Manchester City have sacked Roberto Mancini and I don't think anybody is too surprised. The fans might be upset because he brought them their first FA Cup since 1969 and their first title since 1968 and they hoped they were going to go down the Manchester United route of having continuity with one manager but this decision has been on the cards.
Part of the reason Mancini has been sacked is because of their poor performances in the Champions League and part of it is being so far behind Manchester United this season and the embarrassing Cup final performance against Wigan but more than anything else I think he has paid the price for his poor man-management of players.
There has been too much discontent amongst the players in the City camp and the owners have clearly had enough.
When I was a player, whenever there was an issue between a player and a manager it was always kept in-house but it seems that whenever Mancini had a problem with a player he wanted to talk about it with the press.
Modern day supporters can actually encourage managers to do this because the players are on so much money they believe they should be criticised if they don't just get on with their jobs.
However, footballers are still human beings and just like the ordinary man of the street - the one thing they don't want to be is embarrassed in public.
If a manager calls you into his office and he tells you he is unhappy with you, you might accept it and go out in the next match looking to prove him wrong, but when things come out in public I think it goes against you as a manager – not just with the player in question but with the rest of the squad who start to question whether they can trust you.
He lost too many players – I felt he handled the Carlos Tevez situation poorly and how he dealt with Mario Balotelli also caused problems. Other players looked at all the things Balotelli was getting up to, seeing how much of a favourite he was with Mancini; he was getting away with murder and the whole thing ended up backfiring against Mancini.
All this was bad publicity for the club too and we have to remember that Manchester City are not just trying to win football matches anymore – they are trying to become a brand.
They are trying to push themselves worldwide and they are looking for a manager who will be the face of Manchester City both before and after matches.
And with Mancini it just wasn't working – too many people seemed to dislike him and they felt in the long-term he was not the man to lead them.
It you look at it purely from a win percentage stand point Mancini was a very good manager – there were not too many managers better than him. This season was disappointing but they would have given him that third season if it hadn't been for all the off the field issues.
There is a lot of speculation that Manuel Pellegrini could replace Mancini and if that's the case I think it is a solid appointment by City.
His very experienced, he was great at Villarreal and while he did not win the league at Real Madrid, he did achieve the club's highest ever points total in La Liga and his problems there were more to do with the president and the sporting director who never fully got behind him.
What he did with Malaga was particularly impressive. They had money initially but then when they started to lose all that financial muscle, Pellegrini kept his powder dry, he didn't get involved, didn't star moaning about it despite losing players left, right and centre but yet he still managed to produce good results.
His teams always play attacking football and I used to love watching his Villarreal side when Juan Roman Riquelme was his lieutenant. He has always been tactically sound and Manchester United could never beat Villarreal when Pellegrini was in charge.
His international outlook will suit City too as they do not have too many English players and I actually think they might have even less with Pellegrini in charge because I can't see him sticking with Gareth Barry in midfield or bringing on James Milner to run around like a headless chicken.
At the end of the day people will say the sacking is a little harsh on Mancini but this change might be for the good. It might lead to a happier club because it is clear the club weren't happy with him.
I'd back City to have a good season next time out now. A few players might relax a bit more. You have to ask why so many players underperformed this season and it might all rest with Mancini – how he used to remonstrate with players, how he waved his arms whenever they made mistakes.
They don't need to add that much – most of the players they need are already at the club – they just need two or three world class players who have gone out and won big trophies.
That's something that Mancini should have done last summer. People say that the club didn't allow Mancini to buy but you have to ask why not? It could have been because Mancini was petulant in his manner, the club might have been getting opinions from elsewhere wondering whether Mancini's targets would have fitted in with the squad, was he buying for the sake of buying, was he trying to mix water with oil?
The reason City did not defend their title was not because they didn't have the players. On paper their squad was better than United's but too much was going on behind the scenes, and ultimately that's Mancini's responsibility and why he got the sack.