Our Recent Signings, Non-Signings And Sales

[Ted Hughes]

Mancini wanted Eden Hazard and Daniele De Rossi. Neither was delivered by suits. Imagine what we would look like with those two in midfield. Imagine.

Better but we would still lack pace in midfield & none of the signings we were linked with cover that.

eh? hazard has more pace than any of MFs. we were also in for sanchez. if we'd signed sanchez, i suspect we'd still have been in for hazard. imagine a midfield 5 of sanchez, hazard, ddr, yaya and silva.

If you want to discuss it, why not quote the rest of my post where I clearly qualify what I mean about where we need the pace, rather than picking out one line as if I don't know Hazard is quick, & therefore trying to make me look a twat ?

[MaineRoadMemories]

----------------------HART-----------------------

-------KOMPANY--MARTINEZ--CLICHY--------
MAICON-------------------------------KOLAROV

--------------------DE ROSSI----------------------

----SILVA-------YAYA TOURE------HAZARD----

----------------------AGUERO----------------------

At a rough guess I think this is what Mancini was trying to achieve with the transfer window. We were definitely going to change formation to 3-5-2 with a floating second striker being anyone of Silva, Yaya or Hazard.

I would have loved to have seen this team line up this season. Tactically fascinating. When Hazard declared his love for the Champions of Europe we switched targets to RVP and a more traditional 3-5-2 outlook. RVP looks 10 times the signing than Hazard so this would have been even more deadly.

I'm in the camp that the new directors decided to take FFP seriously and we tried to sign all our main targets on the cheap and ended up missing out on every single one.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Mancini wanted Eden Hazard and Daniele De Rossi. Neither was delivered by suits. Imagine what we would look like with those two in midfield. Imagine.

This is my point. It's all very well saying that Mancini must have wanted the players that we did sign (although I am not convinced he did want all of them) but what about the players he wanted but weren't signed?

And what about the players like de Jong and Baloteli that were sold (and not replaced) without his blessing?

I admit that I am a 'Mancini licker' and very proud to be so, but surely even the haters can see that he doesn't have full control over the transfers.

That shouldn't even be under discussion. We have director of football system. Director of football is essentially in charge of transfers. Before Marwood was appointed by Cook, Cook was talking about taking things from American sports. And in American sports "General Manager" holds more or less same position that Director of Football does. It's his charge to put team together. Now does DoF decide which players we sign alone??? Absolutely not. Mancini and his crew of coaches probably tell where they need strenghtening and maybe give some ideas of the players they'd like to sign. Team of scouts will give their recommendentations. Then it's up for DoF to decide which players we go after and take care of the financial side of things.

The talk of which players were Mancini's is bit silly. I doubt, apart from some youngsters, any of the players were brought in without Mancini giving thumbs up. Then again, Mancini can not dictate how HEAVILY we go after each player.

I'm neither for nor against DoF system. I think it gives manager (or should we just call him head coach?) freedom to concentrate on his team and playing side of things. That's good. Bad thing is that football fans generally don't understand this concept and all the pressure is on manager. This has long been norm in Spanish football though and there supporters know when to question directors and when to question manager/coach.

And he has the choice of not signing those players & keeping the money. He chose to sign, therefore he is responsible good or bad.

I recon he was probably given the option with the words 'please, please, please' about selling balotelli in summer, for much more money than we got in Jan too, & chose to keep him & therefore miss out on any big money striker signings.

No, Mancini is not in charge of the money. If Mancini would be doing traditional Managers job with unlimited budget, you can bet your arse that we would have Eden Hazard playing for us now.

[Ted Hughes]

Mancini wanted Eden Hazard and Daniele De Rossi. Neither was delivered by suits. Imagine what we would look like with those two in midfield. Imagine.

This is my point. It's all very well saying that Mancini must have wanted the players that we did sign (although I am not convinced he did want all of them) but what about the players he wanted but weren't signed?

And what about the players like de Jong and Baloteli that were sold (and not replaced) without his blessing?

I admit that I am a 'Mancini licker' and very proud to be so, but surely even the haters can see that he doesn't have full control over the transfers.

That shouldn't even be under discussion. We have director of football system. Director of football is essentially in charge of transfers. Before Marwood was appointed by Cook, Cook was talking about taking things from American sports. And in American sports "General Manager" holds more or less same position that Director of Football does. It's his charge to put team together. Now does DoF decide which players we sign alone??? Absolutely not. Mancini and his crew of coaches probably tell where they need strenghtening and maybe give some ideas of the players they'd like to sign. Team of scouts will give their recommendentations. Then it's up for DoF to decide which players we go after and take care of the financial side of things.

The talk of which players were Mancini's is bit silly. I doubt, apart from some youngsters, any of the players were brought in without Mancini giving thumbs up. Then again, Mancini can not dictate how HEAVILY we go after each player.

