The mancityfans.net football forum

An article in the Mail by Ladyman. When seeing the headline I thought Clichy would be telling us all how everybody hated Mancini. From reading the quotes it seems that there wasn't as much discontent as been reported. He even says they didn't give any effort at time. A combined failure.

Mancini made the choices, he must take responsibility: Clichy believes ex-City boss is to blame for poor season

Manchester City full back Gael Clichy on Tuesday claimed Roberto Mancini must take part of the blame for the club’s dismal season and admitted that at times the deposed Barclays Premier League champions just didn’t try hard enough for him.

Mancini was sacked last week after three-and-half years, leaving coach Brian Kidd to lead the City squad on their week-long post-season trip to New York and Saint Louis.

Speaking at a City community event on Staten Island on Tuesday, French defender Clichy said: 'We have to take responsibility for this season and yes, probably, it’s because of the manager that we haven’t won anything. Because he’s the man in charge but also because of us as players.

'He’s the manager and you have to take responsibility. The manager is there to make the choices.

'Of course, when results are good it’s all down to the manager. When the results are not so good, it’s also down to him.

'We have to be aware that he was probably at fault for this, but as players on the pitch we also have to take responsibility and also know that we didn’t perform.

'You have to give 100 per cent and sometimes this year we didn’t give anything.'

Clichy’s candid admission that City didn’t always give their all for Mancini will alarm some of the club’s fans, even if the former Arsenal player would not concede that some on his team-mates simply didn’t like the Italian.

'I am not aware of this,' he said.

'Most of us he brought to the club. If he bought you it means that he likes you.

'A player that he just bought can’t really say he had a problem.

'Of course you can understand that players who aren’t playing would be unhappy and say bad things about the manager.

'But that’s the same for Arsenal, United. When you don’t play you are not happy.

'It’s always difficult. A manager has to be a manager. Once you become a friend of the players that’s when you can have trouble.

'I prefer to have trouble because the manager is respected and is hard with the players than a manager who is having trouble because he is friends with the players. You have to find the right balance.'

Meanwhile, City chief executive Ferran Soriano has defended the decision to sack Mancini.

He said: 'We don’t think we are under any instability. We are changing the manager as it happens in other clubs.

'We feel confident that we will have a good manager and a very good team next year. And I don’t think anybody made a mistake on this.

'It’s just, as normally as it happens in football, time to change for the good.’

Gael Clichy was speaking at a Manchester City visit to Staten Island in New York, where City have donated football equipment to a local community group who are helping the Island recover from Hurricane Sandy.

Take you pick. This is how the different headline writers interpreted it:

- "You had it coming: Roberto Mancini can't complain about Manchester City sack says Gael Clichy"
- "City players have to share the blame, saying 'sometimes we didn’t give anything' "
- "GAEL CLICHY STICKS KNIFE IN AXED ROBERTO MANCINI"
- "Clichy: 'Mancini sacking difficult to understand'
- "Clichy shocked by Mancini exit"
- "Roberto Mancini paid the price for Manchester City's season of failure, says Gaël Clichy"

Alex Sapphire wrote:Take you pick. This is how the different headline writers interpreted it:

- "You had it coming: Roberto Mancini can't complain about Manchester City sack says Gael Clichy"
- "City players have to share the blame, saying 'sometimes we didn’t give anything' "
- "GAEL CLICHY STICKS KNIFE IN AXED ROBERTO MANCINI"
- "Clichy: 'Mancini sacking difficult to understand'
- "Clichy shocked by Mancini exit"
- "Roberto Mancini paid the price for Manchester City's season of failure, says Gaël Clichy"

Not read them all mate, just the 2. Strange how both have different comments depending on the way they want to report it.

Edit: Reading it again Clichy seems to indicate that the problems seemed to come from those who weren't first team players. So, combine that with the text from the England International, we can start narrowing down who sent that text about 'Champagne on Ice'.

Beefymcfc wrote:

Alex Sapphire wrote:Take you pick. This is how the different headline writers interpreted it:

- "You had it coming: Roberto Mancini can't complain about Manchester City sack says Gael Clichy"
- "City players have to share the blame, saying 'sometimes we didn’t give anything' "
- "GAEL CLICHY STICKS KNIFE IN AXED ROBERTO MANCINI"
- "Clichy: 'Mancini sacking difficult to understand'
- "Clichy shocked by Mancini exit"
- "Roberto Mancini paid the price for Manchester City's season of failure, says Gaël Clichy"

Not read them all mate, just the 2. Strange how both have different comments depending on the way they want to report it.

