Mark Hughes Sacked

[JacknDanny]

Mark Hughes has just been sacked and Roberto Mancini has signed a 3.5 year deal

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_5785566,00.html

Dont know what to make of it!!

City and stability just dont go hand in hand

[mrbojangles]

Yeah your right jack. A shock to me. Apparently it was a done deal as long ago as the 2nd Dec But that might be jsut paper talk.

I'm pretty sad for Hughes but if i be quite honest, he was tactically naive. The subs he made tonight where...well.....unbelievable.

[MSingh]

Quite a shock all round..

One side of the coin says he has only been defeated once in 10 or so, the other says he's only one twice in 10 or so..wonI'd take him & Bowen at Upton Park all day long & i don't think Mancini is the right appointment, should have waited for Mourinho in the Summer..

Edited December 19, 2009 by MSingh

[Jockstar]

Hughes falls foul of City’s instability

Posted by Jon Carter 7 hours, 37 minutes ago

In hindsight, it was one of the more obvious managerial changes in the Premier League. While there have been precious few top bosses removed this season – Paul Hart at Portsmouth being the first – Mark Hughes has been on borrowed time at Manchester City since the world’s richest club revealed its ambitions.

Despite publically backing Hughes, the Abu Dhabi-based group have had their eyes on someone else for some time. Whether it was this week’s revelation that Guus Hiddink had been targeted after Russia’s exit from the World Cup play-offs or Roberto Mancini’s sudden presence at Eastlands to watch what eventually turned out to be the Welshman’s final match, it was coming.

City’s ambition is hard to fulfil and Hughes has paid an unfair price for failing to match it. With the number of quality players they have they expect to be higher in the table but, in reality, sixth is a decent start for a side that has effectively been completely rebuilt from scratch in the past year.

City’s owners want Champions League football – a position the club are only four points off at the moment – but City’s fans are simply happy to be at the right end of the table for a change. There won’t be many at Eastlands who will be pleased with the prospect of changing bosses at such a crucial point in the season, but the cash-rich owners obviously want to give carte blanche to the new man before January arrives.

And therein lies the problem. High-profile transfers dominate their minds, but the hope of watching the world’s greatest players ply their trade in Manchester is unrealistic. Kaka proved that when he chose Madrid. Stability is what is needed this season and, when Kaldoon al-Mubarak gave his backing to Hughes after City's run of seven straight draws, it appeared he was getting just that.

A damaging 3-0 defeat to Tottenham (only their second this season by the way), evidently turned the tables and the owner’s true colours have shown. Quite simply, it is a rash decision and, if Roberto Mancini really is the best they can come up with, then there are bigger problems afoot.

City run the risk that all those who chase the ‘galactico’ dream suffer. They will never be able to attract a world-class manager if stability is not in place and it would be no surprise at all if Mancini makes way for someone else in six months’ time.

By signing Gareth Barry, Carlos Tevez and Kolo Toure, the club showed good sense in recruiting competent Premier League players who could aid their drive up the table. In sacking Hughes, all that good work has been undone and it is worth noting that no world-class player will want to be part of a side that changes their manager every few months.

[salty]

Having bankrolled City to such an extent these guys will be looking for sucess yesterday. Can a further change of management be that far off you have to wonder.

[whichschool]

With Liverpool doing as bad as they are, Man U in transition, Arsenal with a team full of talented 5 feet 5 60kg lightweights he couldnt have asked for a better time to be given 200 million as is now being reported, thus he is a failure.

Mancinis success at Inter was done when all top teams got relegated or had many points deducted due to match fixing, their rivals had no champions league money and had to sell their best players, not saying he's bad but in a distorted league where the main competitions been removed its hard to get a definite view of how good he is.

[Sparkles]

Hughes obviously got wind of this and is probably why he left the "spoilt child" Robinho who has contributed very little at City and "I'll play well when I feel like it" Adebaeyor in the stands, a sort of "up yours" retalliation from Hughes. Still he wont go hungry, his termination payout will be massive, anybody know how much ????

[scousemouse]

Looks like the good part of Manchester is happy with the departure of Hughes.

