Mancini sacked

Blatter

Xavi, I do think the sacking is mainly down to Begiristain. He was brought to the club in October and what would the point of that been if he wasn't going to be working with a manager that's compatible with him? Not saying Mancini was definitely incompatible, but he does strike me as a guy that likes to be in full control of things himself. It would also explain the Pellegrini links.

I don't think there sacking him just because he won nothing this season, I think it's more the case that they're really backing Begiristain and his philosophy.

Demosthenese

Xavi6 wrote: »

It tells you that United signed the Premier League's top scorer and reaped the rewards while City stayed still.

But they didn't stand still did they? Rodwell, Sinclair and Maicon!!! Who is responsible for these players? buck stops with the gaffer. In either case he still failed to progress with the players he had, some of them having awful seasons compared to the previous - again Gaffer gotta motivate them and keep them fresh. I agree that they missed out on RVP but there are other great strikers out there.

Xavi6 wrote: »

No he didn't. He wanted Van Persie and others, Brian Marwood and the owners were the ones responsible for the likes of Sinclair. Mancini didn't play him because he didn't rate someone who wasn't his signing.

Someone is to blame for the lack in quality of players he signed. Unfortunately it still is the managers fault cos his neck is on the chopping block. Alex Ferguson probably didn't choose Bebe but still got the flak for it.

Xavi6 wrote: »

And that's one stick with which he can be beaten but is it enough to form part of the case for sacking him? Not for me, there's enough scouts, academy officials etc to be doing that donkey work if it's that important.

Hard to say if he is involved enough but thats the qhispers that are going around, thet he wasn't interested or involved enough in development and wanted a blank cheque. We will never know. And yes the new manager will need to deal with the same crap.

Xavi6 wrote: »

So back to square one is the solution. You said that City went backwards this season, well we'll only head one way while a whole new regime is put in place.

Possibly, they need to find the right replacement. Easier said than done. I do not know Pelegrini well enough but there are managers that seem to want to be involved in every aspect of the club like Fergie and even Rafa who were fanatical about having total control - and managers that are not. Its a big decision no doubt, don't get me wrong i would not sack him lightly BUT there is enough on the plate to raise the case. With United changing their manager it is extremely risky as Mancini would have had alot of plans for the coming season in place.

Alas, we do not make these decisions do we ... interesting times ahead, top3 clubs changing so much.

Yakult

Harsh sacking but I do think they did underachieve quiet a bit. Hopeless in Europe, beaten by a relegation threatened Wigan in the cup final and didnt even put up a fight to retain the title. Not good enough with the resources at hand.

COYVB

bad2dabone wrote: »

35 millllllion!! and probably gonna walk into another job soon enough.

He'll get a pay-off of a year's wages, maybe 2 years if he's incredibly lucky, and he'll be paid his full wage until he gets a new job. That's usually how these things work

CSF

Demosthenese wrote: »

Mancini has the most expensive squad assembled in PL, he HAD a championship winning team, he had all he could ask for and more but wasn't able to even compete in the PL this season AND was a badly exposed in Europe two season in a row. He lost to a Wigan side in Fa cup that his team had beaten 7 successive times and without conceding a single goal.

What does that tell you?

He went backwards in one season all that he managed to accomplish last season. Added to that, he mismanaged Ballotelli, Tevez, Harte and Nasri, constantly undermined the players and moaned about not signing RVP all season long as the reason why his side suddenly could not compete (not even win) the Premier league. He signed guys like Scott Sinclair and never gave them a go, apologised for not giving him a go and still left him on the sidelines.

It is noted that he was not investing enough time in the clubs youth policy and if you place City and Chelsea side by side, money versus money you will see that Chelsea are overflowing with young talent and within a few more years will see them signing less and less expensive players and bring these kids through.

So all in all, Mancini is a little like Ronseal, he did exactly what he intended to do and succeeded to do what he was brought in for. BUT - they now need someone to overhaul their system and bring them forward longterm. Not saying Pelegrini is the man for that job but when you have billions at your disposal i would have sacked him as well.