Edit: Reading it again Clichy seems to indicate that the problems seemed to come from those who weren't first team players. So, combine that with the text from the England International, we can start narrowing down who sent that text about 'Champagne on Ice'.

It should also be someone who Mancini didn't buy himself - not that that narrows it down any. Cause all England players (bar Rodders) were there already when Roberto came in, weren't they?

The comment " you have to give 100 per cent and sometimes this year we didn’t give anything" is concerning, maybe it is just his terminology but if he actually means what he seems to be saying then that is shocking. Travelling all day and night to get to the FA cup final (not to mention the cost) and having to endure the dross delivered, it is even more insulting to think they simply didn't even try due to issues they may have with their boss.

mr_nool wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

Alex Sapphire wrote:Take you pick. This is how the different headline writers interpreted it:

- "You had it coming: Roberto Mancini can't complain about Manchester City sack says Gael Clichy"
- "City players have to share the blame, saying 'sometimes we didn’t give anything' "
- "GAEL CLICHY STICKS KNIFE IN AXED ROBERTO MANCINI"
- "Clichy: 'Mancini sacking difficult to understand'
- "Clichy shocked by Mancini exit"
- "Roberto Mancini paid the price for Manchester City's season of failure, says Gaël Clichy"

Not read them all mate, just the 2. Strange how both have different comments depending on the way they want to report it.

Edit: Reading it again Clichy seems to indicate that the problems seemed to come from those who weren't first team players. So, combine that with the text from the England International, we can start narrowing down who sent that text about 'Champagne on Ice'.

It should also be someone who Mancini didn't buy himself - not that that narrows it down any. Cause all England players (bar Rodders) were there already when Roberto came in, weren't they?

Hart - already here - plays regularly
Richards - already here - would play regularly - injured
Lescott - Hughes - dropped
Milner - Mancini - played more regular when not injured
Barry - Hughes - plays regulalry
Rodwell - Mancini - sicknote
Sinclair - Mancini - the invisible man
Wright - Mancini - back-up

That's our 8 English players with 3 of them being counted as current England International's.

OliverHardy wrote:The comment " you have to give 100 per cent and sometimes this year we didn’t give anything" is concerning, maybe it is just his terminology but if he actually means what he seems to be saying then that is shocking. Travelling all day and night to get to the FA cup final (not to mention the cost) and having to endure the dross delivered, it is even more insulting to think they simply didn't even try due to issues they may have with their boss.

I think he is talking the royal 'We' when he makes that statement, telling us what certain players attitudes are but not neccessarily his own. Like I say, he seems to indicate that it's those that or on the outside that have been airing their grievances and if the likes of Lescott are pulling their faces you can be sure that it's affecting the squad as a whole.

Beefymcfc wrote:

OliverHardy wrote:The comment " you have to give 100 per cent and sometimes this year we didn’t give anything" is concerning, maybe it is just his terminology but if he actually means what he seems to be saying then that is shocking. Travelling all day and night to get to the FA cup final (not to mention the cost) and having to endure the dross delivered, it is even more insulting to think they simply didn't even try due to issues they may have with their boss.

I think he is talking the royal 'We' when he makes that statement, telling us what certain players attitudes are but not neccessarily his own. Like I say, he seems to indicate that it's those that or on the outside that have been airing their grievances and if the likes of Lescott are pulling their faces you can be sure that it's affecting the squad as a whole.

Perhaps it's just the basher in me, but I think thant Clichy never called Wenger to blame when finishing second. mostly third and fourth, at the helm of the second most established Club in England. Is it because Arsene always had the backing of the Gunners upper floor?


It's far too easy to make use of a bunch of spoilt children and drive a power showdown.

Anyways, now it's over, everyone has learned and will continue to learn from the last months downfall and most importantly, those who drove the riot shall have to push hard to make their talks on the desks.

Happy days, hopefully.

Beefymcfc wrote:

Alex Sapphire wrote:Take you pick. This is how the different headline writers interpreted it:

- "You had it coming: Roberto Mancini can't complain about Manchester City sack says Gael Clichy"
- "City players have to share the blame, saying 'sometimes we didn’t give anything' "
- "GAEL CLICHY STICKS KNIFE IN AXED ROBERTO MANCINI"
- "Clichy: 'Mancini sacking difficult to understand'
- "Clichy shocked by Mancini exit"
- "Roberto Mancini paid the price for Manchester City's season of failure, says Gaël Clichy"

Not read them all mate, just the 2. Strange how both have different comments depending on the way they want to report it.

