Pelligini's Targets

[john68]

Ant,

Thank you for that post Mate...but can I make it clear AGAIN, that I DID NOT have the worries or concerns you refer to. They seemed to come along in others' posts that misquoted and twisted my words.

I raised the issue for discussion only because of the fact that it is an HISTORICALLY DEFINING MOMENT for the club. The Mancini affair had been done to death and the examination of Pellegrini's qualifications and abilities ran in several pages, over several threads...and rightly so for a discussion forum.
There seemed to be no will or wish to discuss, examine nor question the role of Tricky. Given that little is known about him, other than his role at Barca and the fact that he was to be the designer and founder of the Holistic City Way which would define our club into the foreseeable future. I thought this issue was of such importance to the club and fans that it should be opened.
Sadly what followed was the insistence of some that by opening such a debate, I was against him.

With regard to Sorry, again, we are at a defining commercial moment for our club, which, in the light of what had happened in identical circumstances at the swamp and elsewhere,I felt should be examined. Again it was ASSUMED by some that I was against it.

My feelings are that neither debate got off the ground and neither issue has been examined in any great depth, mainly because so many were too busy arguing against me and points they ASSUMED I had made, when I hadn't. For the record, Beefy and Tokyo also suffered the same fate.

I do detect a sheep like acceptance of the situation, but unlike the 60s when everything was examined, nowadays I see passive acceptance of many things in society.

[ant london]

haha....I must confess that I couldn't actually find your original thoughts on the subject over the past week. I saw a lot of you railing against those who were misquoting/misinterpreting you but couldn't locate where your original thoughts were...so apologies for being at crossed purposes if that is the case..as it seems to be.

In terms of what you just raise, I think they are clearly valid points. First though, in terms of the sheep-like acceptance. I guess things, for better or (more likely in lots of ways) for worse I think the overally passivity of the reaction if founded in the reality that there is not an awful lot that the man in the street, or a collective thereof, can do about it. We all saw how much impact the "Norwich protests" had over at the swamp...the sum total of f**k all....and they really did have some valid gripes about their owners and the club's direction.

I'm not saying that any concerns people have about Manchester City's current "commercial trajectory" are totally unfounded; far from it. But what I am fairly certain of is that we are headed in this route, it has been decided upon by the owners and the senior management of the ownership and club itself and that there is pretty much bugger-all we, as fans, can do about it if it's not to our taste; absent disconnecting with the club and everything to do with it. So, in that context I think it's understandable (if, in the historic context of our city, quite sad) that people are just willing to go with the flow and not rail too much against the changes.

In terms of the two new men. If I had to question one of their credentials it would be Soriano. If we look at the facts, Soriano is only 45 years old. His tenure at Barcelona as Laporta's Vice President lasted for 5 years from him being 35 to 40 years old. Before that he worked in a few commercial roles in various organisations but he is hardly "steeped in footballing pedigree" from the perspective of his background.

That said, he was involved in a massive push of commercial and on-the pitch success at Barcelona and there are close parallels there between what he did and what he needs to do at City. Sure, there are significant differences in terms of the set-up within the club and historic profile/success but I think it is about the closest semi-equivalent task out there...so aside from going for a complete unknown quantity with a successful corporate track record (but likely no football background) I would say he was about as good a "like for like" fit for what we needed as was possible to get.

The real reason for recruiting him IMO was the ability to get Tricky and their history of working together. I think we can argue all day and night about how critcical a role Burgerstain played in creating the Barcelona of the past 10 years but it seems clear to me at least (especially in light of his apparently continuing relationship with Guardiola and what I've heard players say about him) that it was pretty significant.

I think the death of the "traditional manager" is in some respects sad but I think the move to the man in charge of the first team being a pure coach, working in tandem with the football management architecture of the club is a smart move in terms of long term strategy, in terms of financial prudence and, hopefully, in terms of enhancing our chances of continuing success. I totally agree that there was a lot of big brothery soundbytes to the "three year cycles" business but, in reality, if we disregard the cheesiness of how it sounded...I think he was pretty accurate in what he said.

What I am most positive about...and apologies if this seems somewhat short-termist...are the noises coming out about us needing a coach who is a man manager. That, to my mind, shows that these two Spaniards can see what all of us have seen clear as day for the last 24 months...that this squad has been, far too often, performing at a level which is less than the sum of its parts. A top top manager should be able to cajole much much much more than that out of this group of players and that is maybe partly down to tactics but also partly due to the management style. Seeing what a new man can do in that respect excites me massively and, as for the rest, I am partly acquiescent but partly also just willing to give them a fair crack of the whip just as I have (stupidly in many cases) with all of our previous managers, management and owners.

[john68]

Thanks for that Ant, TBH, it was the sort of response I had originally expected on here, not just the content but also the tone, rather than the shit and accusations that I actually got. I think some were just picking up info from others and assumed.