Legacys take time to build, it is unrealistic to expect him to come in and win everything immediately, just because he spent money. If football worked that way Chelsea wouldn't be so long without a title now.

Xavi6

Blatter wrote: »

Xavi, I do think the sacking is mainly down to Begiristain. He was brought to the club in October and what would the point of that been if he wasn't going to be working with a manager that's compatible with him? Not saying Mancini was definitely incompatible, but he does strike me as a guy that likes to be in full control of things himself. It would also explain the Pellegrini links.

I don't think there sacking him just because he won nothing this season, I think it's more the case that they're really backing Begiristain and his philosophy.

It's a big gamble because there's a serious danger of "doing a Chelsea" (not disrespect to Chelsea intended).

I don't know enough about Pellegrini and frankly, right now I don't care who comes in. That'll come in time. At the moment I'm too annoyed at how a manager who won us the title 12 months ago to the day has been treated over the past week.

It's a disgrace.

Demosthenese wrote: »

But they didn't stand still did they? Rodwell, Sinclair and Maicon!!! Who is responsible for these players? buck stops with the gaffer. In either case he still failed to progress with the players he had, some of them having awful seasons compared to the previous - again Gaffer gotta motivate them and keep them fresh. I agree that they missed out on RVP but there are other great strikers out there.


Someone is to blame for the lack in quality of players he signed. Unfortunately it still is the managers fault cos his neck is on the chopping block. Alex Ferguson probably didn't choose Bebe but still got the flak for it.

But that's just it, he wasn't responsible for them. Marwood scouted them, recommended them to the owners and they were signed. Funnily enough Marwood has been moved to another role since so they know he fecked up.

Mancini 100% did not want Scott Sinclair.

Alas, we do not make these decisions do we ... interesting times ahead, top3 clubs changing so much.

Indeed we don't. The forum is getting good miles out of football over the last couple of weeks anyway!

bad2dabone

It's mean spirited not letting him last till the end of the season.

Demosthenese

CSF wrote: »

Legacys take time to build, it is unrealistic to expect him to come in and win everything immediately, just because he spent money. If football worked that way Chelsea wouldn't be so long without a title now.

Cannot win everything thats life ... but to compete, to run them close, to make em worry that you are breathing down their necks. To get out of the Champions league group once in 2 seasons? To look like you are performing and making progress in the same competition.

... are ALL expectations that a team that won last season and cost so much should be nailing each year. With great price comes GREAT responsibility

I am sure Mancini will be crying into his cornflakes tomorrow with his big fat cheque in the post. If they make the right appointment then its all good though isn't it?

Red Crow

City would be far better off getting rid of Marwood, Txiki etc. Let the new manager run the football club properly and sign the players that he needs.

The director of football role is a bit of a joke in football and it's just another form of someone getting in the way of running a club correctly. The last thing City need is someone controlling all those players and resources who is just going to be a puppet.

Blatter

Xavi6 wrote: »

It's a big gamble because there's a serious danger of "doing a Chelsea" (not disrespect to Chelsea intended).

I don't know enough about Pellegrini and frankly, right now I don't care who comes in. That'll come in time. At the moment I'm too annoyed at how a manager who won us the title 12 months ago to the day has been treated over the past week.

It's a disgrace.

Oh I agree, I'm just trying to decipher it all from the owners pov.

CSF

Demosthenese wrote: »

Cannot win everything thats life ... but to compete, to run them close, to make em worry that you are breathing down their necks. To get out of the Champions league group once in 2 seasons? To look like you are performing and making progress in the same competition.

... are ALL expectations that a team that won last season and cost so much should be nailing each year. With great price comes GREAT responsibility

I am sure Mancini will be crying into his cornflakes tomorrow with his big fat cheque in the post. If they make the right appointment then its all good though isn't it?

A Premiership title, an FA Cup, and a runners up in both of these competitions indicated that Mancini was good enough to be given time to build greatness. For a club like City, investment money is a pre-requisite for any chance of success, not a reason to demand it. They weren't even close to Champions League qualifying before it.