Edit: Reading it again Clichy seems to indicate that the problems seemed to come from those who weren't first team players. So, combine that with the text from the England International, we can start narrowing down who sent that text about 'Champagne on Ice'.

He clearly refers to the various formations & how the players 'should have done better' whatever Mancini chose, & mentions 'not giving anything' on the pitch so he's certainly not just referring to players who were out of the team.

From what Clichy is saying there was no big furore mate, just a few disgruntled/dissenting voices from the cheap seats. For some reason the press have been allowed to print stories that have no foundation, as yet.

I listened to an interview with Mark Ogden who broke the story of Mancini before the FA Cup Final. He said that he didn't have any real info (just speculation) and went off a hunch. He contacted the club to see if they'd confirm or deny and instead of getting at least a 'Vote of Confidence' going into the match, we decided to give no comment. The 'No Comment' statement was alarmingly obvious to him which then allowed him to print what we seen on that day.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

Alex Sapphire wrote:Take you pick. This is how the different headline writers interpreted it:

- "You had it coming: Roberto Mancini can't complain about Manchester City sack says Gael Clichy"
- "City players have to share the blame, saying 'sometimes we didn’t give anything' "
- "GAEL CLICHY STICKS KNIFE IN AXED ROBERTO MANCINI"
- "Clichy: 'Mancini sacking difficult to understand'
- "Clichy shocked by Mancini exit"
- "Roberto Mancini paid the price for Manchester City's season of failure, says Gaël Clichy"

Not read them all mate, just the 2. Strange how both have different comments depending on the way they want to report it.

Edit: Reading it again Clichy seems to indicate that the problems seemed to come from those who weren't first team players. So, combine that with the text from the England International, we can start narrowing down who sent that text about 'Champagne on Ice'.

He clearly refers to the various formations & how the players 'should have done better' whatever Mancini chose, & mentions 'not giving anything' on the pitch so he's certainly not just referring to players who were out of the team.

Sorry mate, for this instance I was referring to the text comment.

Beefymcfc wrote:From what Clichy is saying there was no big furore mate, just a few disgruntled/dissenting voices from the cheap seats. For some reason the press have been allowed to print stories that have no foundation, as yet.

I listened to an interview with Mark Ogden who broke the story of Mancini before the FA Cup Final. He said that he didn't have any real info (just speculation) and went off a hunch. He contacted the club to see if they'd confirm or deny and instead of getting at least a 'Vote of Confidence' going into the match, we decided to give no comment. The 'No Comment' statement was alarmingly obvious to him which then allowed him to print what we seen on that day.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Mark Ogden may not have had anything but others did & from big name regulars as well as one or two others outside the team.

Clichy's comments, as one of the players who is first on the team sheet, are pretty clear indication that Bob wasn't wanted by the players. If a player was going to back him in public, you would put Clichy near the top of the list as a likely candidate.

Instead, it's about the least complimentary interview I've ever heard regarding a deposed manager.

It's for the best that he's gone imo as getting rid of all those players would have taken years.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:From what Clichy is saying there was no big furore mate, just a few disgruntled/dissenting voices from the cheap seats. For some reason the press have been allowed to print stories that have no foundation, as yet.

I listened to an interview with Mark Ogden who broke the story of Mancini before the FA Cup Final. He said that he didn't have any real info (just speculation) and went off a hunch. He contacted the club to see if they'd confirm or deny and instead of getting at least a 'Vote of Confidence' going into the match, we decided to give no comment. The 'No Comment' statement was alarmingly obvious to him which then allowed him to print what we seen on that day.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Mark Ogden may not have had anything but others did & from big name regulars as well as one or two others outside the team.

Clichy's comments, as one of the players who is first on the team sheet, are pretty clear indication that Bob wasn't wanted by the players. If a player was going to back him in public, you would put Clichy near the top of the list as a likely candidate.

Instead, it's about the least complimentary interview I've ever heard regarding a deposed manager.

It's for the best that he's gone imo as getting rid of all those players would have taken years.

I'm not sure how you read that mate but I don't see it as a slight at Mancini or the board. They're thoughtful and respectful answers from Clichy that basically keep in the good books either way. His inference that we didn't give 100% does say that some of the players weren't with what we were trying to do and if that's the case, they can follow Mancini out of the door for me.

