IF We Finish 6th Do You Think Mancini Should Get the Chop?

[Slim]

I guess the question to this would be was Hughes sacked for failing to build a team capable of top 4 or sacked for building one capable and being unable to guide them there?

If it's the latter surely transfer windows will be irrelevant in judging Mancini's reign?

-sigh- It's almost like you are intentionally stupid some times, unfortunately I don't think you are that bright.

Try playing a round of golf with someone else's clubs.

Threre are plenty of examples of new managers getting more out of current squads. Feel free to mouth off tho u ignorant cunt.
m

Yes, it's called a honeymoon period, of course it rarely if ever lasts 19 games. As you could tell from the training reports we get that Mancini is not happy with certain aspects of our play and the trademark of a good manager is one that marries the squad he inherits to the style he wants to stamp on the side. It would be a lottery win style odds to find 24 players in a squad that match up with his style and therefore will need at least a few players who can be brought in to deliver the aspects of the game he wants.

The only time this isn't an issue is in international management and we have seen in recent times(McLaren is a perfect example) what happens when a manager tries to impose himself wholly on the style of an existing squad without incorporating the capabilities already there.

And just because you are working on your dissertation of self-retardation, does it really warrant the phrase 'ignorant cunt'?

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

I guess the question to this would be was Hughes sacked for failing to build a team capable of top 4 or sacked for building one capable and being unable to guide them there?

If it's the latter surely transfer windows will be irrelevant in judging Mancini's reign?

NO that is NOT the question and has fuck all to do with us as a club now and in future. We could forever speculate whether sacking Reid was the right thing to do or should we have stood firm on Kendall or whatever. None of that MATTERS. What happens to Mancini is what efects us NOW.

Hughes was a Hughes and Mancini is Mancini. If someone is vying Mancini's blood because Hughes was sacked ..... well that would be the dumbest thing I've heard since Dev left the site.

[ant london]

I guess the question to this would be was Hughes sacked for failing to build a team capable of top 4 or sacked for building one capable and being unable to guide them there?

If it's the latter surely transfer windows will be irrelevant in judging Mancini's reign?

NO that is NOT the question and has fuck all to do with us as a club now and in future. We could forever speculate whether sacking Reid was the right thing to do or should we have stood firm on Kendall or whatever. None of that MATTERS. What happens to Mancini is what efects us NOW.

Hughes was a Hughes and Mancini is Mancini. If someone is vying Mancini's blood because Hughes was sacked ..... well that would be the dumbest thing I've heard since Dev left the site.

mate, Dev leaving the site was a great day....the annoying fucking cunt

but NO-ONE wants Mancini sacked because they are sore that Hughes got the push

what do you find so fucking difficult to understand about the concept that NONE OF US WAS IN LOVE WITH HUGHES....lots of us thought he had positive qualities as a manager and liked him as a man BUT WE WANTED FUCKING STABILITY

S T A B I L I T Y

Do you fucking understand what that means? In case you don't, just for clarity It does NOT mean "I LOVE MARK HUGHES"

and it certainly does not mean "I WANT ROBERTO MANCINI SACKED BECAUSE I LOVED MARK HUGHES"

idiot

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

I guess the question to this would be was Hughes sacked for failing to build a team capable of top 4 or sacked for building one capable and being unable to guide them there?

If it's the latter surely transfer windows will be irrelevant in judging Mancini's reign?

NO that is NOT the question and has fuck all to do with us as a club now and in future. We could forever speculate whether sacking Reid was the right thing to do or should we have stood firm on Kendall or whatever. None of that MATTERS. What happens to Mancini is what efects us NOW.

Hughes was a Hughes and Mancini is Mancini. If someone is vying Mancini's blood because Hughes was sacked ..... well that would be the dumbest thing I've heard since Dev left the site.

mate, Dev leaving the site was a great day....the annoying fucking cunt

but NO-ONE wants Mancini sacked because they are sore that Hughes got the push

what do you find so fucking difficult to understand about the concept that NONE OF US WAS IN LOVE WITH HUGHES....lots of us thought he had positive qualities as a manager and liked him as a man BUT WE WANTED FUCKING STABILITY

S T A B I L I T Y

Do you fucking understand what that means? In case you don't, just for clarity It does NOT mean "I LOVE MARK HUGHES"

and it certainly does not mean "I WANT ROBERTO MANCINI SACKED BECAUSE I LOVED MARK HUGHES"

idiot

Very strange post.

I've read million of times now how "Hughes sacking means Mancini needs to get 4th or get the boot". Likes of Grob are the main insticators and again in above post PBL seemed to be hinting it. I was also told that NO ONE wants Mancini sacked after this season, yet one third seem to think otherwise provided we don't reach certain targets.