It is difficult for Mancini when competing against Ferguson who had decades to build a club, having had Scholes, Giggs, Ferdinand, Carrick, Vidic, Rooney etc for what seems like an eternity now, and only needing to freshen it up a little each season. Mancini had to put a whole team together. Doesn't leave room for error, the same kind of error Fergie has made with the likes of Veron, Forlan, Barthez etc. but gotten away with for reasons listed above. Mancini had to risk on too many players at once

bradlente

Eli Manning wrote: »

City would be far better off getting rid of Marwood, Txiki etc. Let the new manager run the football club properly and sign the players that he needs.

The director of football role is a bit of a joke in football and it's just another form of someone getting in the way of running a club correctly. The last thing City need is someone controlling all those players and resources who is just going to be a puppet.

It would be understandable if the role came under staff employed by the gaffer maybe.The way the role is played at some club's is laughable,Coaches at odd's with director's to the complete detriment of any club harmony or good atmosphere in general.How so many player's come in over the manager's head in these place's is absurd.

Demosthenese

CSF wrote: »

It is difficult for Mancini when competing against Ferguson who had decades to build a club, having had Scholes, Giggs, Ferdinand, Carrick, Vidic, Rooney etc for what seems like an eternity now, and only needing to freshen it up a little each season. Mancini had to put a whole team together. Doesn't leave room for error,

Exactly it doesn't leave room for error - just ask the last 6 Chelsea managers! it seems City are just as bad as chelsea for making rash calls on managers but i don't think Mancini had alot going for him this season at all, it was a busted flush ages ago - masked when they beat United in the league. Upon reflection, with all the man management issues he went through, under performing players etc ... he errored and now will make room :cool:

Strongbow10

Very worried about City now, chances are the new boss will take you lot onto a whole new level

Your fans have been classy in their backing of Mancini when other clubs probably wouldn't, but the guy isn't a top bracket manager.

Hes your typical coach who lands on his feet at big clubs, cosying up to sugar daddys with bags of money and wins things only when everything is stacked in his favour.

He could stay with ye for 10 years and you would never achieve in Europe either, he is a very flawed manager and has shown this at Inter too.

Onwards and upwards for ye

Pellegrini would do a great job IF given time. He has pedigree of doing it with or without money. Record points haul with Real, and took 2 unfancied Spanish sides to the latter stages of the Champions league. Good man management skills and also a very honourable man too.

miralize

Holy ****

Xavi6

This piece echoes a lot of my thoughts -

http://espnfc.com/columns/story/_/id/1446728/manchester-city-gamble-firing-popular-roberto-mancini?cc=3436

And, after Sir Alex Ferguson announced his retirement at Manchester United, there is something strange in City dispensing with a manager who proved capable of taking a title from the Scot.

Deserved another year, and at the very least a better ending than this.

dfx-

I wouldn't mind listening to Mina Rzouki and Gab Marcotti arguing the pros and cons of this move, from the anti-Mancini and pro-Mancini points of view respectively.

Oranage2

A sad day for your average city supporter who started following them the last 4-5 years, by far the best manager they had in this time.

likable guy just city really need a really special ring master.

Xavi6

Oranage2 wrote: »

A sad day for your average city supporter who started following them the last 4-5 years, by far the best manager they had in this time.

likable guy just city really need a really special ring master.

niallo27

I think it's a ****en disgrace that a man that won the title last year could be sacked within one season. They came 2nd this year FFS. You might understand it if he dropped out of the top 4. Football is turning into a joke with these desicions.

LuckyLloyd

niallo27 wrote: »

I think it's a ****en disgrace that a man that won the title last year could be sacked within one season. They came 2nd this year FFS. You might understand it if he dropped out of the top 4. Football is turning into a joke with these desicions.