Mancini has gone and we move on; I don't think it's such a big thing for most, we're used to it. What I find striing though is what has been written with regard to mass rebellions etc when this is clearly not the case. The media have speculated and used places like this as their source but as yet, none have anything firm that can say what was going on behind the scenes other that that we already know. Mancini was a disciplinarian, aloof and very much authoritarian, all things we've seen before. The Mario incident was the one that did it for me though and I couldn't believe things weren't sorted then.

As somebody said, when it suits, those weakenesses are his strengths, but when it doesn't, those strengths are his weaknesses.

We live and learn and if anybody can point me to these mass rebellions or mass player discord (possibly a punch up in the dressing room) other than specualtion or conjecture, then I'm all ears.

Beefymcfc wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:From what Clichy is saying there was no big furore mate, just a few disgruntled/dissenting voices from the cheap seats. For some reason the press have been allowed to print stories that have no foundation, as yet.

I listened to an interview with Mark Ogden who broke the story of Mancini before the FA Cup Final. He said that he didn't have any real info (just speculation) and went off a hunch. He contacted the club to see if they'd confirm or deny and instead of getting at least a 'Vote of Confidence' going into the match, we decided to give no comment. The 'No Comment' statement was alarmingly obvious to him which then allowed him to print what we seen on that day.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Mark Ogden may not have had anything but others did & from big name regulars as well as one or two others outside the team.

Clichy's comments, as one of the players who is first on the team sheet, are pretty clear indication that Bob wasn't wanted by the players. If a player was going to back him in public, you would put Clichy near the top of the list as a likely candidate.

Instead, it's about the least complimentary interview I've ever heard regarding a deposed manager.

It's for the best that he's gone imo as getting rid of all those players would have taken years.

I'm not sure how you read that mate but I don't see it as a slight at Mancini or the board. They're thoughtful and respectful answers from Clichy that basically keep in the good books either way. His inference that we didn't give 100% does say that some of the players weren't with what we were trying to do and if that's the case, they can follow Mancini out of the door for me.

Mancini has gone and we move on; I don't think it's such a big thing for most, we're used to it. What I find striing though is what has been written with regard to mass rebellions etc when this is clearly not the case. The media have speculated and used places like this as their source but as yet, none have anything firm that can say what was going on behind the scenes other that that we already know. Mancini was a disciplinarian, aloof and very much authoritarian, all things we've seen before. The Mario incident was the one that did it for me though and I couldn't believe things weren't sorted then.

As somebody said, when it suits, those weakenesses are his strengths, but when it doesn't, those strengths are his weaknesses.

We live and learn and if anybody can point me to these mass rebellions or mass player discord (possibly a punch up in the dressing room) other than specualtion or conjecture, then I'm all ears.

Well we did have Mancini physically removing Balotelli from the training pitch & then of course Balotelli subsequently transferred, but that was the player closest to him & they were at loggerheads all season.

But imo it's not necessary to have any such obvious outbursts. All you need is for the players to be uninspired to produce their best. We know historically that managers can inspire players to great heights & we know that when players lose respect for a manager, performances drop & usually he's gone. It doesn't mean fights every week or poor training sessions, or players deliberately playing badly, just that things aren't quite right & the results aren't quite right.

It's been seriously 'not quite right' all season for me & I've been saying so regularly on here. Now I believe can see why.

This situation is not purely down to modern day money or other such clichés, we've seen it close hand with City & Utd teams of the past, before the money came into the game. We've seen it with top managers who have gone on to succeed elsewhere but found certain situations beyond them. Sometimes things just go pear shaped & it has to be changed.

If you lose the players, you're gone. Mancini lost the players, even the ones he played regularly aren't backing him. The rest can't even manage a public 'goodbye' let alone 'good luck'. I've never seen apathy from players & staff on that level from any manager's sacking, & we've had a few. It's plainly obvious things had gone wrong. It's best we start again.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:From what Clichy is saying there was no big furore mate, just a few disgruntled/dissenting voices from the cheap seats. For some reason the press have been allowed to print stories that have no foundation, as yet.

