Should\Will Mancini be sacked after spending squillions and winning nowt this season?

Sgt Pepper 64

Should\Will Mancini be sacked after spending squillions and winning nowt this season?

Yes, I am assuming that Utd will win the league but its not that unlikely at this stage.

Other points against him
The Tevez affair, the ongoing Balo saga and moaning about lack of transfer funds, the early exit from the CL, havent exactly covered him or the club in glory.

So, it will be very interesting to see how Citys owners react.
Hughes was sacked for failing to reach the top four, so I think its likely that he will go, especially if Mourinho does actually leave RM

GavRedKing

No he shouldnt be sacked but will he? I'm not sure.

This City team isnt far from winning the league and if they dont do it this year they certainly will have more hunger to do it next year.

Mourhino could be thrown stupid to take over but lets not forget hes already on €150,000 a week at Real Madrid.

sReq | uTeK

He won't be sacked, he's done well, it's rediculous to expect a league winning side in 1 1/2 seasons. give him time he's doing well just poor away form.

Xavi6

Thread title - you're doing it wrong.

Leiva

Out of the two teams spending "sqillions" then Mancini is doing a job compared to the Chelsea Circus .

MUSEIST

mixednuts wrote: »

Out of the two teams spending "sqillions" then Mancini is doing a job compared to the Chelsea Circus .

Chelsea won the league in the second season of having a billionaire owner, man city have spenthuge on wages and transfers and have done so for three seasons now, still no premier league to show for it.

If city don't win the league this season and given the money they have to spend then its a monumental disaster for city and mancini will have failed big time. There is no other way of looking at that.

MickySticks

Nowt???

Chucky the tree

MUSEIST wrote: »

Chelsea won the league in the second season of having a billionaire owner, man city have spenthuge on wages and transfers and have done so for three seasons now, still no premier league to show for it.

If city don't win the league this season and given the money they have to spend then its a monumental disaster for city and mancini will have failed big time. There is no other way of looking at that.

Roman become Chelsea owner in 2003, they didn't win their first title until 2007.

willmunny1990

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Roman become Chelsea owner in 2003, they didn't win their first title until 2007.

2005, we won the title.

MUSEIST

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Roman become Chelsea owner in 2003, they didn't win their first title until 2007.

Check the aul facts again

The first season raneiri was in charge, he was sacked after a second place finish and champions league semi defeat to monaco. Porto won the champs league and mourinho took over. Chelsea won the league in his first 2 seasons. So chelsea won the league 2 times in romans first 3 seasons at the club. Then roman started to interfere and sign sheva and ballack and things went down hill for a few seasons before the double winning season.

Sgt Pepper 64

mixednuts wrote: »

Out of the two teams spending "sqillions" then Mancini is doing a job compared to the Chelsea Circus .

that wasnt the question though - and manager already sacked

Sgt Pepper 64

MickySticks wrote: »

Nowt???

Northern English a dialect word for nothing

Sugarlumps

I really like Macini, I think he’s done a marvellous job at City. Seems a very likeable character who’s not afraid to dodge a difficult question thrown at him.

I hope he stays as he’s refreshing for the Premiership, it’s only a matter of time before they start winning titles and trophies under him.

willmunny1990

the key with City is that theyve improved alot on last season so they are obviously going in the right direction overall under Mancini which is why he shouldnt be sacked.

The only way I can see it is if Mourinho becomes available and is willing to manage City, as the lure of guaranteed success might prove too much for the sheikhs.

gustavo

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Northern English a dialect word for nothing

Eeeee by eck I reckon he should then

Chucky the tree

MUSEIST wrote: »

Check the aul facts again

The first season raneiri was in charge, he was sacked after a second place finish and champions league semi defeat to monaco. Porto won the champs league and mourinho took over. Chelsea won the league in his first 2 seasons. So chelsea won the league 2 times in romans first 3 seasons at the club. Then roman started to interfere and sign sheva and ballack and things went down hill for a few seasons before the double winning season.

Yea you're correct. Was looking at the runners up section.

GavRedKing

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Roman become Chelsea owner in 2003, they didn't win their first title until 2007.

