Liam Manning - CONFIRMED NEW HEAD COACH

[YGBjammy]

26 minutes ago, Spike said:

Fantastic write up this and although it sounds like the bloke can manage a club with the right support he sounds like the complete opposite of what we need right now.

Jon Lansdown said in his interviews that we have a squad that should be up the top and that we're top 10 in budget. If that's the truth (something I doubt) then why would we bring in a manager who has a very specific style that doesn't match ours and who needs to buy in order to create that style.

According to Jon we already have a squad that is capable of being up the top, if that is the case we shouldn't need to spend any money to get into the play offs.

Also according to Jon we are already in the top 10 of budgets and NP wasn't allowed to spend so therefore Manning wouldn't be able to buy either right? 

Something just doesn't add up to me, I feel like Manning coming in would mean a rebuild, but we apparently can't afford that. We've also just heard Tinnion saying how we have a style and the new manager coming in would have to adapt to that style, not create a new one, so again this suggests that Manning would need to play the style already in place, not his own that has generated some of his success. 

Everything about Manning sounds like his appointment would be contradicting to JL and Tinnions statements, which is exactly why I can see it happening, because the board just can't seem to get their stories straight anymore. 

The answer is simply that Jon Lansdown doesn't actually understand how football works.

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, Barrs Court Red said:

This is their best???
 

Roll on when they foxtrot Oscar, and someone capable can really give it their best. 

Probably better than any of us on here?

And I’m not just talking about the cash: massively important though that is.

There’s rarely right and wrong answers and you’ve only got to look at the huge range of views on every potential candidate that gets a mention on these pages the last few days.

I don’t doubt he’s made mistakes, but I also don’t doubt he’s done what he’s done with the best interest of BCFC (albeit as part of his wider commitment to Bristol sport) at heart. And so might be deserving of criticism but not of the vitriol he’s getting. 

[nickolas]

2 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Probably better than any of us on here?

And I’m not just talking about the cash: massively important though that is.

There’s rarely right and wrong answers and you’ve only got to look at the huge range of views on every potential candidate that gets a mention on these pages the last few days.

I don’t doubt he’s made mistakes, but I also don’t doubt he’s done what he’s done with the best interest of BCFC (albeit as part of his wider commitment to Bristol sport) at heart. And so might be deserving of criticism but not of the vitriol he’s getting. 

Thanks, Steve. 
 

Keep up the good work.

[italian dave]

10 hours ago, Harry said:

So, Liam Manning. 
No doubt a name many City fans aren’t very familiar with. 
Not much of a playing career which he finished early to focus on coaching. Spending 4 years with West Ham’s under 23’s during the period when Declan Rice was coming through. 
Manning’s style of play is very much focussed around a style of player such as Rice, so I have no doubt that his coaching and way of playing would have been a good influence on Rice. 
 

His first proper job as a manager was in the Belgian 2nd division with Lommel. He took them from bottom of the league to 3rd in his one season there. However, this really needs to have a caveat - he spent over £11m as well as benefiting from a number of loans from Man City as they are a partner club. 
That level of transfer spend is highly unusual in the Belgian 2nd division, so I think it’s fair to say he had a significant amount of help to get them from bottom to 3rd. 
 

He took the job at MK Dons for the 21/22 season after Russell Martin left for Swansea. 
As regular readers will know, I was very keen on City signing Scott Twine. It’s for that reason that I saw a lot of MK Dons that season as I was keen to watch as much of Twine as I could. 
They had a superb season. 89 points, finishing 3rd and losing in the playoffs (rather craply to Wycombe). 

I watched a number of their games that season and they were a joy to watch. 
I am a tad bias here, because I absolutely loved watching Twine play. 

He’d mostly set up with 3 at the back (usually Darling, O’Hora and Lewington). All 3 were encouraged to play and they enjoyed vast amounts of possession. McEacheran and Matt O’Riley were a beautifully balanced midfield and then Twine creating in behind a striker - usually Eisa. 
They were superb to watch but their passing from the back style did get them into trouble a few times. 
 

As much as they played beautiful football that season, I can’t actually put it all down to Manning. He’d inherited a team which was already set up to play that way from Russell Martin - I think Manning just carried on his good work. 
Martin had signed Fisher (the keeper), Darling, O’Hora, Harvie, McEacheran, O’Riley, Kasuma and Twine. 
Martin had basically assembled this stylish squad. 
 