I do not agree with you on the subject of activity/passivity though Mate. I think the person in the street actually has the whip hand should he/she choose to use it. My personal view is that for a variety of socio/political reasons, society is very much more passive and accepting of what they now see as being inevitable.

When one considers the many socio/political gains made throughout the 2 previous centuries, the whole youth revolution of the 60s, the fact that the end of the Vietnam war was "street" generated. I personally find it strange that so few not only have any will to examine and question but actually vehemently oppose the very thought.

considering your Irish spastic refugee heritage, yours was an excellent post....:-)

[Socrates]

haha....I must confess that I couldn't actually find your original thoughts on the subject over the past week. I saw a lot of you railing against those who were misquoting/misinterpreting you but couldn't locate where your original thoughts were...so apologies for being at crossed purposes if that is the case..as it seems to be.

In terms of what you just raise, I think they are clearly valid points. First though, in terms of the sheep-like acceptance. I guess things, for better or (more likely in lots of ways) for worse I think the overally passivity of the reaction if founded in the reality that there is not an awful lot that the man in the street, or a collective thereof, can do about it. We all saw how much impact the "Norwich protests" had over at the swamp...the sum total of f**k all....and they really did have some valid gripes about their owners and the club's direction.

I'm not saying that any concerns people have about Manchester City's current "commercial trajectory" are totally unfounded; far from it. But what I am fairly certain of is that we are headed in this route, it has been decided upon by the owners and the senior management of the ownership and club itself and that there is pretty much bugger-all we, as fans, can do about it if it's not to our taste; absent disconnecting with the club and everything to do with it. So, in that context I think it's understandable (if, in the historic context of our city, quite sad) that people are just willing to go with the flow and not rail too much against the changes.

In terms of the two new men. If I had to question one of their credentials it would be Soriano. If we look at the facts, Soriano is only 45 years old. His tenure at Barcelona as Laporta's Vice President lasted for 5 years from him being 35 to 40 years old. Before that he worked in a few commercial roles in various organisations but he is hardly "steeped in footballing pedigree" from the perspective of his background.

That said, he was involved in a massive push of commercial and on-the pitch success at Barcelona and there are close parallels there between what he did and what he needs to do at City. Sure, there are significant differences in terms of the set-up within the club and historic profile/success but I think it is about the closest semi-equivalent task out there...so aside from going for a complete unknown quantity with a successful corporate track record (but likely no football background) I would say he was about as good a "like for like" fit for what we needed as was possible to get.

The real reason for recruiting him IMO was the ability to get Tricky and their history of working together. I think we can argue all day and night about how critcical a role Burgerstain played in creating the Barcelona of the past 10 years but it seems clear to me at least (especially in light of his apparently continuing relationship with Guardiola and what I've heard players say about him) that it was pretty significant.

I think the death of the "traditional manager" is in some respects sad but I think the move to the man in charge of the first team being a pure coach, working in tandem with the football management architecture of the club is a smart move in terms of long term strategy, in terms of financial prudence and, hopefully, in terms of enhancing our chances of continuing success. I totally agree that there was a lot of big brothery soundbytes to the "three year cycles" business but, in reality, if we disregard the cheesiness of how it sounded...I think he was pretty accurate in what he said.

What I am most positive about...and apologies if this seems somewhat short-termist...are the noises coming out about us needing a coach who is a man manager. That, to my mind, shows that these two Spaniards can see what all of us have seen clear as day for the last 24 months...that this squad has been, far too often, performing at a level which is less than the sum of its parts. A top top manager should be able to cajole much much much more than that out of this group of players and that is maybe partly down to tactics but also partly due to the management style. Seeing what a new man can do in that respect excites me massively and, as for the rest, I am partly acquiescent but partly also just willing to give them a fair crack of the whip just as I have (stupidly in many cases) with all of our previous managers, management and owners.

This is one of the best posts I have ever read on here. I don't like the way events have played out over the last few weeks and it has made me more sceptical and less acquiescent with regard to the owner, chairman and senior management team. I do accept, however, that the events may (note "may", not "will") be for the best and sincerely hope that they are. I think the commercial realities (both in terms of FPP and the owner's independent aims for self-sufficiency for the business) do indeed dictate that we move to a "coach" rather than a traditional manager as this will greatly decrease the turnover of players and the huge associated costs. I also accept that some of the players may have had a problem with Mancini and that events since might support that theory (Aguero contract, Kompany tweet committing future to club). I am not convinced Pellegrini is the best available but accept that he isn't the worst either and am not in a place where I expect failure and oppose the appointment, I am reasonably optimistic that he will do well for us. I hope the fans will get behind him like the majority did with Mancini.

[Ted Hughes]

In recent years, my usual thought at the imminent sacking of a manager is; 'Oh ffs not again, will we never learn, etc etc'.