But this is the climate. From Ancelotti being let go within a year of a league title; Dalglish being let go after two cup finals; McCarthy being sacked at Wolves with no replacement or accompanying change to backroom staff organised - impatience and snap sackings exist at all levels of the game and has done for some time. Jupp Heynckes won a Champions League in 1998 and was let go days later. Down the divisions, managers are routinely let go if it isn't working out within the first couple of months.

Within that climate, the key question has now become 'is the replacement an upgrade?' Mancini did a decent job relative to the resources at his disposal. A League and an FA Cup is hitting a fairly minimal standard given the context of the massive investment and the strength of squad he has to work with. The European results are a massive red flag imo, and what he's done at City fit with what he managed at Inter. He's far from a bad manager, he's decent. But City can do a lot better.

If the replacement is Pellegrini then it's a good move imo. If the replacement was Roberto Martinez or Brendan Rodgers then it would be a dreadful decision. Now that Ferguson is gone and Wenger just can't seem to make it happen anymore at Arsenal like he once did City have a genuine opportunity to dominate domestically and use it as a platform for an assualt on the Champions League. Chelsea will obviously be thinking the same thing. I don't think it is an unreasonable conclusion that Mancini is not the best available man to make that happen.

jaykay74

Sacking him yesterday and not letting him see out the last game and say goodbye the supporters is poor from City. Maybe they felt this period was a good time to bury bad news with a lot of attention on Fergie.

DoctorGonzo08

Blatter wrote: »

Xavi, I do think the sacking is mainly down to Begiristain. He was brought to the club in October and what would the point of that been if he wasn't going to be working with a manager that's compatible with him? Not saying Mancini was definitely incompatible, but he does strike me as a guy that likes to be in full control of things himself. It would also explain the Pellegrini links.

I don't think there sacking him just because he won nothing this season, I think it's more the case that they're really backing Begiristain and his philosophy.

I'd have to agree with this on reflection. With the added interference of Marwood and lately Al Mubarak. They were all very quiet up until City won the league. All of sudden they have all come out trying to stamp their authority, which has gone huge lengths to undermining Mancini. I suppose it was only a matter of time when you have the likes of these behind the scenes. Problem is they are out now and won't go away. Next manager will have to deal with this rubbish from the start.

Stupidity really. If they wanted the success they claim, they would have achieved it by letting Mancini bring in the players he wanted and show support for him. Instead, they thought success was a given and they wanted a piece of the limelight. They caused this season, and Mancini is the scapegoat.

But all that aside, to make him walk with two games remaining is just despicable. What are they hoping to achieve? Really sickening behaviour.

TheDoc

Have to say think he laid his bed out last summer.

The transfer window was pathetic, and his groaning and moaning was nothing short of throwing the toys out of the pram. While a bit speculative, it allowed critics to aim that he was purposefully loosing and drawing games to make a point.

The purchase of Sinclair, Maicon and Rodwell was EXTREMELY weak and I think some serious bridges were burnt over the course of the summer, where he set himself up for the fall if he didn't deliver the Premier League defence. Being a bit more coy and tactful, I would imagine he would have still had his job.

So while there is the obvious sympathy for a guy who a year after winning the league title has been sacked, at the same time we need to recognise that this was a manager who frequently scaved his players, was totally inept in Europe, and took a principled stance of defiance when the club wouldn't part the red sea to sign the players he wanted.

Potential for City to start going down the Chelsea route now. Should have setup for domestic dominance, spunk it away through poor club management. And all the sweeter for United fans I'm afraid. Not a swipe at the rivalry. But I remember the fear Mourinho's Chelsea gave me. City didn't come close to that, but it was growing that way. But now it's firmly gone.

TheDoc

jaykay74 wrote: »

Sacking him yesterday and not letting him see out the last game and say goodbye the supporters is poor from City. Maybe they felt this period was a good time to bury bad news with a lot of attention on Fergie.

I'd imagine the decision was moved forward due to the massive leak. Nobody is daft enough to think the planned sacking was yesterday/today. Obviously they would have made the announcement at the end of season, let him get a send off and it could have been a respectful farewell.