He lost the keeper in January to Swansea. The keeper was the catalyst to the playing out from the back style. 
He also very crucially lost O’Riley in January to Celtic. 
I thought this would be a massive blow as O’Riley was quite simply excellent. 
Manning signed a couple of loans to replace them - A keeper from Chelsea and a midfielder from West Ham (so clearly using his contacts from his West Ham u23 days). 
Twine was outstanding for the rest of the season and they didn’t miss O’Riley as much as I thought they would. 
 

So, a beautiful football team that season but one which was assembled by the previous manager. 
 

The next season didn’t start well. Won 4, Drew 3, Lost 13!! 
He’s lost the nucleus of the team though. Darling & Twine both leaving - probably the best 2 players in the league the season before. This was always going to be a massive blow. 
He also lost Kasumu in CM, who gave a tonne of legs and energy. 
 

He replaced Darling & Twine with Jack Tucker and Conor Grant. 
2 players who I was actually quite fond of myself, but they were nowhere near the same level of quality as those he lost. 
It was always going to be a bit of a struggle but quite how they went from the most beautiful team in League 1 to losing 13 of 20 is baffling. 
 

Onto Oxford. He arrived at the back end of last season when they sat 19th and in danger of the drop. He managed to keep them up but I think that was more down to other teams being so poor. He only won 2 of 12 games but got enough draws (5) to stave off relegation. 
I watched Oxford a couple of times last season before he arrived and I thought they were awful. I wouldn’t have been surprised had they gone down. So he kept them up, but only just in reality. 
 

This season, the Oxford I see now are chalk and cheese to the Oxford I saw last year who were awful. They are now playing the good stuff that Manning had at MK (perhaps it wasn’t all down to Russ Martin after all??)

He’s made some decent signings that fit his style. 
He’s loaned in a keeper from Brighton to help him play from the back. 
He brought McEacheran with him from MK - a good ball retainer for league 1. 
He brought Rodrigues in from Notts (this is his Twine, the creative roaming attacking midfielder type). 
He brought in Greg Leigh who has been an absolute revelation at wing back. 
He’s got McGuane playing well (I wasn’t overly impressed with him the year before but Manning seems to have lit his fire). 
He’s also made another couple of loans from Prem clubs to supplement his squad.  
 

Add Cameron Brannigan to this and with a tandem of either Brannigan/Maguane or Brannigan/McEacheran and he’s got a dominant ball retaining midfield. 
I think he’s still mostly playing 3 at the back as he did at MK, but he’s played a 4 sometimes too. I think he’s mostly switched to a 3 after the arrival of Leigh at wing back, so he seems open to changing his formation to suit his players. 

I must say, the transformation of the awful Oxford team last season to the stylish and winning team of this season is a remarkable one. And there is no doubt about it that this is 100% down to Manning. 
 

I can understand why many fans will see this as a rather underwhelming choice, but he is exactly the sort of person who fits the remit of how we are wanting to play. 
But ultimately, Manning’s style of play requires the right players to be able to play it. 
He’s always favoured a keeper who can play from the back - we don’t have that. 
He likes 2 deep CM’s who can control and dominate possession - we don’t have that. 
He likes a creative AM - we don’t have that. 
He likes high wing backs - we kinda half have that. 
He likes 3 CB’s who can build from the back - we don’t really have that. Naismith yes, but the others no. 
 

So he may be the right man for the way we WANT to play, but I actually don’t believe we have the players who can fit that style. 

Thanks Harry. Really interesting.

And a bit depressing if it means that we’re setting off again on yet another ‘rebuild’. Although I’d be interested to see the extent to which we could adapt existing players. I’m thinking, for example, of Atkinson (and to an extent Vyner) who’ve shown that they can create from the back if they’re given licence to do so. Or Mehmeti, who showed last week that he can look far more effective playing AM than he has playing wide.

On the other hand, the length of your post, and of the responses to it, get the Liam Manning thread that much closer to the 20 pages, at which point the club deny interest! 

[nebristolred]

Not feeling this myself.

[Spike]

1 hour ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

Keep making a list about anyone who dares think the Lansdown family have tried their best for the club with a quarter billion £ investment.

I mean I could invest £250m into the beef trade in India, I doubt people would give me a pat on the back and be like "you did your best", instead they'd say "why did you just invest that money into something so stupid?".

The Lansdowns haven't been quite that level of stupid, I mean the business side of developing the stadium and the training ground have been fantastic but beyond that what have they done? 