That's not because I think the incumbent manager is the best thing since sliced bread (none have been imo), it's because of our previous record with turning over managers & the fact that it always ended in a downward spiral of instability & failure.

Every new managerial appointment has been fraught with danger & has been a huge gamble, including Mancini's appointment. Had he not taken to the job, we would have had a confused set of two manager's players on huge wages, & shitload of staff to shift out on big money, have to attract a top manager to a club which is in turmoil & offers no prospect of longevity, employ a new load of staff, attract top players to play under said manager, again on huge money & on arrival meeting cliques of two manager's players all bitching about life.

Mancini was a huge gamble which paid off & turned out to be a great move for the club, but it also could have set us back years had it gone bad, & something as simple as the fans not taking to him, could have been enough to cause that.

With this system, if we get it up & running properly we just fire the manager if he isn't upto it, & get another one. Forever. Nothing else has to change. Of course, if we get a good one, it would be nice & preferable to keep him for a long time.

People say 'ahh but is Tricky Burgerstain upto choosing the manager & should he be fired too ?'.

Well who chooses the manager at Chelsea or in the future at Utd & are they better qualified ? (Moyes has just fired Utd's coaching staff btw)

Lots of managers will be getting hired & fired accross Europe, year in year out. With this system, at least the damage is limited & we don't have to rebuild the club if the manager fails, which has always been my reason for wanting managerial 'stability'.

[carl_feedthegoat]

In recent years, my usual thought at the imminent sacking of a manager is; 'Oh ffs not again, will we never learn, etc etc'.

That's not because I think the incumbent manager is the best thing since sliced bread (none have been imo), it's because of our previous record with turning over managers & the fact that it always ended in a downward spiral of instability & failure.

Every new managerial appointment has been fraught with danger & has been a huge gamble, including Mancini's appointment. Had he not taken to the job, we would have had a confused set of two manager's players on huge wages, & shitload of staff to shift out on big money, have to attract a top manager to a club which is in turmoil & offers no prospect of longevity, employ a new load of staff, attract top players to play under said manager, again on huge money & on arrival meeting cliques of two manager's players all bitching about life.

Mancini was a huge gamble which paid off & turned out to be a great move for the club, but it also could have set us back years had it gone bad, & something as simple as the fans not taking to him, could have been enough to cause that.

With this system, if we get it up & running properly we just fire the manager if he isn't upto it, & get another one. Forever. Nothing else has to change. Of course, if we get a good one, it would be nice & preferable to keep him for a long time.

People say 'ahh but is Tricky Burgerstain upto choosing the manager & should he be fired too ?'.

Well who chooses the manager at Chelsea or in the future at Utd & are they better qualified ? (Moyes has just fired Utd's coaching staff btw)

Lots of managers will be getting hired & fired accross Europe, year in year out. With this system, at least the damage is limited & we don't have to rebuild the club if the manager fails, which has always been my reason for wanting managerial 'stability'.

It makes sense Ted , when you take over a company you have company procedures to adhere to , you can bring in your own ideas but you must not deviate from the book of procedures along the way - this kind of set up is not so different , in fact it makes perfect fuckign sense.

[Ted Hughes]

In recent years, my usual thought at the imminent sacking of a manager is; 'Oh ffs not again, will we never learn, etc etc'.

That's not because I think the incumbent manager is the best thing since sliced bread (none have been imo), it's because of our previous record with turning over managers & the fact that it always ended in a downward spiral of instability & failure.

Every new managerial appointment has been fraught with danger & has been a huge gamble, including Mancini's appointment. Had he not taken to the job, we would have had a confused set of two manager's players on huge wages, & shitload of staff to shift out on big money, have to attract a top manager to a club which is in turmoil & offers no prospect of longevity, employ a new load of staff, attract top players to play under said manager, again on huge money & on arrival meeting cliques of two manager's players all bitching about life.

Mancini was a huge gamble which paid off & turned out to be a great move for the club, but it also could have set us back years had it gone bad, & something as simple as the fans not taking to him, could have been enough to cause that.

With this system, if we get it up & running properly we just fire the manager if he isn't upto it, & get another one. Forever. Nothing else has to change. Of course, if we get a good one, it would be nice & preferable to keep him for a long time.

People say 'ahh but is Tricky Burgerstain upto choosing the manager & should he be fired too ?'.

Well who chooses the manager at Chelsea or in the future at Utd & are they better qualified ? (Moyes has just fired Utd's coaching staff btw)

Lots of managers will be getting hired & fired accross Europe, year in year out. With this system, at least the damage is limited & we don't have to rebuild the club if the manager fails, which has always been my reason for wanting managerial 'stability'.

It makes sense Ted , when you take over a company you have company procedures to adhere to , you can bring in your own ideas but you must not deviate from the book of procedures along the way - this kind of set up is not so different , in fact it makes perfect fuckign sense.