2003-2004 : 2nd, Ranirei sacked
2004-2005 : Mourhino hired, ££££££ spent, 1st league title won.

I still dont think Mancini should be sacked, hes done a good job so far, and once they go to the UCLwith more experience and avoid a gripu like the got they last time they'll should make the round of 16 at the very least.

leggit

Sugarlumps wrote: »

I really like Macini, I think he’s done a marvellous job at City. Seems a very likeable character who’s not afraid to dodge a difficult question thrown at him.

I hope he stays as he’s refreshing for the Premiership, it’s only a matter of time before they start winning titles and trophies under him.

But will the owners pull an Abramovich and not give him the time, that's the real question.

I think he'll get another season at least, they seem to be constantly improving under Mancini and I'll stick a few bob on them to win the title next year if theres a decent price floating about

CSF

This shouldn't even be a thread, not a hope of it.

GLaDOS

MUSEIST wrote: »

Chelsea won the league in the second season of having a billionaire owner, man city have spenthuge on wages and transfers and have done so for three seasons now, still no premier league to show for it.

If city don't win the league this season and given the money they have to spend then its a monumental disaster for city and mancini will have failed big time. There is no other way of looking at that.

Chelsea already had CL football though, which was key for getting top players to join. City only had that this seasn for the first time.

Re. the question, no he shouldn't be sacked. Stability is always preferable.

GavRedKing

leggit wrote: »

But will the owners pull an Abramovich and not give him the time, that's the real question.

I think he'll get another season at least, they seem to be constantly improving under Mancini and I'll stick a few bob on them to win the title next year if theres a decent price floating about

As a Chelsea fan it pains me to say this but I think at City there is less " yes " men around Roman, less advisors that dont know there arse from there elbow.

True, Roman wants a certain style and wants it achieved alongside victories but at Chelsea, people like Gourlay and Emenalo, individuals with less then stellar creditinals who have a huge say when it comes to Roman and his ultimate decision making.

Mancini is probably safer now then the next Chelsea manager is before he steps into his role.

Manicni will be given another year I reckon.

plasmaguy

If he is sacked, Mourinho or Guardiola are dead certs for the job, two best coaches in the world, Man City owners will pay them anything, up to 10 million a year.

You heard it here first.

stovelid

Do you mean win nothing?

Sgt Pepper 64

CSF wrote: »

This shouldn't even be a thread, not a hope of it.

Nonsense, perfectly legit question, especially when you consider there is a Wenger and Dalglish thread.

The man has spent a lot of money and been in charge long enough to win something this season, so why wouldnt questions be asked?
Especially as they have been ahead in the league most of the season

NIMAN

I say yes.

Paying crazy money in transfers and wages, and about to throw away the EPL to another porr Utd team. And were pretty average in Europe too.

Get him out.

Sgt Pepper 64

stovelid wrote: »

Do you mean win nothing?

yes - Northern English dialect word for nothing

You win "owt with nowt"

stovelid

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

yes - Northern English dialect word for nothing

You win "owt with nowt"

Thanks. I was lost there for a bit.

I think only Coronation Street script-writers use it these days.

stovelid

Seriously though, IF united win the title, City would be mad to fire Mancini for coming just short.

LuckyLloyd

No, he obviously shouldn't be sacked.

SM01

There's been continual improvement, the squad is fantastic and they're running United very close so progress has been made. Mancini seems to be well liked by the squad and appears to have a good relationship with the owners and fans. Why throw a spanner in the works?

stovelid

Imagine City opted for the revolutonary approach of not sacking a manager that has mostly managed to keep a big money squad happy (one serial troublemaker notwithstanding) and may come just short to one of the best managers of all time. City can afford to keep the squad together to learn from this season and add what's needed.

Saying that they have lost the league at this stage is ridiculous though.

J. Marston

He was hired at the end of 2009, wasn't he? Since then he's won them their first trophy in decades (and ruined a fine banner at Old Trafford by doing so :mad:) plus got them into the Champions League and now they have a very good chance of winning the title.

He's doing fine so yes, he should be fired.