The management choices have been questionable and if you look at the ones that have been a success for us even those appear to have been tainted.

Id say of all the successful managers I've seen at this club the most successful was Cotterill and he was sacked after the club refused to allow him to go after the targets he wanted to leaving the team short of what he felt it needed, the club refusing the man who got us two trophies in a single season, unbacked because at that point there was a rift between them. 

Gary Johnson was probably the only man they didn't piss off that did well for us, maybe his son could be included but I would say LJ was hacked more than any manager I've ever seen at this club and he still failed to achieve the Premier League goal. 

Coppell for me was the real sign that there was an issue at the top, he came in and within 4 months lost his passion for management and resigned, then went on to work for 5 other clubs. Something still doesn't sit right with me about that whole situation and I think it was a case of him knowing that he couldn't get success with that board/owners. 

Then you have Pearson, probably the only manager I've seen in my time as a City fan that's been sacked without any fan fare for it, hence I think it's receiving such a big backlash. Even those who weren't sure of Pearson at his times here where it looked like he'd lost the fanbase came around and backed him again, I still can't think of many managers who recovered from losing the fans here. The result, the board doesn't like him, get rid, the fans will keep coming anyway (Jon Lansdowns words, not mine). 

Then you could address decisions like Tinnion being manager because it was cheap and he's very much in the owners pockets, that ended well. Or how about the endless weeks we waited to hear who our new manager would be, only for it to end up being the assistant manager of the man who was sacked, to the utter disbelief of the fans. 

The only constant in all of this is the Lansdowns so let's just forget all of that because they slung a quarter of a billion at the wall making all those awful decisions. 

[1960maaan]

7 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Probably better than any of us on here? Not so sure with that oneI do agree with a lot of

And I’m not just talking about the cash: massively important though that is.

There’s rarely right and wrong answers and you’ve only got to look at the huge range of views on every potential candidate that gets a mention on these pages the last few days.

I don’t doubt he’s made mistakes, but I also don’t doubt he’s done what he’s done with the best interest of BCFC (albeit as part of his wider commitment to Bristol sport) at heart. And so might be deserving of criticism but not of the vitriol he’s getting. 

I do agree with a lot of your post .
There are no Guarantees with any appointment , unless maybe top end and you employ Pep. 
None of us could see where any Manager would end up, I just think back to when Cott's was appointed. They don't make any decision determined to fail , the failure comes in bringing in the wrong man, which we don't know until too late. 
IMO Pearson is a really bad decision ( worse as they don't seem to know what's next ) and may have been done partly because of personality . A bit like the last bad decision in reverse, not only keeping the record breaking (losses) Manager LJ on, but giving him the Crown Jewels . 
Lansdown has made a lot of mistakes, some biggies , but I doubt there is one that he's done deliberately. 
Maybe making Jon Chairmen, but I doubt there is one person on here wouldn't do the same for his Son in the same position.

 

[Port Said Red]

10 hours ago, Harry said:

So, Liam Manning. 
No doubt a name many City fans aren’t very familiar with. 
Not much of a playing career which he finished early to focus on coaching. Spending 4 years with West Ham’s under 23’s during the period when Declan Rice was coming through. 
Manning’s style of play is very much focussed around a style of player such as Rice, so I have no doubt that his coaching and way of playing would have been a good influence on Rice. 
 

His first proper job as a manager was in the Belgian 2nd division with Lommel. He took them from bottom of the league to 3rd in his one season there. However, this really needs to have a caveat - he spent over £11m as well as benefiting from a number of loans from Man City as they are a partner club. 
That level of transfer spend is highly unusual in the Belgian 2nd division, so I think it’s fair to say he had a significant amount of help to get them from bottom to 3rd. 
 

He took the job at MK Dons for the 21/22 season after Russell Martin left for Swansea. 
As regular readers will know, I was very keen on City signing Scott Twine. It’s for that reason that I saw a lot of MK Dons that season as I was keen to watch as much of Twine as I could. 
They had a superb season. 89 points, finishing 3rd and losing in the playoffs (rather craply to Wycombe). 

I watched a number of their games that season and they were a joy to watch. 
I am a tad bias here, because I absolutely loved watching Twine play. 