But to get Mancini as a replacement ?!?!?! surely Gus Hiddink or a higher profile manager with premiership experience would have been a better choice. Mancini has only managed the club he played for and not for to long till he got sacked and given the league on a platter thanks to Juventus' mafia ties.

Good luck anyway blue mancs , hope you finish higher than the bad red <deleted> , just dont finish higher than the good red <deleted> .

[Sparkles]

Looks like the good part of Manchester is happy with the departure of Hughes.

But to get Mancini as a replacement ?!?!?! surely Gus Hiddink or a higher profile manager with premiership experience would have been a better choice. Mancini has only managed the club he played for and not for to long till he got sacked and given the league on a platter thanks to Juventus' mafia ties.

Good luck anyway blue mancs , hope you finish higher than the bad red <deleted> , just dont finish higher than the good red <deleted> .

Roman A, who financially carries the Russian National side as well as Chelsea,would never allow Hiddink to break contract and go to City.

In the time Ferguson has been at United City have had 14 managers,says it all doesnt it ?

[oldgit]

According to The Times,the players begged the owners to retain Hughes as coach.If they were that cut up about,it's a pity that they couldn't do their talking on the pitch.

[scousemouse]

Looks like the good part of Manchester is happy with the departure of Hughes.

But to get Mancini as a replacement ?!?!?! surely Gus Hiddink or a higher profile manager with premiership experience would have been a better choice. Mancini has only managed the club he played for and not for to long till he got sacked and given the league on a platter thanks to Juventus' mafia ties.

Good luck anyway blue mancs , hope you finish higher than the bad red <deleted> , just dont finish higher than the good red <deleted> .

Roman A, who financially carries the Russian National side as well as Chelsea,would never allow Hiddink to break contract and go to City.

In the time Ferguson has been at United City have had 14 managers,says it all doesnt it ?

money talks charles and the good half of the mancs have got a sh£t load of it

[mrbojangles]

Good luck anyway blue mancs , hope you finish higher than the bad red <deleted> , just dont finish higher than the good red <deleted> .

Cheers scousemouse

And welcome back me ol mucker

[mrbojangles]

According to The Times,the players begged the owners to retain Hughes as coach.If they were that cut up about,it's a pity that they couldn't do their talking on the pitch.

I don't think they knew anything about it till after the match. In fairness they worked hard for that result last night but i think it was too late anyways, seems the deal was done with Mancini weeks ago. I read that they tried to get to Cook but it seems resisance is futile.

Onward and upwards...........................I hope

[scousemouse]

Good luck anyway blue mancs , hope you finish higher than the bad red <deleted> , just dont finish higher than the good red <deleted> .

Cheers scousemouse

And welcome back me ol mucker

Cheers mate

I look forward to buying you a beer or 4 in Feb

[Sparkles]

According to The Times,the players begged the owners to retain Hughes as coach.If they were that cut up about,it's a pity that they couldn't do their talking on the pitch.

I don't think they knew anything about it till after the match. In fairness they worked hard for that result last night but i think it was too late anyways, seems the deal was done with Mancini weeks ago. I read that they tried to get to Cook but it seems resisance is futile.

Onward and upwards...........................I hope

Its pretty hard to belive that the players and Hughes didnt know. It was headlines in most papers before the match and I know you cant trust them but sometines they gets it right. On BBC Radio 5 ,before the match,Hiddinks agent was discussing the fact that CEO Cook had been in touch with him re Hiddinks availability some weeks before.Its almost imposssibe for football clubs to keep a secret ,many a spotters fee has been paid for correct info believe me. I guess it doesnt really matter the timing but as usual owners,especially from that part of the world, that no nothing about football ,have the last say. If City finish further down the table, by next May, what next ? Interesting in the time that Fergsuon has been at United City have had 14 managers.

[Sparkles]

If anyones interested check out THE SUNS website , they claim they broke the Hughes sacking story on the morning of the match. Also that Academy Director Brian Kidd,who was appointed by Hughes months ago knew 3 weeks ago he would be Mancinis right hand man. I dont think Kidd speaks Italian and ,according to the Sun, Mancini cant speak English ! interesting

[MSingh]

What absolute nonsense that he didn't know until after the Game, the tabloids knew it, we all knew it, but Hughes didn't ?? Don't insult me..