I listened to an interview with Mark Ogden who broke the story of Mancini before the FA Cup Final. He said that he didn't have any real info (just speculation) and went off a hunch. He contacted the club to see if they'd confirm or deny and instead of getting at least a 'Vote of Confidence' going into the match, we decided to give no comment. The 'No Comment' statement was alarmingly obvious to him which then allowed him to print what we seen on that day.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Mark Ogden may not have had anything but others did & from big name regulars as well as one or two others outside the team.

Clichy's comments, as one of the players who is first on the team sheet, are pretty clear indication that Bob wasn't wanted by the players. If a player was going to back him in public, you would put Clichy near the top of the list as a likely candidate.

Instead, it's about the least complimentary interview I've ever heard regarding a deposed manager.

It's for the best that he's gone imo as getting rid of all those players would have taken years.

I'm not sure how you read that mate but I don't see it as a slight at Mancini or the board. They're thoughtful and respectful answers from Clichy that basically keep in the good books either way. His inference that we didn't give 100% does say that some of the players weren't with what we were trying to do and if that's the case, they can follow Mancini out of the door for me.

Mancini has gone and we move on; I don't think it's such a big thing for most, we're used to it. What I find striing though is what has been written with regard to mass rebellions etc when this is clearly not the case. The media have speculated and used places like this as their source but as yet, none have anything firm that can say what was going on behind the scenes other that that we already know. Mancini was a disciplinarian, aloof and very much authoritarian, all things we've seen before. The Mario incident was the one that did it for me though and I couldn't believe things weren't sorted then.

As somebody said, when it suits, those weakenesses are his strengths, but when it doesn't, those strengths are his weaknesses.

We live and learn and if anybody can point me to these mass rebellions or mass player discord (possibly a punch up in the dressing room) other than specualtion or conjecture, then I'm all ears.

Well we did have Mancini physically removing Balotelli from the training pitch & then of course Balotelli subsequently transferred, but that was the player closest to him & they were at loggerheads all season.

But imo it's not necessary to have any such obvious outbursts. All you need is for the players to be uninspired to produce their best. We know historically that managers can inspire players to great heights & we know that when players lose respect for a manager, performances drop & usually he's gone. It doesn't mean fights every week or poor training sessions, or players deliberately playing badly, just that things aren't quite right & the results aren't quite right.

It's been seriously 'not quite right' all season for me & I've been saying so regularly on here. Now I believe can see why.

This situation is not purely down to modern day money or other such clichés, we've seen it close hand with City & Utd teams of the past, before the money came into the game. We've seen it with top managers who have gone on to succeed elsewhere but found certain situations beyond them. Sometimes things just go pear shaped & it has to be changed.

If you lose the players, you're gone. Mancini lost the players, even the ones he played regularly aren't backing him. The rest can't even manage a public 'goodbye' let alone 'good luck'. I've never seen apathy from players & staff on that level from any manager's sacking, & we've had a few. It's plainly obvious things had gone wrong. It's best we start again.

Good points, well made.

Beefymcfc wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:From what Clichy is saying there was no big furore mate, just a few disgruntled/dissenting voices from the cheap seats. For some reason the press have been allowed to print stories that have no foundation, as yet.

I listened to an interview with Mark Ogden who broke the story of Mancini before the FA Cup Final. He said that he didn't have any real info (just speculation) and went off a hunch. He contacted the club to see if they'd confirm or deny and instead of getting at least a 'Vote of Confidence' going into the match, we decided to give no comment. The 'No Comment' statement was alarmingly obvious to him which then allowed him to print what we seen on that day.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Mark Ogden may not have had anything but others did & from big name regulars as well as one or two others outside the team.

Clichy's comments, as one of the players who is first on the team sheet, are pretty clear indication that Bob wasn't wanted by the players. If a player was going to back him in public, you would put Clichy near the top of the list as a likely candidate.

Instead, it's about the least complimentary interview I've ever heard regarding a deposed manager.

It's for the best that he's gone imo as getting rid of all those players would have taken years.

I'm not sure how you read that mate but I don't see it as a slight at Mancini or the board. They're thoughtful and respectful answers from Clichy that basically keep in the good books either way. His inference that we didn't give 100% does say that some of the players weren't with what we were trying to do and if that's the case, they can follow Mancini out of the door for me.

Mancini has gone and we move on; I don't think it's such a big thing for most, we're used to it. What I find striing though is what has been written with regard to mass rebellions etc when this is clearly not the case. The media have speculated and used places like this as their source but as yet, none have anything firm that can say what was going on behind the scenes other that that we already know. Mancini was a disciplinarian, aloof and very much authoritarian, all things we've seen before. The Mario incident was the one that did it for me though and I couldn't believe things weren't sorted then.