He’d mostly set up with 3 at the back (usually Darling, O’Hora and Lewington). All 3 were encouraged to play and they enjoyed vast amounts of possession. McEacheran and Matt O’Riley were a beautifully balanced midfield and then Twine creating in behind a striker - usually Eisa. 
They were superb to watch but their passing from the back style did get them into trouble a few times. 
 

As much as they played beautiful football that season, I can’t actually put it all down to Manning. He’d inherited a team which was already set up to play that way from Russell Martin - I think Manning just carried on his good work. 
Martin had signed Fisher (the keeper), Darling, O’Hora, Harvie, McEacheran, O’Riley, Kasuma and Twine. 
Martin had basically assembled this stylish squad. 
 

He lost the keeper in January to Swansea. The keeper was the catalyst to the playing out from the back style. 
He also very crucially lost O’Riley in January to Celtic. 
I thought this would be a massive blow as O’Riley was quite simply excellent. 
Manning signed a couple of loans to replace them - A keeper from Chelsea and a midfielder from West Ham (so clearly using his contacts from his West Ham u23 days). 
Twine was outstanding for the rest of the season and they didn’t miss O’Riley as much as I thought they would. 
 

So, a beautiful football team that season but one which was assembled by the previous manager. 
 

The next season didn’t start well. Won 4, Drew 3, Lost 13!! 
He’s lost the nucleus of the team though. Darling & Twine both leaving - probably the best 2 players in the league the season before. This was always going to be a massive blow. 
He also lost Kasumu in CM, who gave a tonne of legs and energy. 
 

He replaced Darling & Twine with Jack Tucker and Conor Grant. 
2 players who I was actually quite fond of myself, but they were nowhere near the same level of quality as those he lost. 
It was always going to be a bit of a struggle but quite how they went from the most beautiful team in League 1 to losing 13 of 20 is baffling. 
 

Onto Oxford. He arrived at the back end of last season when they sat 19th and in danger of the drop. He managed to keep them up but I think that was more down to other teams being so poor. He only won 2 of 12 games but got enough draws (5) to stave off relegation. 
I watched Oxford a couple of times last season before he arrived and I thought they were awful. I wouldn’t have been surprised had they gone down. So he kept them up, but only just in reality. 
 

This season, the Oxford I see now are chalk and cheese to the Oxford I saw last year who were awful. They are now playing the good stuff that Manning had at MK (perhaps it wasn’t all down to Russ Martin after all??)

He’s made some decent signings that fit his style. 
He’s loaned in a keeper from Brighton to help him play from the back. 
He brought McEacheran with him from MK - a good ball retainer for league 1. 
He brought Rodrigues in from Notts (this is his Twine, the creative roaming attacking midfielder type). 
He brought in Greg Leigh who has been an absolute revelation at wing back. 
He’s got McGuane playing well (I wasn’t overly impressed with him the year before but Manning seems to have lit his fire). 
He’s also made another couple of loans from Prem clubs to supplement his squad.  
 

Add Cameron Brannigan to this and with a tandem of either Brannigan/Maguane or Brannigan/McEacheran and he’s got a dominant ball retaining midfield. 
I think he’s still mostly playing 3 at the back as he did at MK, but he’s played a 4 sometimes too. I think he’s mostly switched to a 3 after the arrival of Leigh at wing back, so he seems open to changing his formation to suit his players. 

I must say, the transformation of the awful Oxford team last season to the stylish and winning team of this season is a remarkable one. And there is no doubt about it that this is 100% down to Manning. 
 

I can understand why many fans will see this as a rather underwhelming choice, but he is exactly the sort of person who fits the remit of how we are wanting to play. 
But ultimately, Manning’s style of play requires the right players to be able to play it. 
He’s always favoured a keeper who can play from the back - we don’t have that. 
He likes 2 deep CM’s who can control and dominate possession - we don’t have that. 
He likes a creative AM - we don’t have that. 
He likes high wing backs - we kinda half have that. 
He likes 3 CB’s who can build from the back - we don’t really have that. Naismith yes, but the others no. 
 

So he may be the right man for the way we WANT to play, but I actually don’t believe we have the players who can fit that style. 

That's fantastic Harry, thank you so much it's great to see such an in-depth summary from someone has obviously seen more than the EFL highlights and stats.

The only part I would query is your assertion that we don't have the players to play three at the back in that progressive way. Naismith clearly stands out as he is quite "showy" but I think both Vyner and Dickie can very effective in their shorter in field passes into midfield and just beyond. They are also, along with Atkinson able to run deep into the opposition half to good effect, I just think that sometimes our set up doesn't encourage that from them. 