Furthermore, people keep harping on about Hughes in topics about Mancini, like PBL above and you just there. So surely there are deep feelings towards him. Otherwise it would make no sense. Why does this one third don't want S T A B I L I T Y now?

Oh, and stop acting like prick and try and have decent conversations please.

[mcfc1632]

This post is aimed at the general board - not any individual poster

Any post within this thread that seeks to consider the reasons why the previous manager was sacked simply must be entirely appropriate - I find it really weird that people think otherwise.

If there is a thread with the title "If we finish 6th do you think Mancini should get the chop", then members of the forum are being invited to consider what the criteria would be for sacking a manager for that reason.

Well if it would be Khaldoon, Cook etc doing the sacking and they have just sacked a manager for the same / similar reasons then does it not make perfect sense to consider why they felt that was necessary because the same or most of those criteria must still apply - why would anyone argue against that? In all walks of life people get sacked for not achieving targets or because management are concerned that they will not achieve target. When they appoint a new person then the aim is that they will achieve the same or revised target - is this not pure logic? Is this not what happens all the time?

If there were other reasons that Hughes was sacked that do not apply any more then this would make a difference and Mancini would not necessarily be sacked simply for finishing 6th.

As an example - I suggest one in previous posts - that Mancini is better suited to operate in the type of management model the club have established - and therefore I think that he will be retained even though he has failed against the expectation of performance (if he finishes 6th)

But such observations / comparisons by a number of posters on the reasons for the Hughes sacking seem to be a logical approach when the question in this thread title is put to them and they should be allowed to consider /discuss in a forum debate type way

[BobKowalski]

mcfc1632 & Slim: some excellent points made there

Ok thats me done with the arsekissing :)

[john68]

mcfc1632 & Slim: some excellent points made there

Ok thats me done with the arsekissing :)

Thank fuck...I can now wash the lipstick off....:-)

[lets all have a disco]

If we dont finish fourth and Bob has promised it then it's upto him to explain to the board why we didnt get it and try to save his job.
Then from there it's upto the board to make a decision.

As it goes im happy for him to carry on,but please stop shitting it in big games and go for it.

[brite blu sky]

Looking at the way the football hierarchy seems to be at City, I have wondered just how much power Mancini actually has over football affairs and what the role of Marwood is. Marwood certainly appears to be senior to Mancini.

We do know that Marwood has a position powerful enough to have been a major player in getting rid of Hughes. he is also credited with bringing in Kidd (not Mancini's choice) and also for buying Johnson.

Is Mancini really in charge or simply employed as the chief coach, working under the orders of Marwood?
Posters have said that things may improve when Mancini has his own players around him but will he be allowed to gather his own squad or be forced to work with only those who are approved by Marwood?

Marwood seems to be very quiet in the background. Lots of power but little criticism gets thrown at him. I do wonder just what Marwood's remit is and whether we maybe wrong in blaming Mancini.

If you have a mind to think how this would best work, it might be that yes Mancini concentrates on the playing and training, but then Marwood and others would be wanting his input in targeting players, development issues etc etc etc.
I suppose what i am saying is that they would want to build a team.
You could easily imagine that in the future the roles and responsibilities would shake out based on effectiveness and competency. Mancini if he stays at City for some time will undoubtedly consolidate his role with whatever he needed to be involved in to achieve what he and the club wanted.
Apart from that, i could well understand Mancini keeping his energy contained in the footballing side of things right now as he has basically enough to cope with trying to get us into CL.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Looking at the way the football hierarchy seems to be at City, I have wondered just how much power Mancini actually has over football affairs and what the role of Marwood is. Marwood certainly appears to be senior to Mancini.

We do know that Marwood has a position powerful enough to have been a major player in getting rid of Hughes. he is also credited with bringing in Kidd (not Mancini's choice) and also for buying Johnson.

Is Mancini really in charge or simply employed as the chief coach, working under the orders of Marwood?
Posters have said that things may improve when Mancini has his own players around him but will he be allowed to gather his own squad or be forced to work with only those who are approved by Marwood?

Marwood seems to be very quiet in the background. Lots of power but little criticism gets thrown at him. I do wonder just what Marwood's remit is and whether we maybe wrong in blaming Mancini.

I've been thinking the same for a while now. And I'd also like to hear what supposed merits does Marwood have to hold such important position in hierachy. Basically he has just worked with Cook in Nike, that's all.

I've said it millions of times here before but I say it again, I don't like Director of football system. In my opinion there should be one man and one man only in charge of ALL footballing matters. He should get the credit for achievements and blame for failures.