I'm neither for nor against DoF system. I think it gives manager (or should we just call him head coach?) freedom to concentrate on his team and playing side of things. That's good. Bad thing is that football fans generally don't understand this concept and all the pressure is on manager. This has long been norm in Spanish football though and there supporters know when to question directors and when to question manager/coach.

And he has the choice of not signing those players & keeping the money. He chose to sign, therefore he is responsible good or bad.

I recon he was probably given the option with the words 'please, please, please' about selling balotelli in summer, for much more money than we got in Jan too, & chose to keep him & therefore miss out on any big money striker signings.

No, Mancini is not in charge of the money. If Mancini would be doing traditional Managers job with unlimited budget, you can bet your arse that we would have Eden Hazard playing for us now.

And Cavani, DeRossi, Javi Martinez, Danny Alvez, RVP plus Balotelli. Then he would be still talking about bringing in more players next season. Luckily he isn't in that position, but he was hoping to be, a year ago.

If he'd just signed 1 or 2, he would have a bigger transfer budget next summer. He knows that, but chose to sign a bunch instead, meaning that we now have to sell in order to make room for new players next season, so it may well have to be useful players from our title winning team who leave rather than the new ones.

[phips]

I believe our actions in the transfer market over the last 12 months have cost us the league this year;

Allowing de Jong to leave when he played such an important role for us in recent seasons
Singing uninspiring players such as Sinclair, Rodwell, Maicon, Garcia and Nastasic (the last 2 seem ok but haven't improved us from last season)
Allowing van Persie to go to our main rivals. If we had really tried to sign him we could have got him.
Allowing one of our main strikers to leave the club with no time to replace him.

I dont agree about Nasti at all. He's been great for us.

And RvP never would've come here with United interested, like they were. We stood 0% chance.

[Blue Since 76]

And RvP never would've come here with United interested, like they were. We stood 0% chance.

Why? I suspect the reason we didn't get him was we didn't manage to shift at least one of the others. We clearly couldn't have had all 5, so that was the problem. For the rags, he's one of 4 and in reality is their main striker

[Mase]

And RvP never would've come here with United interested, like they were. We stood 0% chance.

Unfortunately Nasri did.

[wolfcity]

I dont agree about Nasti at all. He's been great for us.

And RvP never would've come here with United interested, like they were. We stood 0% chance.

I agree on both points.

Nastasic is a much more comfortable on the ball than Lescott and his age means he can be here for 10 years and become a vital defender. I originally viewed him as one for the future but he's stepped up already.

As much as it pains me to say it, United are much more of a pull than City so Van Persie going there was no great surprise. Sadly it seems his impact will win them the league this season. He's done much more than I thought he would.

[MilnersJaw]

Mancini wanted Eden Hazard and Daniele De Rossi. Neither was delivered by suits. Imagine what we would look like with those two in midfield. Imagine.

This is my point. It's all very well saying that Mancini must have wanted the players that we did sign (although I am not convinced he did want all of them) but what about the players he wanted but weren't signed?

And what about the players like de Jong and Baloteli that were sold (and not replaced) without his blessing?

I admit that I am a 'Mancini licker' and very proud to be so, but surely even the haters can see that he doesn't have full control over the transfers.

That shouldn't even be under discussion. We have director of football system. Director of football is essentially in charge of transfers. Before Marwood was appointed by Cook, Cook was talking about taking things from American sports. And in American sports "General Manager" holds more or less same position that Director of Football does. It's his charge to put team together. Now does DoF decide which players we sign alone??? Absolutely not. Mancini and his crew of coaches probably tell where they need strenghtening and maybe give some ideas of the players they'd like to sign. Team of scouts will give their recommendentations. Then it's up for DoF to decide which players we go after and take care of the financial side of things.

The talk of which players were Mancini's is bit silly. I doubt, apart from some youngsters, any of the players were brought in without Mancini giving thumbs up. Then again, Mancini can not dictate how HEAVILY we go after each player.

I'm neither for nor against DoF system. I think it gives manager (or should we just call him head coach?) freedom to concentrate on his team and playing side of things. That's good. Bad thing is that football fans generally don't understand this concept and all the pressure is on manager. This has long been norm in Spanish football though and there supporters know when to question directors and when to question manager/coach.

And he has the choice of not signing those players & keeping the money. He chose to sign, therefore he is responsible good or bad.

I recon he was probably given the option with the words 'please, please, please' about selling balotelli in summer, for much more money than we got in Jan too, & chose to keep him & therefore miss out on any big money striker signings.

No, Mancini is not in charge of the money. If Mancini would be doing traditional Managers job with unlimited budget, you can bet your arse that we would have Eden Hazard playing for us now.

fuck hazard. he only went to chelsea because they offered him ridiculous money, he was not worth the 33 million + they paid for him, nor his 170k a week wage.

all hype and 'interest' from the pl clubs, made his ego and his greed go up to, as well as his transfer fee.