I don't think we would be too exposed with Sykes and Pring in wing back roles. I agree with the goalkeeper bit, however, a different set up could mean an end to that ridiculous "against all odds" chip out to the wings that our current coaches seem to favour.

[DaveInSA]

For the record I wouldn’t be unhappy with Liam Rosenior. (BTW I have said this before too)

intelligent articulate. 

also high risk

but isn’t any young coach?

[petehinton]

2 hours ago, Chrizzler said:

Not sure why he would want to come here, he's doing well with Oxford & would surely want to finish the job there. 

Money, size of club, bigger fanbase; quality of stadium and training ground, squad…

Is why I didn’t think Mousinho would be a goer. Portsmouth have all of that.  

[Port Said Red]

2 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Money, size of club, bigger fanbase; quality of stadium and training ground, squad…

Is why I didn’t think Mousinho would be a goer. Portsmouth have all of that.  

My thoughts too on Mousinho, would seem a strange move on the face of it.

[Merrick's Marvels]

2 hours ago, Ian Pople said:

Liam Manning, makes LJ bullshit sound mute. If he gets the job, bloody he'll. Certainly likes himself doesn't he. Can you imagine experienced pros listening to that bullshit? I'm done if they give it to him

It'll be like watching EastfukinEnders every week, won't it. Good god.

[TDarwall]

Moushino will think Pompey can be next years Ipswich. There seems little reason for him to join.

All moot of course, does anyone "really" think Frank would have cancelled his game of golf if he wasn't BS3 bound???

[italian dave]

40 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I do agree with a lot of your post .
There are no Guarantees with any appointment , unless maybe top end and you employ Pep. 
None of us could see where any Manager would end up, I just think back to when Cott's was appointed. They don't make any decision determined to fail , the failure comes in bringing in the wrong man, which we don't know until too late. 
IMO Pearson is a really bad decision ( worse as they don't seem to know what's next ) and may have been done partly because of personality . A bit like the last bad decision in reverse, not only keeping the record breaking (losses) Manager LJ on, but giving him the Crown Jewels . 
Lansdown has made a lot of mistakes, some biggies , but I doubt there is one that he's done deliberately. 
Maybe making Jon Chairmen, but I doubt there is one person on here wouldn't do the same for his Son in the same position.

 

And I think there are lots of mistakes being made at the moment: from the whole CEO farce, to the comms, to the catering. And you've hit on the two big ones! Although, in the case of Pearson, I agree a mistake on the face of it, but I just feel that we don't know the half of it, and I have the sense that there's a lot more behind it than we're being told - possibly for good reason.  Agree, JL is not a Chairman.

But I also think that, across the whole of the Lansdown era, whilst we've taken steps back, we've also taken steps forward. And on balance, more of the latter. But clearly not as many more as we'd all like. And at this point the next managerial appointment is critical because get it wrong and we're back to mid table league 1 which is where we started!

So, I think there have been mistakes, I think the Lansdowns can be rightly criticised for them, but they don't warrant the extreme over-reaction and the vitriol and the personal abuse that's going on at the moment.

[Merrick's Marvels]

2 hours ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

There have been a large influx of new posters.

The majority seem to have joined in the vitriol against Lansdown and disgust at NP leaving whilst a small number have not. 

Those who haven't have to a man/woman been accused as being employees of Bristol Sport. Posters with long term dormant accounts now posting have similarly been dismissed as such when not joining in yet unquestioned if agreeing with the majority consensus of the NP: everything good/ BCFC:everything bad.

All members are equal but some are more equal than others so long as they join in with the consensus narrative.

But, hey Silvio, thanks for being a thought police volunteer. Keep making a list about anyone who dares think the Lansdown family have tried their best for the club with a quarter billion £ investment.

p.s For your records my name is Pike.

I agree about the new posters. There seems a whiff of paranoia around here about them - just put 'em on ignore! 

Like I have with you.

As for the highlighted bit - it's a specious argument and you know it - no-one's made him spend that much - he's had too because he keeps making a mess of things - are we supposed to just doff our caps and shut up - etc etc

So as you go back on ignore, I'll leave you with this:

How long does our owner need to get it right if 20+ years isn't long enough? How many chances to get it right does he need - if we had a Centre forward who kept missing chances as regularly as our owner has, would you still keep picking him or would you decide it's time for a new Centre forward? 