Have a nose at the Vid on the BBC of him waving to the Crowd after the Game & yeah ok, he probably does it most Games ( & rightfully so ) but that was more than just a normal wave after scraping a win against Sunderland, you can see it..

The Cooke Fella isn't covering himself in glory again..

I got a message from a City Pal of mine this morning who appears to be fuming & i can see where he's coming from..

I still wnat City to break the Top 4 but i think this decision is b*llocks to put it politely..

====

It's Monday Morning and I still haven't calmed down about this. I've been reading the more reliable reports in the Papers today. It's claimed that Chief Exec Garry Cook (a complete tosser) flew to Holland to offer the post to Hiddink and he turned it down because there was no vacancy at the time. There's also an idea that Mancini is only an interim Manager with the post ultimately going to a Mourinho style Manager at the end of the season. I think they're hoping for European Football next season to attract a truly top name.

Either way, this is the dark side of how wealthy Arabs / Muslims operate and it stinks.

====

[StevieH]

mancini has allegedly been learning english for the last year or so. still think he's a stupid appointment, he's not really any more proven or big name than hughes is.

[MSingh]

mancini has allegedly been learning english for the last year or so. still think he's a stupid appointment, he's not really any more proven or big name than hughes is.

& to think he applied for the Job at our place but we took Zola over him...

[JacknDanny]

What absolute nonsense that he didn't know until after the Game, the tabloids knew it, we all knew it, but Hughes didn't ?? Don't insult me..

Have a nose at the Vid on the BBC of him waving to the Crowd after the Game & yeah ok, he probably does it most Games ( & rightfully so ) but that was more than just a normal wave after scraping a win against Sunderland, you can see it..

The Cooke Fella isn't covering himself in glory again..

I got a message from a City Pal of mine this morning who appears to be fuming & i can see where he's coming from..

I still wnat City to break the Top 4 but i think this decision is b*llocks to put it politely..

====

It's Monday Morning and I still haven't calmed down about this. I've been reading the more reliable reports in the Papers today. It's claimed that Chief Exec Garry Cook (a complete tosser) flew to Holland to offer the post to Hiddink and he turned it down because there was no vacancy at the time. There's also an idea that Mancini is only an interim Manager with the post ultimately going to a Mourinho style Manager at the end of the season. I think they're hoping for European Football next season to attract a truly top name.

Either way, this is the dark side of how wealthy Arabs / Muslims operate and it stinks.

====

I agree.

I will always have blue blood in my veins, but there is a right way of doing things.

For me the money side is not an issue. I dont care how much money we spend in order to win something....... but at least let us do it with a bit of class.

The way Richard Dunne was treated ( what a dumb move that now looks!!) and now Hughes, and the obvious cover ups and lies being created by that tosser Cook,typifies the personna of someone who believes everyone else is an idiot.

It becomes more obvious that Cook knows absolutely jack sh!t about football, and is just an overpaid ars licker.

Mancini, does not have any special record. He won Serie A by default, and then retained when teams were either relegated or docked points, so in effect he won with a stacked hand.

He has absolutely ZERO European trophies.

I am not saying Hughes was a great manager either, but the goalposts were moved on him, which is underhanded.

He was given an agenda and a target, which was publicly known. Despite 3 or 4 mediocre results, we were bang on target.

Cook is making himself and unfortunately the club, look stupid.

The only shining light in all this is the appointment of Brian Kidd as assistant manager.

I know that the players at United and Leeds loved the guy, and his skills as a man manager will be surely needed now that Cook has managed to severely damage player morale.

[rixalex]

I agree.

I will always have blue blood in my veins, but there is a right way of doing things.

For me the money side is not an issue. I dont care how much money we spend in order to win something....... but at least let us do it with a bit of class.

The way Richard Dunne was treated ( what a dumb move that now looks!!) and now Hughes, and the obvious cover ups and lies being created by that tosser Cook,typifies the personna of someone who believes everyone else is an idiot.

It becomes more obvious that Cook knows absolutely jack sh!t about football, and is just an overpaid ars licker.

Mancini, does not have any special record. He won Serie A by default, and then retained when teams were either relegated or docked points, so in effect he won with a stacked hand.

He has absolutely ZERO European trophies.