That's the great thing with having a 'football identity' at the club. The players signed & the academy players who come through will be suitable for whichever manager comes in, as, whoever he is, he will be playing pass & move possession football.

It will be the man management, inspirational tweaks & tactical nous which decides whether he stays, but we won't suddenly get some fucker playing long ball replaced by another selling all his players & playing some other random system, replaced by another who wants to play like Dortmund & another who wants to play like Barca.

Each new bloke over the years will already have a core of players who suit the style which he will be playing & can just change one or two.Because we will only appoint managers who play the 'City' way.

[Alex Sapphire]

In recent years, my usual thought at the imminent sacking of a manager is; 'Oh ffs not again, will we never learn, etc etc'.

That's not because I think the incumbent manager is the best thing since sliced bread (none have been imo), it's because of our previous record with turning over managers & the fact that it always ended in a downward spiral of instability & failure.

Every new managerial appointment has been fraught with danger & has been a huge gamble, including Mancini's appointment. Had he not taken to the job, we would have had a confused set of two manager's players on huge wages, & shitload of staff to shift out on big money, have to attract a top manager to a club which is in turmoil & offers no prospect of longevity, employ a new load of staff, attract top players to play under said manager, again on huge money & on arrival meeting cliques of two manager's players all bitching about life.

Mancini was a huge gamble which paid off & turned out to be a great move for the club, but it also could have set us back years had it gone bad, & something as simple as the fans not taking to him, could have been enough to cause that.

With this system, if we get it up & running properly we just fire the manager if he isn't upto it, & get another one. Forever. Nothing else has to change. Of course, if we get a good one, it would be nice & preferable to keep him for a long time.

People say 'ahh but is Tricky Burgerstain upto choosing the manager & should he be fired too ?'.

Well who chooses the manager at Chelsea or in the future at Utd & are they better qualified ? (Moyes has just fired Utd's coaching staff btw)

Lots of managers will be getting hired & fired accross Europe, year in year out. With this system, at least the damage is limited & we don't have to rebuild the club if the manager fails, which has always been my reason for wanting managerial 'stability'.

does this mean that you think the new manager will not arrive with a dozen spaniards to fill all the backroom roles, and when he leaves (which is guaranteed by the system) there won't be a mass exodus of backroom staff?

[Ted Hughes]

In recent years, my usual thought at the imminent sacking of a manager is; 'Oh ffs not again, will we never learn, etc etc'.

That's not because I think the incumbent manager is the best thing since sliced bread (none have been imo), it's because of our previous record with turning over managers & the fact that it always ended in a downward spiral of instability & failure.

Every new managerial appointment has been fraught with danger & has been a huge gamble, including Mancini's appointment. Had he not taken to the job, we would have had a confused set of two manager's players on huge wages, & shitload of staff to shift out on big money, have to attract a top manager to a club which is in turmoil & offers no prospect of longevity, employ a new load of staff, attract top players to play under said manager, again on huge money & on arrival meeting cliques of two manager's players all bitching about life.

Mancini was a huge gamble which paid off & turned out to be a great move for the club, but it also could have set us back years had it gone bad, & something as simple as the fans not taking to him, could have been enough to cause that.

With this system, if we get it up & running properly we just fire the manager if he isn't upto it, & get another one. Forever. Nothing else has to change. Of course, if we get a good one, it would be nice & preferable to keep him for a long time.

People say 'ahh but is Tricky Burgerstain upto choosing the manager & should he be fired too ?'.

Well who chooses the manager at Chelsea or in the future at Utd & are they better qualified ? (Moyes has just fired Utd's coaching staff btw)

Lots of managers will be getting hired & fired accross Europe, year in year out. With this system, at least the damage is limited & we don't have to rebuild the club if the manager fails, which has always been my reason for wanting managerial 'stability'.

does this mean that you think the new manager will not arrive with a dozen spaniards to fill all the backroom roles, and when he leaves (which is guaranteed by the system) there won't be a mass exodus of backroom staff?

I think this manager will be different to most who follow, in that I recon he will be involved in actually setting up the system itself & recommending, appointing staff. I don't believe however that they will be 'his' staff, bar maybe one or two, they will mostly be the club's staff, most of whom who will remain after he goes (provided they have been shown to be good at their job).

Hopefully Kiddo is the first of such appointments but that remains to be seen.

In the case of Hughes & Mancini, the immediate backroom staff were, for the most part, their own clique (& Bob replaced most in all positions who weren't, even the medical staff). I don't think that will be the case from now on.

[Cocacolajojo1]

haha....I must confess that I couldn't actually find your original thoughts on the subject over the past week. I saw a lot of you railing against those who were misquoting/misinterpreting you but couldn't locate where your original thoughts were...so apologies for being at crossed purposes if that is the case..as it seems to be.