[Bluez]

I do think sometimes we are too quick to judge new signings. Nasti and Garcia shouldn't be judged until next season. Rodwell has been injured. The club should be looking into whether he was unlucky or whether we should have seen it coming. Sinclair is a strange one, he's already 24 so not really one for the future and he has played in the PL so he should have settled quicker.

With FFP the owners seem to have gone back to the original plan which was build for the long term with a young team.

I would have thought losing Balotelli would have galvanized the team

[MilnersJaw]

I do think sometimes we are too quick to judge new signings. Nasti and Garcia shouldn't be judged until next season. Rodwell has been injured. The club should be looking into whether he was unlucky or whether we should have seen it coming. Sinclair is a strange one, he's already 24 so not really one for the future and he has played in the PL so he should have settled quicker.

With FFP the owners seem to have gone back to the original plan which was build for the long term with a young team.

I would have thought losing Balotelli would have galvanized the team

there isn't that much youth though.

and rodwell, we've seen enough of him to know that he is total garbage. gave a goal away that probably cost us qualifying from the champs league.

he gave another goal away in the pl, fortunately, we won 3-2.

infact every game he's been in, we've played poor. he is a passenger, can't pass either.

[phips]

And RvP never would've come here with United interested, like they were. We stood 0% chance.

Why?

he said as much

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

fuck hazard. he only went to chelsea because they offered him ridiculous money, he was not worth the 33 million + they paid for him, nor his 170k a week wage.

all hype and 'interest' from the pl clubs, made his ego and his greed go up to, as well as his transfer fee.

Of course he went to whoever paid most money. This is professional football we are talking about. Which of our current players do you think are here because of the City rather than money? And which of our current players do you think are "worth" their salaries?

He has put up the numbers and mostly performances to match the outlay so far, so no problem there.

[Beefymcfc]

And RvP never would've come here with United interested, like they were. We stood 0% chance.

Why?

he said as much

We were interested, he was interested. If we had moved a striker, or two, on and guaranteed him a first team place then he'dbe playing for City.

The Rags could guarantee him being the star of the team, even above Rooney. I'd like to sayhe chose football over money but in reality, he got the best deal from the Rags.

We move on, he's not ours. The Puss-Wank twat!

All my own opinion of course.

[Blue Since 76]

he said as much

He was hardly going to say 'I wanted to go to the Champions, but you lot offered me another £10k a week so I thought, fuck it, I'll take the money'.

[phips]

he said as much

He was hardly going to say 'I wanted to go to the Champions, but you lot offered me another £10k a week so I thought, fuck it, I'll take the money'.

you're right. but like it not, big players still prefer to go their over City unless all they care about is money (Nasri), then they'll come here.

[Blue Since 76]

you're right. but like it not, big players still prefer to go their over City unless all they care about is money (Nasri), then they'll come here.

You have remembered we are the champions and if RVP had come, we would be again? In fact, if he'd stayed at Arsenal we would be. The idea that they'd prefer the rags is therefore bollox.

[Ted Hughes]

Harry has alluded to the fact that agents have been actively shitting on each other's deals in recent times & that is likely what occured with RVP. One of them probably did a deal with the rags for more money than we were willing to pay.

And there is no way Khaldoon would have sanctioned five strikers, so one would have had to go.

[Cocacolajojo1]

One question, to try to get away from the "who signed the what and who wanted the he and the him":

For whatever reason, the players we got the summer were not the players we initially wanted but they are the players we got. Given the outcome of the transfer window, has a, the team and then b, Mancini, performed as expected, below expectations or above expectations. And no, this has nothing to do with what you had expected at the beginning of the season. What could we expect from the team, given the outcome of the summer transfer window and then the winter transfer window.

For me, the answers on both are as expected. With no new real competition for places there was bound to be complacency in the team. I think it was Neville (sorry) who said that from now on, there were going to be a couple of players who were full so to speak, who'd lost their spark, regardless if they know it or not. Also, Mancini has performed on an expected level, not really rising to the challenge but not doing worse (so far) than could be expected.

What do you think?

[mr_nool]

One question, to try to get away from the "who signed the what and who wanted the he and the him":

For whatever reason, the players we got the summer were not the players we initially wanted but they are the players we got. Given the outcome of the transfer window, has a, the team and then b, Mancini, performed as expected, below expectations or above expectations. And no, this has nothing to do with what you had expected at the beginning of the season. What could we expect from the team, given the outcome of the summer transfer window and then the winter transfer window.

For me, the answers on both are as expected. With no new real competition for places there was bound to be complacency in the team. I think it was Neville (sorry) who said that from now on, there were going to be a couple of players who were full so to speak, who'd lost their spark, regardless if they know it or not. Also, Mancini has performed on an expected level, not really rising to the challenge but not doing worse (so far) than could be expected.

What do you think?

I kind of agree with this. My expectations before the season were that we were gonna struggle to repeat last year's success. Result- and point wise we're there and about - perhaps a little bit lower than I'd thought. A big reason our season looks "poor" is that Scum are having a freakishly good season with a very average team.