LookMumImOnMCF.net wrote:Mancio4ever wrote:LookMumImOnMCF.net wrote:Find it worrying that people can say "It's not a Mancini signing" and then just bin it off. The relationships between the people running the team and making the transfers are arguably more important than this pointless signing.
By my own personal meaning of management I certainly do agree.
At the same time, I find it as much worrying that people can pretend not to have seen what smooth Personnel policy the Ownership have applied since the take over. I will never, ever, accept a responsibility of anything I am not fully in charge of.
Pretending to apply a spoil system measure of judgement to Mancini, as if he has been charged with the same powers of the Exxon CEO, it's not just worrying it's plain ridicule.
It took 2 years and a couple of hundred thousands wasted millions to offload a media sweet darling, a couple of years to reshape a modern physio room and 3 whole seasons, of well documented missed targets, to have a senior sporting director in charge of the market.
Mancini holds his own responsibilities for his mistakes, but to try and paint him as if he has been allowed to run the Club as if he was a Plenipotentiary Manager from the 60ies it's just the measure of the perceived damage that some people are desperate to write on him.
I am a licker, a johnny foreigner and a daft cunt cause I'll never realize why turning down that fucking banner at the Swamp and posing an every season treat to the former establishment should have regarded with such a blatant ingratitude and disrespect.
Yeah, everyone could have done it with such a wealth, but actually just one managed to do it.
I'm not really sure whether you agree or disagree with me. I find that a lot of people on this forum now expand any discussion out to include Mancini's highs and lows as a manger during his time when it's really unnecessary.
Of course he's been great and delivered trophies. But that doesn't mean he can't have his failings too, he's only human. Maybe with Sinclair he made a mistake, maybe some other chump signed him. Who knows? It's not really an issue I don't think. I think the issue is people dismissing some signings as "Not of Mancini" and then just moving on and writing it off like that's OK.
Not everyone is out to dismantle Mancini's whole time at the club in every single topic.
Blimey Mate, I owe apologies for my elliptical way of arguing... poor handling of the language doesn't help either, as You know :-)
I do agree with You, Fidel and alias that once someone accept that his name is written on the manager's door must hold responsibility for everything he accepted to be done under his name. I for one, have tried to restrict contingencies of this stone wall rule since the very first little piece of shit I took on my shoulders when I was just 26.
I also think that trying and trade the purchases of Junno, Sinclair and the likes as Mancini signings, on a fans footballing debate, which is and should be different from a theory of management scholarship, it's obnoxious and piss funny at the same time.
We all know what targets were agreed at the Abu Dhabi meetings, season after season, and what purchases have been performed while spending almost the same money, but going on a different footballing benchmarck which now, with the establishment of the passing game men fron Barcelona have been finally withdrawn.
Overall, and above all, I do agree with the pragmatic approach of the General: managers and players come and go, the Club (hopefully stands) and we shall all be great until the Club shall stay safe in the hands of the current Ownership, irrespectively of managers and players which might always be corrected along the way.
So if You want to have a stroll on midtable with the likes of De Boer, Pellegrini, Rodgers just to prove Your gut feelings wrong, who the fucling shite am I to prevent a Mate from such a leisure?... :-)