In terms of what you just raise, I think they are clearly valid points. First though, in terms of the sheep-like acceptance. I guess things, for better or (more likely in lots of ways) for worse I think the overally passivity of the reaction if founded in the reality that there is not an awful lot that the man in the street, or a collective thereof, can do about it. We all saw how much impact the "Norwich protests" had over at the swamp...the sum total of f**k all....and they really did have some valid gripes about their owners and the club's direction.

I'm not saying that any concerns people have about Manchester City's current "commercial trajectory" are totally unfounded; far from it. But what I am fairly certain of is that we are headed in this route, it has been decided upon by the owners and the senior management of the ownership and club itself and that there is pretty much bugger-all we, as fans, can do about it if it's not to our taste; absent disconnecting with the club and everything to do with it. So, in that context I think it's understandable (if, in the historic context of our city, quite sad) that people are just willing to go with the flow and not rail too much against the changes.

In terms of the two new men. If I had to question one of their credentials it would be Soriano. If we look at the facts, Soriano is only 45 years old. His tenure at Barcelona as Laporta's Vice President lasted for 5 years from him being 35 to 40 years old. Before that he worked in a few commercial roles in various organisations but he is hardly "steeped in footballing pedigree" from the perspective of his background.

That said, he was involved in a massive push of commercial and on-the pitch success at Barcelona and there are close parallels there between what he did and what he needs to do at City. Sure, there are significant differences in terms of the set-up within the club and historic profile/success but I think it is about the closest semi-equivalent task out there...so aside from going for a complete unknown quantity with a successful corporate track record (but likely no football background) I would say he was about as good a "like for like" fit for what we needed as was possible to get.

The real reason for recruiting him IMO was the ability to get Tricky and their history of working together. I think we can argue all day and night about how critcical a role Burgerstain played in creating the Barcelona of the past 10 years but it seems clear to me at least (especially in light of his apparently continuing relationship with Guardiola and what I've heard players say about him) that it was pretty significant.

I think the death of the "traditional manager" is in some respects sad but I think the move to the man in charge of the first team being a pure coach, working in tandem with the football management architecture of the club is a smart move in terms of long term strategy, in terms of financial prudence and, hopefully, in terms of enhancing our chances of continuing success. I totally agree that there was a lot of big brothery soundbytes to the "three year cycles" business but, in reality, if we disregard the cheesiness of how it sounded...I think he was pretty accurate in what he said.

What I am most positive about...and apologies if this seems somewhat short-termist...are the noises coming out about us needing a coach who is a man manager. That, to my mind, shows that these two Spaniards can see what all of us have seen clear as day for the last 24 months...that this squad has been, far too often, performing at a level which is less than the sum of its parts. A top top manager should be able to cajole much much much more than that out of this group of players and that is maybe partly down to tactics but also partly due to the management style. Seeing what a new man can do in that respect excites me massively and, as for the rest, I am partly acquiescent but partly also just willing to give them a fair crack of the whip just as I have (stupidly in many cases) with all of our previous managers, management and owners.

good post

[Im_Spartacus]

good post

Fuckin hell, he goes to the trouble of all that, and that's the best you can do, you hard faced cunt haha

[getdressedmctavish]

It strikes me the whole thing is gonna be a bit more joined up through the management, coaching, football director, MD etc. I think more effort will be put into all the relationships in the club.I think we will make an effort to become good communicators.I think there is likely to be a more attacking style of play and players will be given more freedom.I think we are gonna bring in some pace where it is needed. da youth may get more systematic recognition.Does that mean we'll get better results, particularly in Europe and away from home. It should.but football is a funny game. And City is City..... thankfully. But I am optimistic. And much more relaxed about the vibes coming out of our club than I was under Mancini.

[john68]

It strikes me the whole thing is gonna be a bit more joined up through the management, coaching, football director, MD etc. I think more effort will be put into all the relationships in the club.I think we will make an effort to become good communicators.I think there is likely to be a more attacking style of play and players will be given more freedom.I think we are gonna bring in some pace where it is needed. da youth may get more systematic recognition.Does that mean we'll get better results, particularly in Europe and away from home. It should.but football is a funny game. And City is City..... thankfully. But I am optimistic. And much more relaxed about the vibes coming out of our club than I was under Mancini.

What evidence do you have for this Mac?

[Swales4ever]

haha....I must confess that I couldn't actually find your original thoughts on the subject over the past week. I saw a lot of you railing against those who were misquoting/misinterpreting you but couldn't locate where your original thoughts were...so apologies for being at crossed purposes if that is the case..as it seems to be.

In terms of what you just raise, I think they are clearly valid points. First though, in terms of the sheep-like acceptance. I guess things, for better or (more likely in lots of ways) for worse I think the overally passivity of the reaction if founded in the reality that there is not an awful lot that the man in the street, or a collective thereof, can do about it. We all saw how much impact the "Norwich protests" had over at the swamp...the sum total of f**k all....and they really did have some valid gripes about their owners and the club's direction.