Warper

If he doesnt win the League, then i think he will be sacked. What has he done this season if he wins nothing - dumped out of CL and EL, first round FA Cup and semi of the Carling Cup. Granted he will finish second in the League but lets be honest it was a very average league this season which is highlighted by the fact that Utd are top with a below par Utd team.

Mancini has never done well in Europe as manager so I think it may be time for good ol Jose to come in. I wouldnt sack him unless i had a top-class replacement lined up preferably Mourinho as Pep has no chance of going to City. He will stay on at Barca or take a well-earned break. The job would suit Mourinho as well with bucketloads of cash to spend and an unreal salary.

Paul Tergat

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

yes - Northern English dialect word for nothing

You win "owt with nowt"

stovelid wrote: »

Thanks. I was lost there for a bit.

I think only Coronation Street script-writers use it these days.

Im from Bradford and use the word nowt all the time. Most people in Ireland understand it. And no, im not in Corrie :P

stovelid

Paul Tergat wrote: »

Im from Bradford and use the word nowt all the time. Most people in Ireland understand it. And no, im not in Corrie :P

That's Yorkshire,.

I've only ever heard really old people use it in Manchester.

Unearthly

If Mourinho is available and willing to join Man City then it would be the 100% correct decision to bin him if City end up trophyless.

Forget that Mancini is a good manager, nice guy, and made progress. Mourinho would make them as formidable as his previous sides, and guaranteed to pick up a few big trophies.

I sincerely hope Mourinho gets nowhere near that team.

Paul Tergat

stovelid wrote: »

That's Yorkshire,.

I've only ever heard really old people use it in Manchester.

I was about to say you need to visit Bradford then to experience that but I wouldnt wish that on anyone.

OT - would be daft to get rid of Mancini even if they dont win the title imo

Iago

MUSEIST wrote: »

Chelsea won the league in the second season of having a billionaire owner, man city have spenthuge on wages and transfers and have done so for three seasons now, still no premier league to show for it.

If city don't win the league this season and given the money they have to spend then its a monumental disaster for city and mancini will have failed big time. There is no other way of looking at that.

City are still favourites this year imo, and if they somehow don't win the league this year I wouldn't be backing against them next season by any means.

As to whether Mancini will be sacked, I think that'll depend on whether or not Mourinho makes himself available. Not sure who else they would give it to.

Warper

Iago wrote: »

City are still favourites this year imo, and if they somehow don't win the league this year I wouldn't be backing against them next season by any means.

As to whether Mancini will be sacked, I think that'll depend on whether or not Mourinho makes himself available. Not sure who else they would give it to.

I really dont know how you can make City favs. They have a tougher run-in than Utd and Utd will be 3 pts clear tonight. Even if they beat Utd, Utd will prob still accumulate more pts than City. I agree with you about next season though, they will be favs no matter who is in charge.

EdenHazard

I really hate the 'rational' posters on this forum.

'He obviously shouldn't be sacked'-
Runners up, knocked out at group stages no cup run in any of the minor cups, how much worse would he have to do for his position to even be discussed on an internet forum let alone real life?

P.S I don't think he's bad, like City seem sorta stable for a team whose bought so much players, but I think he's bought a few players that while good, there could be better options out there that City could afford. I don't like the midfield he's assembled at all, irrespective of how good they appear in 8/10 games, they fall short in the big matches and I don't think any of them are world class.

johnnyjb

Iago wrote: »

City are still favourites this year imo, and if they somehow don't win the league this year I wouldn't be backing against them next season by any means.

As to whether Mancini will be sacked, I think that'll depend on whether or not Mourinho makes himself available. Not sure who else they would give it to.

I'm not going on the attack here, but i don't think good form always translates to a new season.

Using that methodology Utd could come out all guns blazing next season too and make it even harder for City to win the league if they fail this year.

steelcityblues

I have no love for City, but trust a Chelsea fan to create a thread like this. :rolleyes:

Iago

Warper wrote: »

I really dont know how you can make City favs. They have a tougher run-in than Utd and Utd will be 3 pts clear tonight. Even if they beat Utd, Utd will prob still accumulate more pts than City. I agree with you about next season though, they will be favs no matter who is in charge.