[john68]

Sorry lads but I think you have both missed what I was trying to say. That could be my fault in the way i posted about marwood.

I was considering the present situation and the way we that mancini is taking flak for apparent attitudes and strategies. I really don't know what marwood's role is on a day to day basis, but if he is in charge of football and he certainly seems to hols a lot of power. Then is it possible that Mancini is coaching to marwood's general instructions. Does Marwood control the way we are moving forward and Mancini simply do as he is told.

[Nickyboy]

If we dont finish fourth and Bob has promised it then it's upto him to explain to the board why we didnt get it and try to save his job.
Then from there it's upto the board to make a decision.

As it goes im happy for him to carry on,but please stop shitting it in big games and go for it.

I agree with that...

Like any job - if you have valid reasons and explanations for falling just short of your agreed target then normally you get a chance to rectify the situation and then not let it happen again.

[BobKowalski]

Sorry lads but I think you have both missed what I was trying to say. That could be my fault in the way i posted about marwood.

I was considering the present situation and the way we that mancini is taking flak for apparent attitudes and strategies. I really don't know what marwood's role is on a day to day basis, but if he is in charge of football and he certainly seems to hols a lot of power. Then is it possible that Mancini is coaching to marwood's general instructions. Does Marwood control the way we are moving forward and Mancini simply do as he is told.

I really cannot see that. With respect to transfers, youth policy and bringing academy prospects into the first team enviroment Mancini will have significant input but not overall control. It makes sense for the club to operate an overall strategy with the manager working within it but not dictating it. In terms of coaching,team selection, tactics etc then the manager should have sole authority and to be honest I think Mancini does have sole authority.

[petrov]

No, while it will be a failure and a big one at that, constantly changing is not the answer and something I hope our club will finally learn. Imho the previous manager should of being given till now but its pointless to think about that. If at the end of season after next we're not comfortably top 4 than its bye, bye Bobby but he has to given a couple of seasons.

[btajim]

I've been thinking the same for a while now. And I'd also like to hear what supposed merits does Marwood have to hold such important position in hierachy. Basically he has just worked with Cook in Nike, that's all.

I've said it millions of times here before but I say it again, I don't like Director of football system. In my opinion there should be one man and one man only in charge of ALL footballing matters. He should get the credit for achievements and blame for failures.

I think Marwood may have had alot to do with the Hughes departure. He was brought in as Technical Director yet Hughes objected so they found him another Job Title. The Director of Football position also caused problems at Spurs and they got rid of it when Redknapp came in.

I'm in 100% agreement with you on this. I want to know what Marwood does, how it helps and what he will be responsible for.

[MaineRoadMemories]

[highlight]Marwood's role from the papers:[/highlight]

Former England international Brian Marwood is among three major new appointments to Manchester City's administration team.

Owner Sheik Mansour has been working on reshaping the Eastlands outfit ever since the Abu Dhabi United Group bought the Eastlands outfit in the summer.

And Marwood has been given charge of creating an infrastructure that 'will meet Mark Hughes' requirements in terms of academy liaison, overseeing of medical, sports sciences and performance analysis, talent identification and player support'.

Marwood's brief is far removed from the director of football positions that have caused so much controversy elsewhere and it is thought his expertise will allow City to create the right conditions for the club to move forward at the pace Sheik Mansour demands.
Also joining City are Graham Wallace and David Pullan, who take on the roles of chief financial and administration officer and brand and marketing officer respectively.

Commenting on the appointments, executive chairman Garry Cook said: 'The Club's owners have outlined an ambitious vision for long-term, sustainable growth and these appointments represent a vital investment in our capacity to achieve our full potential as a Club and as a partner in the development of new east Manchester.

'In line with the strategy that Mark Hughes and I presented to the chairman in February, we have created a new position of Football Administration Officer, which will ensure that the coaching, medical and playing staff at Carrington and the Platt Lane Academy get world leading support at every level.'

[highlight]Marwood's role from the OS:[/highlight]

Brian Marwood
Football Administration Officer
Former England international Brian joined the Club from Nike, where he was Head of UK Football Sports Marketing.

But he will be better known to most Blues fans for his career as a winger with several top clubs. Between 1976 and 1994 he enjoyed a hugely successful career in which he played for Hull City, Sheffield Wednesday, Arsenal, Sheffield United, Middlesbrough, Swindon Town and Barnet as well as being capped for his country.

He was part of the Arsenal team that won the League title in 1989 and was Chairman of the PFA in the early nineties. Brian has also had an extensive media career, starting with BBC Radio 5 and for a dozen years with Sky Sports.

In his business career with Nike, which spanned more than a decade, he was involved in developing the UK Football Asset Base, which has included working several top British clubs and governing bodies.