However with the rumours splurting about and the to be fair, less then convincing denials from Pellegrini, the club had no choice really.

AdamD

The fact that the 2 signings he was linked 2 and moaned about not getting were RVP and De Rossi says a lot for me. That squad certainly didn't need another striker and holding midfielder, it needed wingers. I don't buy this lack of CL experience ****e as an excuse either. Teams like Malaga/Dortmund/Spurs have all done absolutely fine in the CL without qualifying for it year on year. Its a terrible excuse for failing miserably in the competition.

cournioni

niallo27 wrote: »

I think it's a ****en disgrace that a man that won the title last year could be sacked within one season. They came 2nd this year FFS. You might understand it if he dropped out of the top 4. Football is turning into a joke with these desicions.

Totally agree, absolute joke of a decision and it is decisions like this that I believe makes football a poorer spectacle on the pitch.

How are players supposed to take orders from a manager that is more than likely going to be at a club for a shorter period of time than the players themselves? Ridiculous.

Essien

I can't help but feel that City will be stronger without him. He's done alright, but I'm confident that there are guys out there who can and will do better with those resources. For that reason, the sacking makes sense at least, the way it was done leaves a lot to be desired. Let the media say what they want about who'll be managing City next season, the club just should have let him stay for the next couple of weeks and then give him a more respectable send off.

Xavi6

TheDoc wrote: »

The purchase of Sinclair, Maicon and Rodwell was EXTREMELY weak and I think some serious bridges were burnt over the course of the summer, where he set himself up for the fall if he didn't deliver the Premier League defence. Being a bit more coy and tactful, I would imagine he would have still had his job.

As has already been said, he didn't want Sinclair or Rodwell, Brian Marwood had them signed against Mancini's will.

Last summer's disaster is more to do with those upstairs than Mancini, sure Marwood was shipped off to an academy role months ago because of it.

There are criticisms to be levelled at Mancini but those signings aren't part of it.

GavRedKing

Anyone on Twitter checkout @steaziz_kitman

Hes sticking the boot into Mancini at the moment and hes a City kitman.

Arrogant, vein, self centred no manner ignorant just some of Mancinis daily triats really madegoing into work a grind!!

Not my style to come in here and start to bad mouth someone but this guy really was a piece of work.

Fans dont get to see what really goes on and day 2 day running 2 years there seeinghim every day was hard work getting a "good morning"

Edit : Actually looking at his Twitter he looks to be an ex-kit man at City.

He said he doesnt like Mancini on a personal level and has nothing to do with the footballing side.

DoctorGonzo08

Xavi6 wrote: »

As has already been said, he didn't want Sinclair or Rodwell, Brian Marwood had them signed against Mancini's will.

Last summer's disaster is more to do with those upstairs than Mancini, sure Marwood was shipped off to an academy role months ago because of it.

There are criticisms to be levelled at Mancini but those signings aren't part of it.

I wouldn't even bother to dispute the ramblings of those that can't be bothered to engage in a debate. You start to sound like a broken record. You forget that some expressing themselves in here have a better grasp of football than Mancini himself, not to mention Zidane :rolleyes:

Xavi6

GavRedKing wrote: »

Anyone on Twitter checkout @steaziz_kitman

Hes sticking the boot into Mancini at the moment and hes a City kitman.

Ex-City assistant kit man, he's at Sunderland now.

No one will ever replace Les "there since 1993" Chapman :cool:

GavRedKing

Xavi6 wrote: »

Ex-City kit man, he's at Sunderland now.

Just copped that a minute ago reading his tweets and profile.

Comes across very bitter TBH, somebody on his profile mentioned a tweet De Jong sent last night, know anything about it?

Xavi6

GavRedKing wrote: »

Just copped that a minute ago reading his tweets and profile.

Comes across very bitter TBH, somebody on his profile mentioned a tweet De Jong sent last night, know anything about it?

No haven't seen anything by the players, I don't follow any of them as they're like 99.9% percent of footballers - dull as fook!