I am not saying Hughes was a great manager either, but the goalposts were moved on him, which is underhanded.

He was given an agenda and a target, which was publicly known. Despite 3 or 4 mediocre results, we were bang on target.

Cook is making himself and unfortunately the club, look stupid.

The only shining light in all this is the appointment of Brian Kidd as assistant manager.

I know that the players at United and Leeds loved the guy, and his skills as a man manager will be surely needed now that Cook has managed to severely damage player morale.

Great to hear a supporter cutting through the crap and telling it like it is about his own club. Refreshing. Good on yer Jack.

[MSingh]

What absolute nonsense that he didn't know until after the Game, the tabloids knew it, we all knew it, but Hughes didn't ?? Don't insult me..

Have a nose at the Vid on the BBC of him waving to the Crowd after the Game & yeah ok, he probably does it most Games ( & rightfully so ) but that was more than just a normal wave after scraping a win against Sunderland, you can see it..

The Cooke Fella isn't covering himself in glory again..

I got a message from a City Pal of mine this morning who appears to be fuming & i can see where he's coming from..

I still wnat City to break the Top 4 but i think this decision is b*llocks to put it politely..

====

It's Monday Morning and I still haven't calmed down about this. I've been reading the more reliable reports in the Papers today. It's claimed that Chief Exec Garry Cook (a complete tosser) flew to Holland to offer the post to Hiddink and he turned it down because there was no vacancy at the time. There's also an idea that Mancini is only an interim Manager with the post ultimately going to a Mourinho style Manager at the end of the season. I think they're hoping for European Football next season to attract a truly top name.

Either way, this is the dark side of how wealthy Arabs / Muslims operate and it stinks.

====

I agree.

I will always have blue blood in my veins, but there is a right way of doing things.

For me the money side is not an issue. I dont care how much money we spend in order to win something....... but at least let us do it with a bit of class.

The way Richard Dunne was treated ( what a dumb move that now looks!!) and now Hughes, and the obvious cover ups and lies being created by that tosser Cook,typifies the personna of someone who believes everyone else is an idiot.

It becomes more obvious that Cook knows absolutely jack sh!t about football, and is just an overpaid ars licker.

Mancini, does not have any special record. He won Serie A by default, and then retained when teams were either relegated or docked points, so in effect he won with a stacked hand.

He has absolutely ZERO European trophies.

I am not saying Hughes was a great manager either, but the goalposts were moved on him, which is underhanded.

He was given an agenda and a target, which was publicly known. Despite 3 or 4 mediocre results, we were bang on target.

Cook is making himself and unfortunately the club, look stupid.

The only shining light in all this is the appointment of Brian Kidd as assistant manager.

I know that the players at United and Leeds loved the guy, and his skills as a man manager will be surely needed now that Cook has managed to severely damage player morale.

Not saying i told you so but i did call this stuff about Cooke 6 months back & that's why we had out little tiff..

It was blatantly obvious to all & sundry outside of the City Family during the Kaka affair that the Man was a prized W*nker, of the highest order & we caught him out lying & highlighted it on this very Site, clear as day..

We have one of those too though, Scott Duxbury his name is, W*nker of the highest order, regulary gets caught out lying & ironically is a Manc...

Time will tell, still hope you'll break the Top 4 but can't help feeling you would have had a better chance, this Year, with Hughes in charge..

Edited December 22, 2009 by MSingh

[scousemouse]

I know Brian Kidd is going to be on Mancini's coaching staff but is it also true that David Platt is aswell ???

[mrbojangles]

Good post jack and I agree fully.

Especially this bit.

The way Richard Dunne was treated ( what a dumb move that now looks!!) and now Hughes, and the obvious cover ups and lies being created by that tosser Cook,typifies the personna of someone who believes everyone else is an idiot.

[mrbojangles]

I know Brian Kidd is going to be on Mancini's coaching staff but is it also true that David Platt is aswell ???

Don't know about that one scouse. Just looked on the city site and no mention of anyone else yet.

[mrbojangles]

This is the interview with Garry Cook at the press conference.

From City's website:-

"Today’s press conference is about the appointment of Roberto Mancini as the manager of Manchester City.