As somebody said, when it suits, those weakenesses are his strengths, but when it doesn't, those strengths are his weaknesses.

We live and learn and if anybody can point me to these mass rebellions or mass player discord (possibly a punch up in the dressing room) other than specualtion or conjecture, then I'm all ears.

this almost makes sense to me, including the smooth approach to the whole, now that's time to move on.
The mass rebellions or mass player discord is certainly utter bollocks, awkwardly spinned.
The assumed relational difficulties. if ever actually existed and not aptly organized, were the same in place when the same team fought back 12 points off the rags. that's a fact.
another fact is that City have pretty always strolled on the Latics all along the Mancini tenure, until interested winds started to blow and resound on the ears of lads still far from featuring a winning attitude.

What hurts, and should hurt every sensed Blues, is that we have turned once again the negative corner, instead of running down the path of the dynasty that would have been built, should the manager had been backed as Ferguson had, for the good and the bad starting from delivering the players which he strongly claimed for, and that we will see coming this summer, just for another very striking coincidence.

I am not a Mancunian and certainly shall never earn respect needed to openly debate on this Community, but what ultimately strikes me is what I'd call "the happy cheated attitude" of us Blues fans, as there's no doubt in my mind that the very difference in fortune between us and United is that they have always profited when they have been on the money, while we always find a way to turn the wrong corner and get back to square one.

Then, please everyone enjoy and believe that I am just bitter because Mancini left, as if I was Mancini's agent and had anything to gain from his staying or sacking, other than the enhancement of the Club I support.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:From what Clichy is saying there was no big furore mate, just a few disgruntled/dissenting voices from the cheap seats. For some reason the press have been allowed to print stories that have no foundation, as yet.

I listened to an interview with Mark Ogden who broke the story of Mancini before the FA Cup Final. He said that he didn't have any real info (just speculation) and went off a hunch. He contacted the club to see if they'd confirm or deny and instead of getting at least a 'Vote of Confidence' going into the match, we decided to give no comment. The 'No Comment' statement was alarmingly obvious to him which then allowed him to print what we seen on that day.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Mark Ogden may not have had anything but others did & from big name regulars as well as one or two others outside the team.

Clichy's comments, as one of the players who is first on the team sheet, are pretty clear indication that Bob wasn't wanted by the players. If a player was going to back him in public, you would put Clichy near the top of the list as a likely candidate.

Instead, it's about the least complimentary interview I've ever heard regarding a deposed manager.

It's for the best that he's gone imo as getting rid of all those players would have taken years.

I'm not sure how you read that mate but I don't see it as a slight at Mancini or the board. They're thoughtful and respectful answers from Clichy that basically keep in the good books either way. His inference that we didn't give 100% does say that some of the players weren't with what we were trying to do and if that's the case, they can follow Mancini out of the door for me.

Mancini has gone and we move on; I don't think it's such a big thing for most, we're used to it. What I find striing though is what has been written with regard to mass rebellions etc when this is clearly not the case. The media have speculated and used places like this as their source but as yet, none have anything firm that can say what was going on behind the scenes other that that we already know. Mancini was a disciplinarian, aloof and very much authoritarian, all things we've seen before. The Mario incident was the one that did it for me though and I couldn't believe things weren't sorted then.

As somebody said, when it suits, those weakenesses are his strengths, but when it doesn't, those strengths are his weaknesses.

We live and learn and if anybody can point me to these mass rebellions or mass player discord (possibly a punch up in the dressing room) other than specualtion or conjecture, then I'm all ears.

Well we did have Mancini physically removing Balotelli from the training pitch & then of course Balotelli subsequently transferred, but that was the player closest to him & they were at loggerheads all season.

But imo it's not necessary to have any such obvious outbursts. All you need is for the players to be uninspired to produce their best. We know historically that managers can inspire players to great heights & we know that when players lose respect for a manager, performances drop & usually he's gone. It doesn't mean fights every week or poor training sessions, or players deliberately playing badly, just that things aren't quite right & the results aren't quite right.

It's been seriously 'not quite right' all season for me & I've been saying so regularly on here. Now I believe can see why.

This situation is not purely down to modern day money or other such clichés, we've seen it close hand with City & Utd teams of the past, before the money came into the game. We've seen it with top managers who have gone on to succeed elsewhere but found certain situations beyond them. Sometimes things just go pear shaped & it has to be changed.