GavRedKing

Xavi6 wrote: »

No haven't seen anything by the players, I don't follow any of them as they're like 99.9% percent of footballers - dull as fook!

Other then Barton but hes painful at times.

I'm actually surprised they didnt give Mancini at least until the last home game of the season to say goodbye and let the fans show their appreaction for the guy who brought them success the last few seasons.

It wasa PR gaffe IMO.

Al Capwned

Shocking decision not to at least give him till after the last home game. I know it was a bit of a farce with Hughes when something similar happened, but it would not have harmed the club in any shape or form to show Mancini a bit of respect and to let him have that.

The_Kew_Tour

Exactly a year after City's greatest day and they could of least sacked him after Reading game.

In fairness City fans can't do much about owners if they want him out what can they really do? They have appreciated what he did like they should.

Lennonist

People are complaining about the timing of Mancini's sacking, but I don't think anyone is surprised that it happened. He simply wasn't getting the best out of the resources that was there. When they won the league in dramatic fashion last season that gave him another year to get on top of the job. He should have insisted that Tevez and Balotelli were moved out of the club, at least he would've went out on something like his own terms then. At Chelsea he probably would've been sacked after finishing bottom of their CL Group last December.

ush

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Dalglish being let go after two cup finals;

Two cup finals and one Andy Carroll

Anyone

Not a shock really, he spent a fortune on players and did nothing in the Champions League. The distance between them and Utd cost him more so than actually being 2nd imo.

Anyway, this is modern day football.

jmayo

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

This is bad from a United supporter's perspective..

I said that in the ferguson retirement thread.
the worse possible start for moyes would be Mourinho coming back to Chelsea and/or City getting a proper manager.

Zaph wrote: »

Translation of club statement:

Really makes you wish for the old days when there was no money in football sometimes.

Mancini had wads of money, more than anyone else and he still couldn't use it.

DM-ICE wrote: »

Mancini won the league last year, he deserves a lot of credit for that.

Mourinho gets unreal praise for spending a load of money at Chelsea and getting the players to gel. Mancini, little praise and little credit.

European runs were not great (stinker if a group this year) but I thought he deserved more time. I think the some of the players were a big part of the problem this year.

I think sacking Mancini puts unnecessary power into the hands of under performing players, like what happened at Chelsea.

Arrivederci Roberto.

Its going to be a mad summer!

Please stop comparing Mourinho to Mancini.
They are on a different plane.
Mourinho didn't inherit titles or watch his competition be relegated or deducted points.

And it is also a bit of a myth to always claim Mourinhos success is down to money.
The players he brought to Inter were :
Mancini, Sulley Muntari, Ricardo Quaresma, Diego Milito, Thiago Motta, Wesley Sneijder, and Samuel Eto.
In the process he offloaded Zlatan Ibrahimović to Barca for an astronomical fee in exchange for Eto and he dumped all the old guys like Crespo, Adriano, Figo.
He managed to get Inter to win the CL wheras Mancini can't make it past the first round.

5starpool wrote: »

Does Pellegrini even speak much English? I thought I read reports before that he was far from fluent. Could be a disaster if so.

Why is this myth still persisting ?
He fecking speaks better english than some of the err British managers, particularly some of those retired over the last couple of years.

Mr.Micro

The politics of the premier league are often even more exciting than the football. It is like the TV series a Game of Thrones...... great.

I am sorry to see Mancini go but me may have not been a good communicator with the team and the board. We have not hear his side of the story yet, but the lacklustre performances of the team this season suggest all was not well.

DoctorGonzo08

jmayo wrote: »

I said that in the ferguson retirement thread.
the worse possible start for moyes would be Mourinho coming back to Chelsea and/or City getting a proper manager.

1. Mancini had wads of money, more than anyone else and he still couldn't use it.
2. Please stop comparing Mourinho to Mancini. They are on a different plane. Mourinho didn't inherit titles or watch his competition be relegated or deducted points.
3. And it is also a bit of a myth to always claim Mourinhos success is down to money.
4. He managed to get Inter to win the CL wheras Mancini can't make it past the first round.