That said, there has been a lot of conjecture about the process of Mark Hughes’ departure. The Club made a statement about this on Saturday and it reflects our position. However, in light of some of the comments and characterisations of events I will take this opportunity to add a few additional points today:

1. Firstly, I want to put on the record again our thanks for everything Mark and his team did here and to reiterate the respect that the owners and everyone in the Club have for them. This has been a very difficult decision for the Board to make and not one that was taken lightly.

2. At the end of last season we set a target of a 6thplace finish, but following the accelerated player acquisition activity of the Club in the summer transfer window, the new target that the playing staff agreed with the Board for the 2009/2010 season was 70 points. The trajectory of recent results was below this requirement and the Board felt that there was no evidence that the situation would fundamentally change.

3. The owner, Chairman and I all worked to give Mark any resources that he might require to achieve that goal.

4. Some of the characterisation of events of the last two days is particularly disappointing considering the fact that in the last 15 months there have been a number of occasions where Mark’s position has been questioned by people outside the Club. The support that he was shown at those times and the resources that he was given was complete and extensive.

5. The Chairman has been nothing but transparent with Mark Hughes throughout his tenure and had communicated with him regularly over the last several weeks. In keeping with that behaviour, the Chairman got on a plane and came to Manchester to meet with Mark in person to explain the decision. Once the decision to change managers had been taken, the Board felt that the sooner that change was made, the less disruption there would be to the Club and the fairer it would be to Mark and his team.

6. The intention was to tell Mark immediately after the game on Saturday. That would give Roberto and his team a full week to prepare for the next game. Regrettably, and despite our best efforts, rumours of discussions with Roberto Mancini became public before the game.

7. Once Mark was informed, I informed his coaching staff and the players were then informed. That is why Kolo Toure and Shay Given were asked to attend a meeting after the game. There is no player rebellion and the playing and training staff have been going about their business this morning very professionally with Roberto and Brian Kidd.

8. The decision to end Mark’s tenure was a unanimous decision by the Owner, the Chairman, myself and the Board, as was the decision to appoint Roberto Mancini to the position.

9. Like any other business we have plans and targets; and we have contingencies for when those plans and targets are not being met. The decision to look at managerial options was taken only three weeks ago after the Hull game, but I think it is important for people to know that Roberto was only offered the job after the Spurs game; we negotiated on Thursday and finalised his agreement on Friday. He was not in the Stadium on Saturday as has been reported.

With the points that I have just made and the statement that the Club made on Saturday there is nothing more for me to add on the process of change we have gone through. You will find everything I have just said in statement form on the Club website. The Club has nothing further to add and I will not be taking questions on this subject.

I now very much want to focus on the reason that we have called today’s press conference - to introduce Roberto Mancini to you as the new manager of Manchester City. After a hugely distinguished playing career he has gone on to further success as a manager in one of the toughest leagues in the world, becoming in the process the most successful Inter Milan manager of the last 30 years. Because of this track record of success he is just the manager we need to take us to the next level."

[whichschool]

I read this on the comments section in the Daily Express (im usually a Mail reader) from a Man City fan, thought it hit the nail on the head.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/147306...chery-#comments

HUGHES HAD TO GO!

21.12.09, 6:41pm

I have been a Manchester City supporter for over forty years since Mark Hughes was in short pants, so I think I can allow myself to say I know what I'm talking about.

The owners of Manchester City Football Club are to be commended for taking the courageous decision to sack manager Mark Hughes and replace him with someone with a proven pedigree. Unfortunately, in doing so, they have brought upon themselves a lot of unwarranted criticism. The press, some football managers, and even some supporters have condemned Hughes' dismissal, but I often wonder if they really take into account the very many circumstances that prompted the owner's action and sound judgement?

Hughes' sacking wasn't just desirable, it was absolutely vital and for quite a number of reasons. Firstly, he wasn't the choice of the new owners. Hughes was already in place when they bought the club, yet they gave him a fair chance by anyone’s measure despite claims to the contrary. Other managers who can manage often do so on a limited budget. Hughes was given the kind of money to spend on players that other managers can only dream about yet he still couldn't cut it.