Well United haven't won tonight yet, so as things stand City are top of the league. Even if United win tonight they are unlikely to win by 5 or more meaning City only have to win their remaining 8 games in order to win the league.

You can obviously say the same for United, but where City look like winning every game they play, the same can't be said of United. Huffed and puffed for most of the season and a handful of victories apart haven't looked particularly convincing while doing so.

City are suffering jitters and are really missing the Kompany/Lescott partnership at the back but they just look so much more impressive than United when they're on the ball. Still favourites for me as a result.

Iago

johnnyjb wrote: »

I'm not going on the attack here, but i don't think good form always translates to a new season.

Using that methodology Utd could come out all guns blazing next season too and make it even harder for City to win the league if they fail this year.

That's a fair point, where I'm coming from is that next season they'll have had another year to gel as a team, and the experience of either winning or coming close to winning the league.

This year they still had a large influx of new players which upset the shape of the side as they adapted to each other, I only see them buying one or two players during the summer to really tweak their first eleven.

You're right though, they could have a poor season but on the balance of things I think it's unlikely.

willmunny1990

Iago wrote: »

City are still favourites this year imo, and if they somehow don't win the league this year I wouldn't be backing against them next season by any means.

As to whether Mancini will be sacked, I think that'll depend on whether or not Mourinho makes himself available. Not sure who else they would give it to.

never become a bookie. You'll bleed money.

willmunny1990

Iago wrote: »

That's a fair point, where I'm coming from is that next season they'll have had another year to gel as a team, and the experience of either winning or coming close to winning the league.

This year they still had a large influx of new players which upset the shape of the side as they adapted to each other, I only see them buying one or two players during the summer to really tweak their first eleven.

You're right though, they could have a poor season but on the balance of things I think it's unlikely.

same with Man U aswell though? de gea, jones, cleverly, young and wellbecks first season, smalling, hernandez second season.

can only see them being stronger next year along with city.

but where City look like winning every game they play, the same can't be said of United. Huffed and puffed for most of the season and a handful of victories apart haven't looked particularly convincing while doing so.

City are suffering jitters and are really missing the Kompany/Lescott partnership at the back but they just look so much more impressive than United when they're on the ball.

at the etihad, your right, they have been fantastic. but Man U have looked far more impressive than them away from home. city have been ****e on the road and have scored very few goals since december, and worringly for them, don't look like scoring most of the time.

_blank_

get rid imo

Xavi6

Des wrote: »

get rid imo

Maintain Our Mancini

SilverFox261

Iago wrote: »

Well United haven't won tonight yet, so as things stand City are top of the league. Even if United win tonight they are unlikely to win by 5 or more meaning City only have to win their remaining 8 games in order to win the league.

You can obviously say the same for United, but where City look like winning every game they play, the same can't be said of United. Huffed and puffed for most of the season and a handful of victories apart haven't looked particularly convincing while doing so.

City are suffering jitters and are really missing the Kompany/Lescott partnership at the back but they just look so much more impressive than United when they're on the ball. Still favourites for me as a result.

City look like winning every game they play at home, but their away form has been the source of their problems this season. They just don't travel well and they have a couple of tough away games (Arsenal and Norwich) from now to the end of the season where they have a real chance of dropping points given current form.

Uniteds fixtures leading up to the derby definity look more winnable in comparison to City, so I think it would be surprising if United weren't top of the table come the derby. Cities biggest challenge at the moment i believe is not letting a gap bigger than 3 points develop.

noodler

City's progress is pretty ****ing apparent.

CSF

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

CSF wrote: »

This shouldn't even be a thread, not a hope of it.

Nonsense, perfectly legit question, especially when you consider there is a Wenger and Dalglish thread.

The man has spent a lot of money and been in charge long enough to win something this season, so why wouldnt questions be asked?
Especially as they have been ahead in the league most of the season

Because Mancini is doing a great job. Wenger wasn't at the time, and Dalglish has been awful. You don't just spend ****loads and win the league, well at least not all the time, but Mancini has city heading that way. They will continue to progress, especially in Europe.