I have FYP to just highlight your points. Mainly because the tought process is a bit all over the place.

Firstly, by saying 'proper manager' are you implying somehow that Mancini is not actually a manager? TO be the 4th highest win rate for a manager in the Premier League is quite an achievement for somebody who isn't really a manager.

Right, first point, both Chelsea and Liverpool spent more money in transfers in the same period as Mancini. (Excluding Net Spend of course, which thus excludes Liverpool from the high sums paid).

Second point, I believe Mourinho has managed other teams than Inter. But as you mention it, he did inherit titles as Mancini had won 3 of the last 4 Serie A titles before him. As was mentioned in the City forum, the points deduction has played a large part in that and Mourinho also benefited from that.

Third point, as above, he has also managed Chelsea, and also Madrid, where he has sppent a vast fortune bringing in some of the worlds top talent.

Last point, you are mixing up clubs again. Mancini reached the quarter finals and first round twice with Inter. He failed to qualify from the group with City. Not a great achievment by any means, but at least it is true.

Tbh, you obviously think highly of the Moyes appointment if you consider his main stumbling block is the appointment of other managers. Surely it would be his own performance.

All in all, you're post has been very poor .

StephenHendry

always liked mancini as a player growing up watching italian soccer on channel 4 on saturday mornings, i though he was a good manager but his failings in the CL with Inter and City have come back to haunt him, yet i feel roberto deserved at the very least another season to turn things around, afterall he is/was city's most successful managers already

Montroseee

Anyone seen the twitter account that talks about 'Mansinni.'

Ormus

Mancini didn't seem like his heart was in it this season.

He had 4 world class strikers so it's a weak argument that not signing another striker cost him the title.

He may or may not have wanted to sign Sinclair, Garcia, Maicon and Rodwell, but he made very little effort to integrate them in the team. Of course that's partly down to the fact that they didn't shine, but there were times when it seemed like he wanted them to fail so that he could show the board they should have coughed up for RvP, Martinez etc.

His general demeanour and post match interviews were very lacking in passion. It seemed like he was in autopilot.

DoctorGonzo08

PR from the club getting worse, even though I didn't think it was possible. Now trying to justify sacking him with two games to go by saying he was disruptive, agrressive and abusive to players and staff. Fantastic way to thank him for the trophies he's won. Attack his character after turfing him out. Real classy!

jonnyfingers

United fan here. I have mixed feelings about Mancini's sacking. I'm angry that these billionaire owners are playing with their clubs like toys, signing the players they want, rather than who the manager wants, sacking mangaers on a whim and expecting instant success in a difficult league.

I think Mancini was a resonable manager. He is to be commended for winning a title for City but I do think any decent manager could have done well with that city squad. I do think his man mangement skills leave a lot to be desired though, which probably led to his downfall. With the current city squad their optimum manager needs to be able to coax teamwork from a group of quality players that are on massive wages without caring about the history of City as a club for the most part. He doesn't need to be a tactical genius, although it's no harm, but really needs to be able to motivate his team. This brings me on to my next point.

It's to do with the ridiculous club statement saying they want a more holistic approach. I think it's impossible for a club like City to become holisitic and also expect immediate success. Holistic means building a club, not just a team. The owners came in and built a brand new stadium, changed its name, built new facilities and changed most of the backroom staff. They, the managers they hired and some staff upstairs, also bought almost a brand new squad. By paying massive transfer fees and wages they have attracted amazing players to the team, but I don't think they've bought their desire or loyalty. If you look at the current team I wonder how many truly love Manchester City the club. If anything Manchester City today have few links to the old Manchester City so it's very hard to believe in club that has changes so much. Even so I think you could make a case for Harte, Kompany, Zabaleta and probably Milner who still care for City the club and are proud to wear the light blue jersey. But other than that I think most are there for the wages. Certainly Tevez, probably Nasri, Aguero, Silva and Toure too. Don't get me wrong they will have enjoyed City's success but I think if the club went into decline they would be the first to jump ship. If you compare it to United the team there has, and has had, a core group of players who you can tell are in it for the club, Ferdinand, Giggs, Scholes, Vidic, Carrick, the younger players like Evans, Jones, Wellbeck and even newer signings like Van Persie seem to appreciate the history of the Club and I think that shows during difficult games. Ex players like Ronaldo still appreciate the opportunity to have been a part of Manchester United. Also the staff at the club have been there for years, players come up through the youth ranks, retiring players join the coaching staff. There has been a real continuation of club values and goals, even with a change of ownership. Now that is a holistic approach. Success has followed, and while it have been a tremendous fluke, it is most likely because of how the club is run.