I'm not saying that any concerns people have about Manchester City's current "commercial trajectory" are totally unfounded; far from it. But what I am fairly certain of is that we are headed in this route, it has been decided upon by the owners and the senior management of the ownership and club itself and that there is pretty much bugger-all we, as fans, can do about it if it's not to our taste; absent disconnecting with the club and everything to do with it. So, in that context I think it's understandable (if, in the historic context of our city, quite sad) that people are just willing to go with the flow and not rail too much against the changes.

In terms of the two new men. If I had to question one of their credentials it would be Soriano. If we look at the facts, Soriano is only 45 years old. His tenure at Barcelona as Laporta's Vice President lasted for 5 years from him being 35 to 40 years old. Before that he worked in a few commercial roles in various organisations but he is hardly "steeped in footballing pedigree" from the perspective of his background.

That said, he was involved in a massive push of commercial and on-the pitch success at Barcelona and there are close parallels there between what he did and what he needs to do at City. Sure, there are significant differences in terms of the set-up within the club and historic profile/success but I think it is about the closest semi-equivalent task out there...so aside from going for a complete unknown quantity with a successful corporate track record (but likely no football background) I would say he was about as good a "like for like" fit for what we needed as was possible to get.

The real reason for recruiting him IMO was the ability to get Tricky and their history of working together. I think we can argue all day and night about how critcical a role Burgerstain played in creating the Barcelona of the past 10 years but it seems clear to me at least (especially in light of his apparently continuing relationship with Guardiola and what I've heard players say about him) that it was pretty significant.

I think the death of the "traditional manager" is in some respects sad but I think the move to the man in charge of the first team being a pure coach, working in tandem with the football management architecture of the club is a smart move in terms of long term strategy, in terms of financial prudence and, hopefully, in terms of enhancing our chances of continuing success. I totally agree that there was a lot of big brothery soundbytes to the "three year cycles" business but, in reality, if we disregard the cheesiness of how it sounded...I think he was pretty accurate in what he said.

What I am most positive about...and apologies if this seems somewhat short-termist...are the noises coming out about us needing a coach who is a man manager. That, to my mind, shows that these two Spaniards can see what all of us have seen clear as day for the last 24 months...that this squad has been, far too often, performing at a level which is less than the sum of its parts. A top top manager should be able to cajole much much much more than that out of this group of players and that is maybe partly down to tactics but also partly due to the management style. Seeing what a new man can do in that respect excites me massively and, as for the rest, I am partly acquiescent but partly also just willing to give them a fair crack of the whip just as I have (stupidly in many cases) with all of our previous managers, management and owners.

great post and apologies for re-quoting it again.

Sums it up pretty nicely, and with obvious eloquence I do not posses in foreign language, the overall scheme of things.

I still have many concerns on the model and particularly the fact the it should work better than an equally modern model, based on the parallel operation of the marketing management task and the footballing management, which still is and will always be the driving leverage of any Club success in football.

Either I am yet far from convinced that the "soft" attitude of part of the team is down to man management rather than lack of character and winning attitude. It will be soon ascertained in the next season with the different coach.
I also have a personal issue with the myth of the football players that have to be " morally helped/sustained" in performing their contractual obligations in the most pleasant and overpaid of jobs. But that's is another story a certainly not only a City's issue, but general.

As everyone I will be delighted if the picture of Your well represented expectations shall be fulfilled by the new men and by then I will have no problem in acknowledging that moving off the manager model, and Mancini, had proved the right choice.
Even considering the evident resistance, as opposed to support, received by Mancini, either in terms of players needed to finish the article, either in terms of authority and PR.

[Slim]

John,

Finally some time. I think this all boils down to interference, I know you'd be as worried about it as I am. The term holistic as I understood it was a way to encapsulate a policy of open communication and co-operation between all levels of the club. The question is how much that policy influences what happens on the pitch.

Being overly attacking during a couple of friendlies and leaking like a sieve at the back in order to sell the announcement of the NYCFC is one thing that we've already seen. Kiddo consulted Begiristain for team selection? Really? Okay it was only a couple of friendlies that had no real bearing on any competition and it did it's job with winning baseball scores scored on baseball grounds. However how far does that influence extend? How much has Begiristain got his foot in the door to repeat the process? Does he now choose our pre-season games, how we play them and who plays in them? They in effect, do not influence the outcome of any competition, but our golden boy David Silva is a popular player and would go a long way to selling City to the world, what if Begiristain insists he plays every minute of every pre-season game? That's another half dozen games on top of what will be a long season. And where exactly does that stepping stone lead?

I think Pellegrini has to be very firm on this from the start, I know City want him and should he come, the ground rules need to be set clear and early. That the directors set the policy, fine. But they leave the strategy to the coaching staff and tactical execution to Pellegrini. Otherwise he is buying himself in to an untenable situation that we've already seen at Chelsea in regards to Torres. Either play a team they select or get fired, play the team they select and lose, get fired...well fuck.