A good manager would have turned it around, but under Hughes, City were going backwards. Eighteen months is more than sufficient time to make improvements. This time last year, Harry Redknapp took over at Tottenham who were struggling to say the least. Harry improved performances in a fraction of the time Hughes was given and at a fraction of the cost. Similarly, it didn’t take Mourinho too long to put a great and entertaining side together at Chelsea. Aston Villa’s Martin O'Neil is another good example of a man who has the ability to manage. Roy Hodgson has done brilliantly to turn around Fulham's fortunes, and the list goes on. Some argue that City's injuries are to blame for their poor form of late but those managers mentioned above also have to cope with injuries and usually the effect is more pronounced because they have smaller squads and a more limited choice.

Most will agree that when building a football team, a manager builds from the back - but not Hughes! With the odd exception, Hughes' purchases were not the best. Like a kid running loose in a sweet shop who just grabs at everything, he paid inflated prices for one-season-wonders and misfits. After eighteen months in charge, Hughes' still couldn't manage to produce a decent and competent defence, but to their credit, the owners kept faith with him until they simply had to call a halt.

Saturday's result against lowly and struggling Sunderland spoke volumes. City defended poorly and conceded some very silly goals. Had it not been for the referee who allowed an offside goal to stand, and the award of a very dubious penalty, City would have lost 3 : 2 at home, and that just isn't good enough.

The television pundits keep trying to put a curious spin on City's results under Hughes saying how few games they have lost. I don't quite see it from their perspective because City seem to draw and not win, and that is a very important distinction. There are 38 league games in the course of an English Premiership season, and a team only gets one point for a draw. The safe threshold to avoid relegation is reckoned to be 40 points. To draw so many games is relegation form, not something to hold up as a shining example!

Clearly Manchester City's defence needs to be put right, but thanks to the January transfer window, there is a limited opportunity to buy-in new players. For Hughes to buy yet more defenders to replace those signings who haven’t performed, would be an admission of his own failure. Clearly Hughes’ judgement is seriously impaired, so a new manager had to be in place before the new year. The timing of Hughes’ removal was therefore right.

Then there is Hughes' past history to take into account. One fellow Manchester City supporter put it rather well recently when he said on television, 'It's a bit like a woman. If you can't forget her past, you've got no future.' Had Hughes been any good, the fact that he once played for City's rivals might have been easier to swallow.

People keep repeating the now discredited mantra (mainly because they lack the power of thought and originality) that Hughes is a brilliant young manager, but I really can’t see it. I am not entirely sure what other people see when they watch a football match, but I liken each game to a rapidly-moving game of chess where tactics are constantly changing and different strategies are used in order to gain an advantage over one's opponent. I could watch a master tactician like Jose Mourinho or Roy Hogdson make a team play to it's strengths and exploit the other side's weaknesses. I saw very little of that with the Manchester City managed by Mark Hughes! Instead, I saw laziness, fragmentation where parts of the team wouldn't play as a cohesive unit, a lack of discipline, a pathetic defence that Andy Pandy would have got past (with the exception of Given who is world-class in my view), and players who lacked commitment. That just isn't good enough from the richest club in the world with the highest expectations.

I said on Black Wednesday (4th June 2008) when Hughes was appointed that he wasn't right for the club. Sometimes I hate to be proved right. On saturday, following Hughes' departure, I slept very soundly indeed!

Tad Davison

Cambridge UK

[StevieH]

anyone who calls the owners' decision to sack hughes 'courageous' is a moron.

[whichschool]

anyone who calls the owners' decision to sack hughes 'courageous' is a moron.

Why?

IMO this guy puts his points across very well.

The cod philosophy cliche of it takes time to build a team goes out the window when a manager gets 250 million to spend in 1 year, in any other business if you made so many extremely bad investments you'd get sacked.

[StevieH]

anyone who calls the owners' decision to sack hughes 'courageous' is a moron.

Why?

IMO this guy puts his points across very well.

The cod philosophy cliche of it takes time to build a team goes out the window when a manager gets 250 million to spend in 1 year, in any other business if you made so many extremely bad investments you'd get sacked.

yes, but football isn't 'any other business' is it? it's a sport where faith and investment in managers reaps long-term benefits, ferguson and wenger being the best recent examples.

mister express's dissection of hughes' time at city is amateurish at best and the way in which the owners got rid of him was utterly cowardly, not 'courageous'.