[Spudgun]

59 minutes ago, Spike said:

I mean I could invest £250m into the beef trade in India, I doubt people would give me a pat on the back and be like "you did your best", instead they'd say "why did you just invest that money into something so stupid?".

The Lansdowns haven't been quite that level of stupid, I mean the business side of developing the stadium and the training ground have been fantastic but beyond that what have they done? 

The management choices have been questionable and if you look at the ones that have been a success for us even those appear to have been tainted.

Id say of all the successful managers I've seen at this club the most successful was Cotterill and he was sacked after the club refused to allow him to go after the targets he wanted to leaving the team short of what he felt it needed, the club refusing the man who got us two trophies in a single season, unbacked because at that point there was a rift between them. 

Gary Johnson was probably the only man they didn't piss off that did well for us, maybe his son could be included but I would say LJ was hacked more than any manager I've ever seen at this club and he still failed to achieve the Premier League goal. 

Coppell for me was the real sign that there was an issue at the top, he came in and within 4 months lost his passion for management and resigned, then went on to work for 5 other clubs. Something still doesn't sit right with me about that whole situation and I think it was a case of him knowing that he couldn't get success with that board/owners. 

Then you have Pearson, probably the only manager I've seen in my time as a City fan that's been sacked without any fan fare for it, hence I think it's receiving such a big backlash. Even those who weren't sure of Pearson at his times here where it looked like he'd lost the fanbase came around and backed him again, I still can't think of many managers who recovered from losing the fans here. The result, the board doesn't like him, get rid, the fans will keep coming anyway (Jon Lansdowns words, not mine). 

Then you could address decisions like Tinnion being manager because it was cheap and he's very much in the owners pockets, that ended well. Or how about the endless weeks we waited to hear who our new manager would be, only for it to end up being the assistant manager of the man who was sacked, to the utter disbelief of the fans. 

The only constant in all of this is the Lansdowns so let's just forget all of that because they slung a quarter of a billion at the wall making all those awful decisions. 

Brilliant post sir  

Agree with every word.

The root problem at this club is SL, and IMO this club will go no higher until he sells up and him and his family are gone.

[red panda]

6 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

I agree about the new posters. There seems a whiff of paranoia around here about them - just put 'em on ignore! 

Like I have with you.

As for the highlighted bit - it's a specious argument and you know it - no-one's made him spend that much - he's had too because he keeps making a mess of things - are we supposed to just doff our caps and shut up - etc etc

So as you go back on ignore, I'll leave you with this:

How long does our owner need to get it right if 20+ years isn't long enough? How many chances to get it right does he need - if we had a Centre forward who kept missing chances as regularly as our owner has, would you still keep picking him or would you decide it's time for a new Centre forward? 

What evidence can you provide that SL's massive investment is a specious argument. If you can point me to a long list of Championship clubs being successful and making profits at the same time, or the list of people with City's interest genuinely uppermost in their mind and willing to plough in tens or hundreds of millions into the club, I'll be convinced. 

[Southport Red]

2 hours ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

A big name will get more time, a name like this will be under big pressure with the fans. A few bad results and the board will be under scrutiny again. Massive risk. 

Not really.  The Lansdown's clearly do not give a FF about the fans so it wouldn't matter if we were on his back or not.  It's their club, not ours remember.

[Merrick's Marvels]

4 minutes ago, red panda said:

What evidence can you provide that SL's massive investment is a specious argument. 

The three phrases that follow it, ffs. And more besides. Are you a WUM or genuinely stupid? It's one or the other. 

[supercidered]

39 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Money, size of club, bigger fanbase; quality of stadium and training ground, squad…

Is why I didn’t think Mousinho would be a goer. Portsmouth have all of that.  

I don't think Mousinho is a goer either.

However, quality of stadium (have you been to Fratton Park?) and training ground ( PFC is not particularly good) aren't the reasons why.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

Fantastic write up this and although it sounds like the bloke can manage a club with the right support he sounds like the complete opposite of what we need right now.

Jon Lansdown said in his interviews that we have a squad that should be up the top and that we're top 10 in budget. If that's the truth (something I doubt) then why would we bring in a manager who has a very specific style that doesn't match ours and who needs to buy in order to create that style.

According to Jon we already have a squad that is capable of being up the top, if that is the case we shouldn't need to spend any money to get into the play offs.