To truly take a holistic approach at City the owners need to do the same and build the club from its core. The facilties and stadium are already there, as is the support, so they are on their way. They now need to get the youth development right so that in 5 years some young players actually get into the team who are invested in the club and will play for the club and not just for themselves. Second they need to get a manger who is also invested in the long term development of the club. Third they need to get rid of the players who are not in it for the club and replace them with some homegrown players, or more immediately with players who are willing to play for club and believe in what it's trying to achieve.

Now if that is what the owners want then I agree with sacking Mancini. I don't think he is the right man to build that, he's too confrontationaly and willing to have a moan. With the resources City have if a good manager came in and built a club similar to what Ferguson did at United they will be a force to be reckoned with for decades to come. As a United fan that would worry me. However to do it right might mean finishing second every now and again, or going out early in the Champions league. What's more important is if the club has improved in some significant way each year. The owners will need patience and some foresight to allow that to happen. But in 5 years it should start to pay off.

However I don't think the owners have anywhere near the patience required to take that holistic approach. I think they want continued immediate success and will continue to attract the best players by throwing money at them. I think they will have success but the team will constantly be unsettled and there will be many more managerial changes, a la Chelsea. If that is how it turns out I think they are very wrong to sack Mancini now. He has proved that he can win the league with a squad like cities. This year United were better, simple as. United have finished 2nd many times and have come back stonger the next year. With a couple of signings City would have done the same next year under Mancini. A new manager may do the same but it's riskier than leaving Mancini to it for another few years.

So a new manager will come in. They'll sign a rake of new players, will probably continue to be in the top two next season, the holistic approach will go out the window, at some stage a team will be better than City in the league, cup or Europe and then we'll be opening another thread similar to this.

It's the City fans I feel sorry for. True. without your owners and their billions you wouldn't be where you are today, but with a bit of cop on from those owners you'd be far far better.

Mr.Nice Guy

I don't have mixed feelings on it personally. I never thought he was up to the job. My abiding memory of the final day of last season was Mancini having a meltdown on the touchline, cursing at his players and showing no leadership. His players kept his job that day but they did it for themselves and the fans first and foremost imo. If Aguero had put that shot wide, he was sacked. Simple as that.

Another twelve months has shown that he's out of his depth. Disastrous showing in Europe (and at Inter it was a similar story), a lifeless performance in the FA Cup final, and a very below-par defence of the championship. I can understand the owners not wanting to throw more money at a guy who I doubt will attract much interest from the elite clubs of Europe.

Having said all that, I do think he's a good guy; and I can understand why he is well liked. He is not up to scratch for a club with City's ambitions, though.

As regards the successor, Pellegrini looks like the choice and I think he is a good manager, but I genuinely think Benitez would be a better candidate out of the options available. He has won titles before, is good in Europe and cup competitions, and Chelsea are foolishly letting him walk away in the summer. I'm sure he'd love the chance to show Chelsea what a mistake they have made, and we all know his history with United.

taytothief

I liked Mancini. He was refreshing. I loved watching him screaming abuse at the players from the sideline, before turning around and muttering to himself and waving his hands around like a lunatic. I guess some players can't (won't) perform unless they get their back scratched though.
No matter how you look at it though, he did fail. 2 very poor Champions League seasons were the main catalyst imo.