to our owners and manager

[dbinod]

this is the most important thing i have learned from watching football.
in one word i like to say we should not do the same mistake that chelsea did.
the biggest mistake chelsea did was sacking mourinho.and changing manager every now and then.
that led to players feeling themselves superior than any manager coming to fullfill the post.this
brings unstability to the team. in the other hand taking faith in alex furguson in the late 90 s
bought prosperity to man utd.same to that of arsenal.they are building a great team with arsene wenger.
the other thig is the character of players .character of terry ,ashley cole
are not the tolerable one .see what unstsbility terry bought in the national team after his incidence.
his form has declined. chelsea is also paying the price of it.i dont think now chelsea will win anything
this season.in the other hand players of man utd and arsenal cannot think about doing same thing that
the chelsea players do.this is the stability given by a manager.and i dont think changing manager will ever
bring that stability.

i am a big fan of man city. i like the way .the club is doing good.

[dazby]

Very good points mate. If Mancio is our man then let him be the man, until it is abundantly clear that he is not.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

How did rags put their faith in Fergie in late 90's? More like late 80's.

[dazby]

Don't get pedantic NQDP. They could have sacked him at anytime but they didn't.

[john@staustell]

Personally I think we're progressing and Mancini should be given time.

But the 'given time' full stop argument is generally discredited by the host of failed, useless mangers in football, many over the years at City. Imagine if Alan Ball had been given time, or Ramos at Spuds. Just as two examples. LOL!

[The Man In Blue]

Don't get pedantic NQDP. They could have sacked him at anytime but they didn't.

yeah Antii, no one likes a pedant.

and its "the rags" not "rags" in that context.

[Ted Hughes]

Mostly, City's tradition has been to sack managers purely for hitting an occasional bad spell or not quite living up to their short term expectations rather than for being bad. In fact it's often been the bloke who comes in next who turns out to be awful, for example Alan Ball following Brian Horton both of whom struggled to match Peter Reid.

Even times of apparent success like Keegan following Joe Royle are not as black & white as they seem. Joe Royle did what he did with no money. Keegan had success but bankrupted the club & no way would Joe Royle have put us in that position. Royle's signings were bargains, Keegan's were mostly wasteful & we ended up skint with Pearce because of him.

Now we have the shadow of Mourinho looming over Mancini. I'm sure Mourinho can deliver success here but can we guarantee it instantly? If it doesn't happen instantly, what then? Is it not better just to back Mancini provided he keeps us on a nice upward curve & IF a few years down the line we stop progressing THEN think about a change? Surely our future is pretty secure & the only way we can cock it up is by getting a bad reputation? We did ourselves no favours with the way we treated Hughes. Let's not do it again unless it's obvious he can't do the job ( & that doesn't mean drawing a few games!!). There will be great managers available in the future including Mourinho, he's young. Let's find out if the bloke we've got is a great manager rather than wanting everything instantly.

Let's have some patience for once in our history & both manager & board try to build something, please.

[colonel_muck]

couldn't agree more with OP. Was sick and tired of our managerial merry go round when we sacked sven. Would have liked to have seen us keep hughes, only cos of the stability factor. And I can't help feeling Manc will be out the door if we don't get fourth.

[Wonderwall]

Mostly, City's tradition has been to sack managers purely for hitting an occasional bad spell or not quite living up to their short term expectations rather than for being bad. In fact it's often been the bloke who comes in next who turns out to be awful, for example Alan Ball following Brian Horton both of whom struggled to match Peter Reid.

Even times of apparent success like Keegan following Joe Royle are not as black & white as they seem. Joe Royle did what he did with no money. Keegan had success but bankrupted the club & no way would Joe Royle have put us in that position. Royle's signings were bargains, Keegan's were mostly wasteful & we ended up skint with Pearce because of him.

Now we have the shadow of Mourinho looming over Mancini. I'm sure Mourinho can deliver success here but can we guarantee it instantly? If it doesn't happen instantly, what then? Is it not better just to back Mancini provided he keeps us on a nice upward curve & IF a few years down the line we stop progressing THEN think about a change? Surely our future is pretty secure & the only way we can cock it up is by getting a bad reputation? We did ourselves no favours with the way we treated Hughes. Let's not do it again unless it's obvious he can't do the job ( & that doesn't mean drawing a few games!!). There will be great managers available in the future including Mourinho, he's young. Let's find out if the bloke we've got is a great manager rather than wanting everything instantly.

Let's have some patience for once in our history & both manager & board try to build something, please.

all very sensible Ted, however, to doom mongers will soon be preaching that Mourinho is proven in Europe....etc....etc.... <continue going round in circles until there are no managers left>

We should let the majestic spectacle that is Manchester City just unfold and enjoy being a BIG CLUB that everyone is watching at the moment.