Also according to Jon we are already in the top 10 of budgets and NP wasn't allowed to spend so therefore Manning wouldn't be able to buy either right? 

Something just doesn't add up to me, I feel like Manning coming in would mean a rebuild, but we apparently can't afford that. We've also just heard Tinnion saying how we have a style and the new manager coming in would have to adapt to that style, not create a new one, so again this suggests that Manning would need to play the style already in place, not his own that has generated some of his success. 

Everything about Manning sounds like his appointment would be contradicting to JL and Tinnions statements, which is exactly why I can see it happening, because the board just can't seem to get their stories straight anymore. 

Assuming the Manning rumour is true - This is a classic case of football buzzwords being used with one person completely understanding what drives and influences the use of those terms, and another copying them without the understanding.

There is also no way we are top ten budget anymore.

If City genuinely want the football style alluded to by Jon Lansdown and slightly better explained by Brian Tinnion, then there are questions to be asked about whether Manning is that type.

If I was trying to evaluate Liam Manning’s style at Oxford I would liken it more closely to Russell Martin at Swansea, high possession, control possession, slow build-up, and not high-pressing either.

Thats not to say he’s a one-trick pony, I don’t know how he played at Lommel for example.

Bolton (Ian Evatt) are high pressing, Oxford (Manning) aren’t.

I think Jon Lansdown is describing a Sunderland-type style, maybe Hull….but he’s not describing Oxford!  I use those two examples on purpose.  One a 59 year old manager, the other 39.  Age shouldn’t be a driver of head-coach recruitment.

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

Thanks Harry. Really interesting.

And a bit depressing if it means that we’re setting off again on yet another ‘rebuild’. Although I’d be interested to see the extent to which we could adapt existing players. I’m thinking, for example, of Atkinson (and to an extent Vyner) who’ve shown that they can create from the back if they’re given licence to do so. Or Mehmeti, who showed last week that he can look far more effective playing AM than he has playing wide.

On the other hand, the length of your post, and of the responses to it, get the Liam Manning thread that much closer to the 20 pages, at which point the club deny interest! 

We should not be looking at a rebuild at all.  The signings made fit what is being described.  If, however, which is where I think you’re going, is that Manning would want different players.  I agree.  So unless Manning can have a different style here to what he has at Oxford then we have the wrong man.

FWIW I have no issues with Manning, bright young head-coach by the seems of it.

[red panda]

11 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

The three phrases that follow it, ffs. And more besides. Are you a WUM or genuinely stupid? It's one or the other. 

What a charming response

[Zuni]

3 hours ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

There have been a large influx of new posters.

The majority seem to have joined in the vitriol against Lansdown and disgust at NP leaving whilst a small number have not. 

Those who haven't have to a man/woman been accused as being employees of Bristol Sport. Posters with long term dormant accounts now posting have similarly been dismissed as such when not joining in yet unquestioned if agreeing with the majority consensus of the NP: everything good/ BCFC:everything bad.

All members are equal but some are more equal than others so long as they join in with the consensus narrative.

But, hey Silvio, thanks for being a thought police volunteer. Keep making a list about anyone who dares think the Lansdown family have tried their best for the club with a quarter billion £ investment.

p.s For your records my name is Pike

 

 

Thanks.

[BigTone]

25 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Assuming the Manning rumour is true - This is a classic case of football buzzwords being used with one person completely understanding what drives and influences the use of those terms, and another copying them without the understanding.

There is also no way we are top ten budget anymore.

If City genuinely want the football style alluded to by Jon Lansdown and slightly better explained by Brian Tinnion, then there are questions to be asked about whether Manning is that type.

If I was trying to evaluate Liam Manning’s style at Oxford I would liken it more closely to Russell Martin at Swansea, high possession, control possession, slow build-up, and not high-pressing either.

Thats not to say he’s a one-trick pony, I don’t know how he played at Lommel for example.

Bolton (Ian Evatt) are high pressing, Oxford (Manning) aren’t.

I think Jon Lansdown is describing a Sunderland-type style, maybe Hull….but he’s not describing Oxford!  I use those two examples on purpose.  One a 59 year old manager, the other 39.  Age shouldn’t be a driver of head-coach recruitment.

We should not be looking at a rebuild at all.  The signings made fit what is being described.  If, however, which is where I think you’re going, is that Manning would want different players.  I agree.  So unless Manning can have a different style here to what he has at Oxford then we have the wrong man.

