lythamblue wrote:ian494 wrote:Original Dub wrote:lythamblue wrote:There is no point in him signing anyone on a permanent basis anyway, as no one is sure how long he is going to be here.
If we do indeed have a 'Top 4 or out at the end of the season' policy, no decent player in their right mind would sign for us unless all they were concerned about is a pay cheque on a long contract. The kind of players we need to sign are top stars who want to carry on winning trophies and will want to play for a manager that they believe is there long term.
Without a doubt, sacking our last manager has given us a 'stability' problem within the industry and that won't start to rectify itself until Mancini has achieved his objectives and gets given along term 3 year contract ...... for definate.
I think we can all safely assume that Mancini sold himself and was brought in based on his promise to our Board that he could achieve a Top 4 spot with the current squad and that we should be able to expect that from our current manager (Hughes at the time).
Therefore, any signings (like Vierra) will be done short term until the end of the season, with options to lengthen the contract if Mancini is kept on next season etc.
It makes perfect sense not to sign expensive players on long term contracts which any new manager next season may not fancy.
In summary, we are not short of cash ..... just short of stability.
Hopefully, Mancini will achieve his target, be given his 3 year contract, and then we can move on again signing top players that will be prepared to come to what will then be a Top 4 side.
If he doesn't achieve his target, he will be gone ...... and we are in a right mess again.
This was always going to be the case when we sacked Hughes like we did. A big gamble, which we all hope pays off.
Oh my God you're gonna get in SO much trouble for that post!
I do agree that he's brought in to get top four and that's whay they got rid of the last guy, but the rest..... ooooohhhh so much trouble!!
Nah mate, it is a good post and just needs to be read with a bit of perspective ;-)
Why .... what's wrong with it OD? What should everyone object to as I couldn't see anything nasty in it when I wrote it.
Is it the bit about 'Top 4 or out? ..... because it seems that way, otherwise Hughes would still be here.
Is it the bit about no expensive superstar signings? ..... because we certainly aren't making any.
Is it the bit about no stability? ...... well, there doesn't seem to be many superstars willing to uproot their lives to join a manager who may not be here in 6 months.
Or is it the fact that our board have taken one masive calculated risk? .... because they have.
with all that said and done ..... I think Mancini will actually achieve his objectives. I fookin hope so anyway, because if not finding his replacememt won't be that easy.
There is nothing wrong with it...there is nothing necessarily right with it either but the premise ain't wrong. Having spent a fortune on players ADUG wanted someone to manage them and produce the results they felt the level of investment warranted. Hughes wasn't cutting it so they brought in someone they think could. If Mancini doesn't cut it either he will be replaced in the summer.
This is not instability. It is cold eyed pragmatism and it ain't warm and cuddly but since every top club sacks their manager who underachieves it will not deter top players/superstars from joining us if they so wish. Lack of CL football and other factors may, and indeed have so far, deter them from joining City but the fate of Mancini ain't going to be one of them. Some like Barry may say that 'the manager sold me the project and I want assurances that he is there for the long term' but when said manager gets the push 5 months later I don't see him having a problem do you? Even Bellers got over it sharpish realising that he was better served supporting the club and not one individual.
We have got a great squad. It desperately needed someone to manage it not ship in another job lot of players. When everyone was wringing their hands prior to Hughes sacking one argument against his going was that a new manager would upset the squad by bringing in 'his own players and we will be back to square one'. Well so far he hasn't and he has done what presumably he sold to ADUG namely what this squad needs is a competent manager with leadership skills. Fortunately ADUG agreed and did precisely that. 6 games in we are batting 5 and 1 including a derby win and Mancini has even got Khaldoon and Cook wearing his f**king scarf.
We are conditioned to believe that to succeed you need stability. Its bollocks. What you need is money and competent people in charge who know what they want and have the ability to make it happen. When ADUG replaced Frank we got precisely that. When ADUG replaced Hughes with Mancini they were not taking a massive calculated risk. They just looked at the evidence and made the call. They will do the same with Mancini whether that is in 6 months time or 3 years time. Mancini is the coach and is employed to produce results and success on the pitch. He is not employed to build a f**king dynasty. He may become a legend but if you want something like taggart then you are way off base.
One final point I still think after spending nearly half a billion quid on buying the club and bringing in players that Sheikh Mansour has earnt the right to make his first managerial appointment. The fact that Hughes was found wanting is down to Hughes and no one else.
[/center]