I would like to think that the way Soriano and Begiristain see the term holistic is a way that they can augment the first team's performance. That adopting the same playing style, same formation throughout the club is a way to help kids adapt to the EDS and then to the first team. This would require a lot of work from Pellegrini and open lines of co-operation with Vieira and whoever replaced Sadler(or is that Vieira? They were vague on his actual position during the announcement.) to ensure players such as Suarez, Pozo, and Rekik(fuck off you wankers, he was a kid playing a friendly) know what their job is in the first team, because they have been playing the same role at all 3 major levels of the club.

Maybe I am thinking of worst case scenarios, but at City we do have a tendency to make worse case scenarios into actual real nightmare situations. I don't know one way or the other what the situation will be and maybe Soriano and Begiristain have the best of intentions and are using buzzwords as a real revolution of the club in order to lay the groundwork for an extensive support network for the manager, so that whoever steps into the job can hit the ground running(and his replacement should the need arise). An infrastructure created like a Meccano set, so that should we need a new coach, he can be replaced easily and slot right into place and do the job effectively.

I think in this instance we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out, but the moment City play Mr Useless Asian because he sells a lot of shirts in China or Mr Clueless Yank(hey, City sign Doomie!) because he helps solidify NYCFC's popularity, then you'll know for sure where our on-field team is now being run from.

[Swales4ever]

In recent years, my usual thought at the imminent sacking of a manager is; 'Oh ffs not again, will we never learn, etc etc'.

That's not because I think the incumbent manager is the best thing since sliced bread (none have been imo), it's because of our previous record with turning over managers & the fact that it always ended in a downward spiral of instability & failure.

Every new managerial appointment has been fraught with danger & has been a huge gamble, including Mancini's appointment. Had he not taken to the job, we would have had a confused set of two manager's players on huge wages, & shitload of staff to shift out on big money, have to attract a top manager to a club which is in turmoil & offers no prospect of longevity, employ a new load of staff, attract top players to play under said manager, again on huge money & on arrival meeting cliques of two manager's players all bitching about life.

Mancini was a huge gamble which paid off & turned out to be a great move for the club, but it also could have set us back years had it gone bad, & something as simple as the fans not taking to him, could have been enough to cause that.

With this system, if we get it up & running properly we just fire the manager if he isn't upto it, & get another one. Forever. Nothing else has to change. Of course, if we get a good one, it would be nice & preferable to keep him for a long time.

People say 'ahh but is Tricky Burgerstain upto choosing the manager & should he be fired too ?'.

Well who chooses the manager at Chelsea or in the future at Utd & are they better qualified ? (Moyes has just fired Utd's coaching staff btw)

Lots of managers will be getting hired & fired accross Europe, year in year out. With this system, at least the damage is limited & we don't have to rebuild the club if the manager fails, which has always been my reason for wanting managerial 'stability'.

does this mean that you think the new manager will not arrive with a dozen spaniards to fill all the backroom roles, and when he leaves (which is guaranteed by the system) there won't be a mass exodus of backroom staff?

I think this manager will be different to most who follow, in that I recon he will be involved in actually setting up the system itself & recommending, appointing staff. I don't believe however that they will be 'his' staff, bar maybe one or two, they will mostly be the club's staff, most of whom who will remain after he goes (provided they have been shown to be good at their job).

Hopefully Kiddo is the first of such appointments but that remains to be seen.

In the case of Hughes & Mancini, the immediate backroom staff were, for the most part,[highlight]their own clique (& Bob replaced most in all positions who weren't, even the medical staff).[/highlight] I don't think that will be the case from now on.

OmG!

One would have lead to believe that the "victimized" medical staff had been replaced for poor professionalism. At least on the worldwide televised evidence of a goal conceded upon this "brutalized" personnel took some 10 minutes to apply a bendage on Zabba's bleeding head.

But, hey, when it comes the opportunity to slaughter the City manager, every Marwood, Kloss and medical staff become a Noble Prize.

The most careful scholars of poor rhetoric won't fail to note the constant attempt to set a reptile, clumsy equation Mancini=Hughes.

Obsessed.

[Pretty Boy Lee]

Obsessed.

We know, but you're funny so we allow it!

[Swales4ever]

Obsessed.

We know, but you're funny so we allow it!

You are very gracious on it, Lee, despite quite confused in understanding, apparently!

[Ted Hughes]

In recent years, my usual thought at the imminent sacking of a manager is; 'Oh ffs not again, will we never learn, etc etc'.

That's not because I think the incumbent manager is the best thing since sliced bread (none have been imo), it's because of our previous record with turning over managers & the fact that it always ended in a downward spiral of instability & failure.