If you lose the players, you're gone. Mancini lost the players, even the ones he played regularly aren't backing him. The rest can't even manage a public 'goodbye' let alone 'good luck'. I've never seen apathy from players & staff on that level from any manager's sacking, & we've had a few. It's plainly obvious things had gone wrong. It's best we start again.

agree 100%, well put

Swales4ever wrote:
this almost makes sense to me, including the smooth approach to the whole, now that's time to move on.
The mass rebellions or mass player discord is certainly utter bollocks, awkwardly spinned.
The assumed relational difficulties. if ever actually existed and not aptly organized, were the same in place when the same team fought back 12 points off the rags. that's a fact.
another fact is that City have pretty always strolled on the Latics all along the Mancini tenure, until interested winds started to blow and resound on the ears of lads still far from featuring a winning attitude.

What hurts, and should hurt every sensed Blues, is that we have turned once again the negative corner, instead of running down the path of the dynasty that would have been built, should the manager had been backed as Ferguson had, for the good and the bad starting from delivering the players which he strongly claimed for, and that we will see coming this summer, just for another very striking coincidence.

I am not a Mancunian and certainly shall never earn respect needed to openly debate on this Community, but what ultimately strikes me is what I'd call "the happy cheated attitude" of us Blues fans, as there's no doubt in my mind that the very difference in fortune between us and United is that they have always profited when they have been on the money, while we always find a way to turn the wrong corner and get back to square one.

Then, please everyone enjoy and believe that I am just bitter because Mancini left, as if I was Mancini's agent and had anything to gain from his staying or sacking, other than the enhancement of the Club I support.

I don't agree that we would have built a dynasty on Mancini, not because he isn't a talented Manager, I believe he is extremely talented ... But I do not believe that he has the personality to be able to be at the head of a successful dynasty. Mancini is a winner, and he will be successful wherever he goes and whatever he chooses to do. But I don't see him staying anywhere more than 5 years at max, and I don't mean that to be down to on the field success.

I also don't think the clubs aim is to build the same type of dynasty as the scum had done. The figurehead of that dynasty was fergie and there is basically no one in the game today that wields the kind of power that he has been allowed to. Mancini grabbed for that kind of power, and he made use of it for whatever short time he held it in some bizarre ways.

kinkylola wrote:

Swales4ever wrote:
this almost makes sense to me, including the smooth approach to the whole, now that's time to move on.
The mass rebellions or mass player discord is certainly utter bollocks, awkwardly spinned.
The assumed relational difficulties. if ever actually existed and not aptly organized, were the same in place when the same team fought back 12 points off the rags. that's a fact.
another fact is that City have pretty always strolled on the Latics all along the Mancini tenure, until interested winds started to blow and resound on the ears of lads still far from featuring a winning attitude.

What hurts, and should hurt every sensed Blues, is that we have turned once again the negative corner, instead of running down the path of the dynasty that would have been built, should the manager had been backed as Ferguson had, for the good and the bad starting from delivering the players which he strongly claimed for, and that we will see coming this summer, just for another very striking coincidence.

I am not a Mancunian and certainly shall never earn respect needed to openly debate on this Community, but what ultimately strikes me is what I'd call "the happy cheated attitude" of us Blues fans, as there's no doubt in my mind that the very difference in fortune between us and United is that they have always profited when they have been on the money, while we always find a way to turn the wrong corner and get back to square one.

Then, please everyone enjoy and believe that I am just bitter because Mancini left, as if I was Mancini's agent and had anything to gain from his staying or sacking, other than the enhancement of the Club I support.

I don't agree that we would have built a dynasty on Mancini, not because he isn't a talented Manager, I believe he is extremely talented ... But I do not believe that he has the personality to be able to be at the head of a successful dynasty. Mancini is a winner, and he will be successful wherever he goes and whatever he chooses to do. But I don't see him staying anywhere more than 5 years at max, and I don't mean that to be down to on the field success.

I also don't think the clubs aim is to build the same type of dynasty as the scum had done. The figurehead of that dynasty was fergie and there is basically no one in the game today that wields the kind of power that he has been allowed to. Mancini grabbed for that kind of power, and he made use of it for whatever short time he held it in some bizarre ways.

that's a fair opinion, as respectable as anyone.
nothing to argue rather than slight disagreement on my very biased side.