I disagree I think our fans will give Moyes more time if he ****s up than City's will with Pell whatever his name is. I guess we shall see though.
Notoriously fickle fans? Never has such utter ****ing rubbish been spoken by one bellend. How's the weather by the way, just the same as in London eh bright spark? Also, the players you've so far bought are not really enough to strike fear now are they? Honestly, are they. No, are they ****.
A bit like with Fergie after 3 years of no trophies they'll be calling for him out. Chelsea and City are used to mediocrity so it isn't much of a problem for us if we go trophyless.
as many said, we are ready to give Moyes time.. and i think having Jose and Pellegrini is a negative thing for both clubs not a good thing , the last one have to adopt to English football which will take time, and the first have little money to work around, they have to sell to buy new players
Of course you think it's a negative thing for Chelsea and City. If Angel Gabriel managed both of them you'd say no differently. You are blinded by tribality. From where I'm sat Pellegrini is an excellent appointment, he is inexperienced in this division but gets the maximum out of his players and plays good football (banned Malaga players from playing long balls). If he's given time to stamp his authority on the side then sky is the limit for City. As for Moyes, it could go one of two ways. He has experience at PL level and like Pellegrini he manages to get the maximum out of his teams, but he has no pedigree in Europe. This is very much a transitional season for United. As for Chelsea, it could go one of two ways (a bit like Moyes). Mourinho is an excellent coach and arguably best in Europe at the moment but he is inheriting a squad that has been put together by the board and has limited funds to change things. Last time, the majority of the players were brought in by Mourinho, it's different this time, he was to work with the hand he's dealt like at Inter and Real. What cannot be denied is Chelsea and City have better managers than they had this time last year and United don't. City have the best squad now and a managers to maximise their potential hence why I make them favourites, in 2 years time when Chelsea's squad will peak and United will have exited their transitional phase, the pendulum may well swing back into Chelsea/United's favour as City will have an ageing squad and will have to rebuild.
At Real, the vast majority of the signings are made by Perez of whoever the chairman is. Under Pellegrini £200m was spent, far less than under Mourinho. Fact.
So Jose was Perez's puppet? He had to "make do" with the 200million spent the previous summer and the 150million he spent? No wonder he was one of the least successful managers in Real's history, he simply didn't have the resources to compete.
Bollocks, he was far from the least successful and also came up against the best Barca side in their history, in fact, one of the best sides in any era. Mourinho was given more power than previous regimes but was undermined by the Madrid-based media and senior figures at the club.
Mourinho wasn't good enough at the end of the day, I know Chelsea's fans will refuse to accept that but with all the resources in the world he couldn't work his magic. He is still probably the best manager in the premier league now though happy to admit that.
Mourinho wasn't that good at Real, but he wasn't that bad either. From where I'm sat 1 La Liga out of 3 against the best Barca side in history isn't an awful return. Not a success, but not a failure. Real are in a better position to challenge Barca now than they were before he arrived, when they could get nowhere near them. Mourinho's biggest problem is that he tried to change too much too quickly. The ethos at Real will never change.
Didn't Pellegrini get Real within three points of Barca the season before Mourinho arrived? That's hardly way behind them, given he only had a single season to work in, most of his players were chosen by the board, and Barca really were at their undisputed best back then. If anything, Real are further behind now than they have been in decades - can't remember the last time they were 15 points off the top of the league, let along 15 points behind Barca. If they lose Ronaldo this summer or next, they will be second, or even third, best for a long long time.
Dont forget Barca had no manager for a long time due to him being in hospital with cancer. You can now see why UTD did not want him.
He had a bad season last season but let's get it straight, season before he won the double with multiple records to boot.
I think the stat is that he was the least successful manager of 3+ years tenure in Real Madrid's history. As Swarbs said, Mourinho left Real further behind Barca than they were when he joined. That's hardly an improvement, especially when you consider the players and funds he had at his disposal. I don't see why any Chelsea fan would waste time trying to sugar coat the guys time at Real. Most of the Real fans and players loathe him, that says it all really.
No one is sugar coating anything and most managers don't see out more than 2 season at Real which distorts the stats entirely. It's not true he was hated by most of the fans. The ultra's (Reals most loyal fans) were fully behind him. Real fans I know wanted him to stay and there were planned marches for that to happen but Mourinho declined.
http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1391506/real-madrid-fans-postpone-pro-mourinho-march?cc=5739 Even you can't deny plain fact.
Fair enough. The facts are that some (ultra) guy told a journalist that he loved Mourinho and up to 10,000 of his close, personal friends agreed with him but some other (unnamed but definitely real/Real) guy(s) within the club told him that Mourinho didn't want them to protest so they didn't. You should run for parliament. You wouldn't win but you'd be the best supported candidate who chose to withdraw. Like I said, you seem to put a lot of effort into making yourself look like an (ill informed) twat.