Every new managerial appointment has been fraught with danger & has been a huge gamble, including Mancini's appointment. Had he not taken to the job, we would have had a confused set of two manager's players on huge wages, & shitload of staff to shift out on big money, have to attract a top manager to a club which is in turmoil & offers no prospect of longevity, employ a new load of staff, attract top players to play under said manager, again on huge money & on arrival meeting cliques of two manager's players all bitching about life.

Mancini was a huge gamble which paid off & turned out to be a great move for the club, but it also could have set us back years had it gone bad, & something as simple as the fans not taking to him, could have been enough to cause that.

With this system, if we get it up & running properly we just fire the manager if he isn't upto it, & get another one. Forever. Nothing else has to change. Of course, if we get a good one, it would be nice & preferable to keep him for a long time.

People say 'ahh but is Tricky Burgerstain upto choosing the manager & should he be fired too ?'.

Well who chooses the manager at Chelsea or in the future at Utd & are they better qualified ? (Moyes has just fired Utd's coaching staff btw)

Lots of managers will be getting hired & fired accross Europe, year in year out. With this system, at least the damage is limited & we don't have to rebuild the club if the manager fails, which has always been my reason for wanting managerial 'stability'.

does this mean that you think the new manager will not arrive with a dozen spaniards to fill all the backroom roles, and when he leaves (which is guaranteed by the system) there won't be a mass exodus of backroom staff?

I think this manager will be different to most who follow, in that I recon he will be involved in actually setting up the system itself & recommending, appointing staff. I don't believe however that they will be 'his' staff, bar maybe one or two, they will mostly be the club's staff, most of whom who will remain after he goes (provided they have been shown to be good at their job).

Hopefully Kiddo is the first of such appointments but that remains to be seen.

In the case of Hughes & Mancini, the immediate backroom staff were, for the most part,[highlight]their own clique (& Bob replaced most in all positions who weren't, even the medical staff).[/highlight] I don't think that will be the case from now on.

OmG!

One would have lead to believe that the "victimized" medical staff had been replaced for poor professionalism. At least on the worldwide televised evidence of a goal conceded upon this "brutalized" personnel took some 10 minutes to apply a bendage on Zabba's bleeding head.

But, hey, when it comes the opportunity to slaughter the City manager, every Marwood, Kloss and medical staff become a Noble Prize.

The most careful scholars of poor rhetoric won't fail to note the constant attempt to set a reptile, clumsy equation Mancini=Hughes.

Obsessed.

Yes you are indeed obsessed but seeing as you are dishonestly twisting my words & motives again I will give you the message personally, so you understand exactly what I am saying:

Mancini was a different class to Hughes, he was much better as a manager, & although I considered changing managers to be a dangerous gamble at the time, which could have fucked up the club, it turned out to be a gamble which paid off brilliantly & Mancini changed the mentality of the club in a way few if any managers could, & turned us into winners, something for which I will be eternally grateful. I am very sad he has had to go.

He is also flawed & imo some of his performances were absolutely incompetent. I don't believe he is any good at man management & I think he is quite nasty & confrontational with some employees at the club. I also think he wanted to take over like Ferguson & the boses do not want it. I KNOW he sacked the medical staff, it's true. I wanted to keep him but I've changed my mind after recent events & decided it was for the best that he is gone.

So to recap in my opinion: Mancini= 100 times better than Hughes & a fantastic chapter in City's history, but flawed & imo better off gone.

So from now on when you decide to tell people what I think, you no longer have to tell lies or make anything up about me, I have gone on record explaining how I rate Mancini as a great City manager but think it's best he's gone , ok ?

[Plain Speaking]

Yes you are indeed obsessed but seeing as you are dishonestly twisting my words & motives again I will give you the message personally, so you understand exactly what I am saying:

Mancini was a different class to Hughes, he was much better as a manager, & although I considered changing managers to be a dangerous gamble at the time, which could have fucked up the club, it turned out to be a gamble which paid off brilliantly & Mancini changed the mentality of the club in a way few if any managers could, & turned us into winners, something for which I will be eternally grateful. I am very sad he has had to go.

He is also flawed & imo some of his performances were absolutely incompetent. I don't believe he is any good at man management & I think he is quite nasty & confrontational with some employees at the club. I also think he wanted to take over like Ferguson & the boses do not want it. I KNOW he sacked the medical staff, it's true. I wanted to keep him but I've changed my mind after recent events & decided it was for the best that he is gone.

So to recap in my opinion: Mancini= 100 times better than Hughes & a fantastic chapter in City's history, but flawed & imo better off gone.

So from now on when you decide to tell people what I think, you no longer have to tell lies or make anything up about me, I have gone on record explaining how I rate Mancini as a great City manager but think it's best he's gone , ok ?

Good post, behind the scenes bobby made many enemies, to the fans he will always be the first manager to bring the PL.