Mancineh?

Two years in charge....hundreds of millions spent on players...one trophy...just two trophies still up for grabs this season, only one of which is very exciting...

Would you be singing Mancineh oo-oh-oh-oh if you were one of the irritating bunch that occupy the Eithad stands?

Guess I'd be happy to see Bolton in that position but it's not about football really when someone can spend more on than anyone else can to buy success.

They are all but guaranteed Champions League next season and I think they will win the league this season.

Takes all the fun out of the game to me but then I'm old and value things differently than they do these days.

I kind of agree with you on that Sluffy, but if we were in the same situation with all that money would you complain?


For all the money they have I still think United will walk away with the league,

I probably would.

I'm not fickle enough to complain about clubs buying the league, then saying nothing if it was my club with the money.

Does anybody thing something wrong as happened (is happening) in football the last couple of years?

What I mean is that United weakened their team when they Christian to Real Madrid, yet thet won the League last year with the likes of Giggs and Scholes who are nearer in age to 40 than 30. Then despite Chelsea and City splashing the cash - are still up at the top - having to bring Scholes out of retirement?

Spurs have just got Nelsen and Saha - both in their mid 30's.

Arsenal have just brought back Henry - again in his 30's.

QPR the top spenders in January have just bought Cisse and Zamora - both in their 30's.

What's happended to the late 20's generation?

Personally can't get my head round the Spurs situation, they let Bassong and Pavlyuchenko go and brought in them 2 old crocks.

Dodgy Arry said it was about experience but surely they let better players go out? Doesn't make sense to me to be honest.

The Henry situation at Arsenal was an attempt to get the fans back on side I think, don't think it's worked though.

If you gave me Man City's budget I couldn't do any worse than Mancini. Millions spent and they still look beatable by very average teams. Plus the Tevez saga has been a joke.

Nobody would believe me if I said I wouldn't swap our position for City's at this moment in time, but that's how I feel.

We aren't in a position to criticise the influence of rich investors, as without one to hold our huge debts which we show no signs of being able to repay in the near future, we may not be in business today, and we may be forced to rely on one in the future if we are to stay in business.

Having said that, City and previously Chelsea are a different kettle of fish altogether. I liked Redknapp's criticism of them a couple of weeks ago where he rightly pointed out that Spurs aren't where they are because somebody gave him a virtually unlimited supply of cash with which to buy players. They've had to be shrewd when buying players - it's not just been about finding the best players in the world and telling their clubs to simply name a price.
Because as Sluffy said, where's the fun in that? Or rather the sense of achievement?

lol you've got to be kidding, from perennial relegation scrappers to champions league, premier league, and FA cup contenders in two years.

Uh, yeah he's done alright.

I'm not sure about 'perennial relegation scrappers' since the side he took over was 6th halfway into a season and already worth hundreds of millions on paper.

Yeah after a takeover, they had 1 and a half seasons (correct me if i'm wrong) with Sinawatra (sp) before the arabs came in, they then installed Mancini who's taken them into the Champions league, won the FA cup and in 2 seasons under his command has them top of the table after Christmas.

What more do you want?

Shinawatra owned the club for 15 months in which they spent about £50m.
The Arabs had owned the club 18 months when they brought Mancini in. Hughes was manager for that 18 month period, in which the club spent somewhere in the region of £250m on new players. It's very arguable that Mancini inherited a Champions League quality squad.
He added £150m (ish) worth of players to it and they finished 3rd the following season and won the FA Cup. He spent about £80m this summer and they're out of every competition except the league (and UEFA Cup, but that's not started yet!), in which they're looking forever more beatable!
The improvements Mancini has made to Man City are no more than the least you'd expect given the resources he's had.

They are top. He can't do anymore than that. First attempt he got into the champions league.

how many teams win it their first time in, how many teams do well their first time in? None.

Won the FA cup at his first attempt.

they've spent no more than Spurs over the years, Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea.

anybody who thinks they haven't done well is just in denial.

If Bolton were taken over and spent 250 million you'd expect us to win the league, the FA cup, the Carling cup and the champions league all at the first attempt? Ok then.

What is the score with Mancini and Tevez ? he was on the news tonight saying that Tevez could play again for City in the second half of the season.

He should be left to rot in the reserves.

They need a lift, if they bring in Tevez, get YAYA back they will rocket (plus Balotelli)

i still think they need more players IMO.

If they add Eden Hazard, they are looking raw as fcuk.

On a slightly different tangent, I used to admire Citeh fans for coming up with new and inventive songs and chants.

I can honestly say that 'Blue Moon' is one of the worst ballads ever written and they're still singing one line of it 20 years on.

The Poznan celebration is really feminine.

The Mancini song and the Dzeko 'chant' sound naff.

They had one a few years ago which was class, to the tune 'of this old man', it ended 'with a nick nack paddy wack, give a dog a bone, ocean finance on the phone'. Just after it became clear the red filth had been taken over by the Americans who leveraged all the debt against the club.

There's a difference between spending £250m on Bolton and spending £250m on the City side Mancini inherited which as previously discussed was already strong.

You have to be a bit more specific than just 'over the years'. Hypothetically speaking, you'd rather have £250m to spend in two seasons than £250m to spend in ten.

When new managers come in they want "their players" so whether you like it or not, when mancini came in it's was practically starting over, with a good base.

The argument doesn't hold any water, he's top of the league and qualified for the champions league and won the FA cup. Even if they don't win the league this year i'd say he's got Man City to Man Utd's level (ability wise) in 2 seasons.

Liverpool spent hundreds of millions this season, look at them. But of course mancini is doing worse than Dalgleish because he hasn't won every trophy in one year.

Dalglish's net spend is somewhere in the region of £30m. Mancini's is around £200m.

He bought henderson, downing, carrol and suarez for about 90 million or something.

people used to peddle the net spend argument with Megson to try and defend his spending.

it's about spending what you have, on the right players, that make the team better.

Kenny has bought crap IMO, and Mancini has, on the whole, bought well.

Actually Dalglish has spent 110 mill since taking over Liverpool. They got 50 mill for Torres as well as whatever they made on Meireles to Chelsea. The 35 mill he paid for Andy Carroll must piss him off being a tight jock and all that.