challenge for the prem.

[Flixton Blue]

Have a bet on O'Neil,the wheels are in motion - that is all.

[avoidconfusion]

Have a bet on O'Neil,the wheels are in motion - that is all.

Sure.

Like O'Neil is ANY better than Mancini.

[Ted Hughes]

Slim, I have a great regard for your intelligence and usual analytical skills....but i am so sorry mate you and the others are so fucking wrong...it reeeally beggers belief.

What bit of "stability breeds success and constant change breeds failure don't any of you understand"...and dikdik...one appearance in a losing final after a change of manager is NOT sustained success...in fact we lost.
What bit of "money buys you players but teams win trophies and teams take time to build" can't you get your heads round?

The needle is stuck, simply because it is the truth and there is no other way of hammering home the message.
Busby took from the 40s to the late 50s to build his babes. After Munich, it took another 5 years to build his next dominant team.
Liverpool had it's stable boot room mentality that gave them sustained success even after Shankly disappeared. it was Souness playing billy big bollox, believing his way was better that fucked it up. Any success they have had since was not sustained.
Taggart failed miserably initially and took around seven years to build his empire.
Wenger may not have won anything for a few years, but they are the the nearest England has to challenging taggart's title charge.
Revie...Clough...Stein...all had time....and by the way didn't our own ron saunders go onto win the European Cup? How long did he last under Swales?
Our own success under Mercer/Allison took 3 years to build and they reigned for around 6 years. It was reverting back to our version of City's stable boot room mentality under book that brought success back.

I have never suggested that all those old City managers were any good. Some should never have been employed, simply because the old manager should never have been sacked in the 1st place.
The crucial bit is that when each one of them arrived with their own ideas, they demolished the previous work done and started their own projects, none were ever allowed the time to finish them.

...and Dikdik...changing a manager and getting ONE trip to a losing final is NOT sustained success.

So how do you explain away Real Madrid and AC Milan's considerable success amongst constant turmoil?

Ac Milan's most recent success was when they had Saachi for 4 years and Capello for 5 years plus in those days they were the big spenders of the day.

Real Madrid have always been big spenders and a very big club with quality players which will always tend to overcome a lack of stability. Had they had some stability then maybe we would be looking at even more trophy success. Quite simply, if you've got good players then put a manager with some football nouse in charge and its inevitable you will win things. Good tactics and set up from a manager will rarely overcome a team with better players over a season.

I can see that we are moving in the right direction and I don't buy into this boring football apart from a few games I feel I've been thoroughly entertained this season when compared to many others. Simply we don't yet yet have the players and the squad at the level that we need to challenge the top three in the prem but anyone can see we are getting closer.

Another summer of re-shaping the squad, letting some players go and bringing in new one's and we will in a better position to challenge for the prem.

That's fair comment but the questions are 1) Why have we still got parts of the squad that need fixing & 2) As Bob didn't fix it in the last two transfer windows, can he be trusted to strengthen sufficiently in the next one?

[Flixton Blue]

Have a bet on O'Neil,the wheels are in motion - that is all.

Sure.

Like O'Neil is ANY better than Mancini.

Can't be any worse imo.

[avoidconfusion]

Have a bet on O'Neil,the wheels are in motion - that is all.

Sure.

Like O'Neil is ANY better than Mancini.

Can't be any worse imo.

I am pretty sure he can. What's he ever won?

[Flixton Blue]

Have a bet on O'Neil,the wheels are in motion - that is all.

Sure.

Like O'Neil is ANY better than Mancini.

Can't be any worse imo.

Mancini's gone mate,the sooner people realise the better,the writings on the wall -that is all

[avoidconfusion]

Mancini's gone mate,the sooner people realise the better,the writings on the wall -that is all

How and why would you know?

[Blue Since 76]

Have a bet on O'Neil,the wheels are in motion - that is all.

Think you're lost - google bluemoon bollox forum and you'll soon be home

[mcfc1632]

Slim, I have a great regard for your intelligence and usual analytical skills....but i am so sorry mate you and the others are so fucking wrong...it reeeally beggers belief.

What bit of "stability breeds success and constant change breeds failure don't any of you understand"...and dikdik...one appearance in a losing final after a change of manager is NOT sustained success...in fact we lost.
What bit of "money buys you players but teams win trophies and teams take time to build" can't you get your heads round?

The needle is stuck, simply because it is the truth and there is no other way of hammering home the message.
Busby took from the 40s to the late 50s to build his babes. After Munich, it took another 5 years to build his next dominant team.
Liverpool had it's stable boot room mentality that gave them sustained success even after Shankly disappeared. it was Souness playing billy big bollox, believing his way was better that fucked it up. Any success they have had since was not sustained.
Taggart failed miserably initially and took around seven years to build his empire.
Wenger may not have won anything for a few years, but they are the the nearest England has to challenging taggart's title charge.
Revie...Clough...Stein...all had time....and by the way didn't our own ron saunders go onto win the European Cup? How long did he last under Swales?
Our own success under Mercer/Allison took 3 years to build and they reigned for around 6 years. It was reverting back to our version of City's stable boot room mentality under book that brought success back.