FWIW I have no issues with Manning, bright young head-coach by the seems of it.

Would leave me totally underwhelmed TBH

[Top Robin]

1 hour ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

It'll be like watching EastfukinEnders every week, won't it. Good god.

He's from Norwich 

[cidered abroad]

56 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

I agree about the new posters. There seems a whiff of paranoia around here about them - just put 'em on ignore! 

Like I have with you.

As for the highlighted bit - it's a specious argument and you know it - no-one's made him spend that much - he's had too because he keeps making a mess of things - are we supposed to just doff our caps and shut up - etc etc

So as you go back on ignore, I'll leave you with this:

How long does our owner need to get it right if 20+ years isn't long enough? How many chances to get it right does he need - if we had a Centre forward who kept missing chances as regularly as our owner has, would you still keep picking him or would you decide it's time for a new Centre forward? 

I believe it is a quite simple explanation.

SL is an accountant who uses the past to decide what will happen in the future. No sense of a different pathway!

All of the money making came from Hargreaves the investor and as such, one who would gamble. Not recklessly and not all the time but enough to make higher profits than the totally safe route.

SL has spent good money on the buildings which are certain to be better than, for instance, the old shed/Covered End/East End. And like the Lansdown, which can be used to considerably increase non football revenue in addition to 11,00 dearest seats

But not one clue about the game of football, the people who work in it or those who turn up to watch Liverpool or Manc one day and a week later travel to Darlington or Rochdale for an evening Division Four game!

[JP Hampton]

2 hours ago, italian dave said:

Probably better than any of us on here?

 

Yes but the difference is he’s paid to know better, we aren’t! Bit of a silly argument really IMO.

[JP Hampton]

2 hours ago, Spike said:

I mean I could invest £250m into the beef trade in India, I doubt people would give me a pat on the back and be like "you did your best", instead they'd say "why did you just invest that money into something so stupid?".

The Lansdowns haven't been quite that level of stupid, I mean the business side of developing the stadium and the training ground have been fantastic but beyond that what have they done? 

The management choices have been questionable and if you look at the ones that have been a success for us even those appear to have been tainted.

Id say of all the successful managers I've seen at this club the most successful was Cotterill and he was sacked after the club refused to allow him to go after the targets he wanted to leaving the team short of what he felt it needed, the club refusing the man who got us two trophies in a single season, unbacked because at that point there was a rift between them. 

Gary Johnson was probably the only man they didn't piss off that did well for us, maybe his son could be included but I would say LJ was hacked more than any manager I've ever seen at this club and he still failed to achieve the Premier League goal. 

Coppell for me was the real sign that there was an issue at the top, he came in and within 4 months lost his passion for management and resigned, then went on to work for 5 other clubs. Something still doesn't sit right with me about that whole situation and I think it was a case of him knowing that he couldn't get success with that board/owners. 

Then you have Pearson, probably the only manager I've seen in my time as a City fan that's been sacked without any fan fare for it, hence I think it's receiving such a big backlash. Even those who weren't sure of Pearson at his times here where it looked like he'd lost the fanbase came around and backed him again, I still can't think of many managers who recovered from losing the fans here. The result, the board doesn't like him, get rid, the fans will keep coming anyway (Jon Lansdowns words, not mine). 

Then you could address decisions like Tinnion being manager because it was cheap and he's very much in the owners pockets, that ended well. Or how about the endless weeks we waited to hear who our new manager would be, only for it to end up being the assistant manager of the man who was sacked, to the utter disbelief of the fans. 

The only constant in all of this is the Lansdowns so let's just forget all of that because they slung a quarter of a billion at the wall making all those awful decisions. 

Run out of emojis but bravo  

[italian dave]

2 minutes ago, JP Hampton said:

Yes but the difference is he’s paid to know better, we aren’t! Bit of a silly argument really IMO.

In terms of money (where this started) I’m not really sure that logic applies. He’s not been “paid”: he’s invested lots of his own ££s - none of us could have done that.

In terms of the decision making, I take your point, but the point I was trying to make is that you only have to look at the diversity of views on just about any topic: who’s to say that on balance he hasn’t got the calls better? 

Put it this way: if, back in 2002, control of the club had been handed to OTIB collectively, I’m not convinced that we’d now be an established, albeit mid table, Championship side. Are you? 

[Merrick's Marvels]

31 minutes ago, Top Robin said:

He's from Norwich 

You haven't listened to the video?