by Im_Spartacus » Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:22 am
20 minutes after the game, there were nearly 500 people on this board no doubt most attracted by the scent of blood.
I sense a real danger, as no doubt many others do that the board is in danger could deteriorate into a worse mess than we had before xmas, and throughout last year as certain feuds from that era are clearly continuing. Personally, as one of the "haters" I know how strongly people can feel about a manager who they feel just isnt doing their club justice, and I think Mancini is proving to be a grade F "fail" at the moment, in my eyes doing an even worse job than Hughes was, but as I think CTK raised in a post last night, the one upmanship engaged in by some posters on this thread in particular is embarrassing.
The very same people calling for stability last year, who were after 2/3 games under Mancini whining that NQDP, Socrates or whoever else told us that Mancini was the second coming were "posting out of smugness", are now posting out of the same smugness that actually "they got it right", "Hughes should have stayed" etc etc, and blaming those people for the predicament we are now in - which if you want to split hairs, is actually higher in the league than we were when Hughes went and thus closer to the goal Mancini was appointed for.
End of the day, its irrelevant, as he was sacked, and it had nothing to do with what anyone on here said or felt, it was because the chairman did not think he was the man to take us where he wanted us to go. I would add that this owner, chairman and board have NO connection to any past Manchester City regime, and therefore the accusations that this is TYPICAL City sacking yet another manager, are also unfounded, they made their decision to remove Hughes from their own view of what was going on, not because it is Man City's way to sack managers after 5 minutes.
I'd also like to close down the myth that a "large number" of people held this view about Mancini being the second coming - bullshit, the number in the Mancini lobbying group (those who actively voiced support for Mancini long before Hughes was sacked) was in low single digit numbers. Funnily enough the group who wanted Hughes out from the start for being a rag was also in the low single digits (some were even the same people in both groups). The original thread when Hughes was appointed is documentary proof there were maybe a handful of people who were against hughes because of a "non-footballing agenda", yet that has also been lied about constantly by some posters to suit their own ends, suggesting that anyone who wanted Hughes out was "just because he was a rag", or anyone who now supports Mancini is doing so because "they were the ones who wanted Hughes sacked" which by and large is a total falsehood.
In both cases, the myth perpetuated from a few posters that both these groups were huge from the very start, which is a blatent lie. The vast majority who opposed Hughes formed their view on watching what happened on the pitch, just as now, people are forming their opinions on Mancini based on the same reasons. It would be better all round therefore if people stopped lying about the numbers of people who had pre-conceived ideas about a manager, just to suit whatever agenda they want to peddle, or to find a group of people to blame
I'm all for criticism of a manager when it is warranted, and will join the rest in being vocal about the shite we are seeing at the moment, but please can people stop this silly points scoring about who is right and who was wrong about Hughes. The fact is, all evidence is pointing towards us going backwards, and ultimately if Mancini fails to deliver, he will be gone in the summer.
That is again, not us pressing the panic button and being typical city as some would like to think, but an admission that we appointed the wrong man.
Last edited by
Im_Spartacus on Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