I have never suggested that all those old City managers were any good. Some should never have been employed, simply because the old manager should never have been sacked in the 1st place.
The crucial bit is that when each one of them arrived with their own ideas, they demolished the previous work done and started their own projects, none were ever allowed the time to finish them.

...and Dikdik...changing a manager and getting ONE trip to a losing final is NOT sustained success.

John - irritated as I am by the recent results and style of play I am fully with you - we do not need more turmoil...

I remember being so frustrated 16 months ago when so many were calling for Hughes to be sacked and people like me that were calling for stability were labelled 'lickers' etc - when in fact it was the same thing as now - what I want (and I am sure the club need) is stability

Apart from the style of football (I know that is damning) I think that there is a lot to like about Mancini that marks him out as a candidate as a manager that can achieve sustained success. He seems very hard working, resolute and passionate about all things - I would rather his hands-on style than some of these 'remote' suits you see and is able to get the respect of the players

I defo vote for stability

[Flixton Blue]

Mancini's gone mate,the sooner people realise the better,the writings on the wall -that is all

How and why would you know?

How and why would you know he is not?

[avoidconfusion]

Mancini's gone mate,the sooner people realise the better,the writings on the wall -that is all

How and why would you know?

How and why would you know he is not?

Do us a favour, go back to Bluemoon.

[Flixton Blue]

Slim, I have a great regard for your intelligence and usual analytical skills....but i am so sorry mate you and the others are so fucking wrong...it reeeally beggers belief.

What bit of "stability breeds success and constant change breeds failure don't any of you understand"...and dikdik...one appearance in a losing final after a change of manager is NOT sustained success...in fact we lost.
What bit of "money buys you players but teams win trophies and teams take time to build" can't you get your heads round?

The needle is stuck, simply because it is the truth and there is no other way of hammering home the message.
Busby took from the 40s to the late 50s to build his babes. After Munich, it took another 5 years to build his next dominant team.
Liverpool had it's stable boot room mentality that gave them sustained success even after Shankly disappeared. it was Souness playing billy big bollox, believing his way was better that fucked it up. Any success they have had since was not sustained.
Taggart failed miserably initially and took around seven years to build his empire.
Wenger may not have won anything for a few years, but they are the the nearest England has to challenging taggart's title charge.
Revie...Clough...Stein...all had time....and by the way didn't our own ron saunders go onto win the European Cup? How long did he last under Swales?
Our own success under Mercer/Allison took 3 years to build and they reigned for around 6 years. It was reverting back to our version of City's stable boot room mentality under book that brought success back.

I have never suggested that all those old City managers were any good. Some should never have been employed, simply because the old manager should never have been sacked in the 1st place.
The crucial bit is that when each one of them arrived with their own ideas, they demolished the previous work done and started their own projects, none were ever allowed the time to finish them.

...and Dikdik...changing a manager and getting ONE trip to a losing final is NOT sustained success.

John - irritated as I am by the recent results and style of play I am fully with you - we do not need more turmoil...

I remember being so frustrated 16 months ago when so many were calling for Hughes to be sacked and people like me that were calling for stability were labelled 'lickers' etc - when in fact it was the same thing as now - what I want (and I am sure the club need) is stability

Apart from the style of football (I know that is damning) I think that there is a lot to like about Mancini that marks him out as a candidate as a manager that can achieve sustained success. He seems very hard working, resolute and passionate about all things - I would rather his hands-on style than some of these 'remote' suits you see and is able to get the respect of the players

I defo vote for stability

He has lost the dressing room that's why1

[john68]

Flixton blue...Do you have proof that mancini has lost the dressing room?
I don't mean rumour, innuendo or putting 2 + 2 together...I mean irrefutable proof.

[mcfc1632]

I do not understand the 'lost the dressing room' comment - all the evidence I see is contary. The people who are key personalities are the likes of Vince and Nigel - these are the real grafters of the team and they increasingly speak out very positively - Vince has recently come across as the 'captain in the wings'

So I have heard quite a bit positivity in recent weeks from players and I have seen little negaitivity - have I been missing something?

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

>>>>>don't buy into this boring football apart from a few games I feel I've been thoroughly entertained this season when compared to many other

Jesus, I'm struggling to think of a single performance where I thought, " That was ace." Possibly Chelsea at home. Maybe the Wolves game for twenty minutes. Fulham away, but I was watching on telly so it's not the same. It's been turgid stuff.