Prior to joining Nike UK, Brian worked as a Commercial Executive with the Professional Footballers Association where he developed new business opportunities for both the organisation and players.
http://www.mcfc.co.uk/The-Club/Corporate-Info

[highlight]Marwood's role by MRM:[/highlight]

He reports directly to Cook about what the manager is doing in training, player relationships and on matchdays. He decides whether he thinks the manager is doing a good job or not - a spy and ultimately decides their fates. He also leads the buying of all new players and makes Garry is cup of tea at 9.05am every morning :-)

[DoomMerchant]

I've been thinking the same for a while now. And I'd also like to hear what supposed merits does Marwood have to hold such important position in hierachy. Basically he has just worked with Cook in Nike, that's all.

I've said it millions of times here before but I say it again, I don't like Director of football system. In my opinion there should be one man and one man only in charge of ALL footballing matters. He should get the credit for achievements and blame for failures.

I think Marwood may have had alot to do with the Hughes departure. He was brought in as Technical Director yet Hughes objected so they found him another Job Title. The Director of Football position also caused problems at Spurs and they got rid of it when Redknapp came in.

I'm in 100% agreement with you on this. I want to know what Marwood does, how it helps and what he will be responsible for.

interestingly enough, i think Hughes position on this very topic lent a great deal to his sacking. He was in violent agreement with Antti's comments above i believe and i'm sure Marwood felt threatened by that perspective, and eventually he won out.

Cook + Marwood > Hughes (Mancini) etc...

i wonder how Hiddink or others would have fared in that system? Most English managers wouldn't go for it i don't believe.

cheers

[john@staustell]

I've been thinking the same for a while now. And I'd also like to hear what supposed merits does Marwood have to hold such important position in hierachy. Basically he has just worked with Cook in Nike, that's all.

I've said it millions of times here before but I say it again, I don't like Director of football system. In my opinion there should be one man and one man only in charge of ALL footballing matters. He should get the credit for achievements and blame for failures.

I think Marwood may have had alot to do with the Hughes departure. He was brought in as Technical Director yet Hughes objected so they found him another Job Title. The Director of Football position also caused problems at Spurs and they got rid of it when Redknapp came in.

I'm in 100% agreement with you on this. I want to know what Marwood does, how it helps and what he will be responsible for.

interestingly enough, i think Hughes position on this very topic lent a great deal to his sacking. He was in violent agreement with Antti's comments above i believe and i'm sure Marwood felt threatened by that perspective, and eventually he won out.

Cook + Marwood > Hughes (Mancini) etc...

i wonder how Hiddink or others would have fared in that system? Most English managers wouldn't go for it i don't believe.

cheers

I think it's simpler. Cook realised or was told that he knew fuck all about football, and Marwood, whatever his qualifications, was brought in. Hughes then drew too many easy games. If he'd won them he'd still be here. It's not how you do against the top teams that matters really, it's all the other buggers.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

No, while it will be a failure and a big one at that, constantly changing is not the answer and something I hope our club will finally learn. Imho the previous manager should of being given till now but its pointless to think about that. If at the end of season after next we're not comfortably top 4 than its bye, bye Bobby but he has to given a couple of seasons.

Hold on. Am I reading this properly. You think Mancini will be big time failure but we should stick with him just so that the club learns the lesson. If Mancini turns out to be complete shite over long period of time, why would they in future stick with a manager for a long while???

I'm supporter of Mancini but I'm also from the school of thought that first you have to find the right man and THEN stick to him for a good while. Managerial stability just for the sake of it serves no purpose. If you are certain that Mancini will be a failure then I think you as a Blue should vote for his sacking. If you were right then that would obviously be the best thing for the Club.

[DoomMerchant]

No, while it will be a failure and a big one at that, constantly changing is not the answer and something I hope our club will finally learn. Imho the previous manager should of being given till now but its pointless to think about that. If at the end of season after next we're not comfortably top 4 than its bye, bye Bobby but he has to given a couple of seasons.

Hold on. Am I reading this properly. You think Mancini will be big time failure but we should stick with him just so that the club learns the lesson. If Mancini turns out to be complete shite over long period of time, why would they in future stick with a manager for a long while???

I'm supporter of Mancini but I'm also from the school of thought that first you have to find the right man and THEN stick to him for a good while. Managerial stability just for the sake of it serves no purpose. If you are certain that Mancini will be a failure then I think you as a Blue should vote for his sacking. If you were right then that would obviously be the best thing for the Club.

get to commenting on my post about how you and Sparky agree on the role of the manager and how the club setup should be run please. Tinkering with others as a distraction is just being lazy.

;)

cheers