Hughes..the reality

[barney8]

Rammy Blue - agree with you about Sven (although I'd have given him another season as you simply can't judge on one season) but the point is that at the end of this season, Hughes will at least catch him in win % and may overtake him and early next season (if he's still here) will overtake him in points per game. So by 10 games in next season, Hughes could actually be our most successful Premiership manager.

You have to consider the circumstances.

SGE took over a squad that had finished 14th on 42 points, had practically no pre season and much less money to spend than MH has had. Still we were 4th by christmas, which shows what difference a quality manager can make. Then he had very little money to spend in the january transfer window. The squad was paper thin, so we faded but still finished 9th on 55 points, 13 points better than the previous season.

MH has spent £110 million to improve on that, but will most likely (?) finish 9th-10th on 50 points. Simply not good enough.

 

[DINKYDALTON]

Do you really expect to be taken seriously spouting crap like this? For one thing, Arsenal aren't big spenders but they've given their manager time to implement his ideas, ehich involve buying good young players and slotting them into his system.

Liverpool and the rags have been top teams for years and their Champions League riches mean they have been spending big money season after season after season. It's taken Benitez 5 years to even come close to having a crack at the title having spent something like £250m. People think Chelsea were nothing before Abramovic but they had been in the top 4 for a good few years before that, from the 1997/98 season. United gave their manager time to do his job and build a team instead of sacking him because he didn't get top 4 in his first season.

Get a grip FFS or you'll do yourself some serious harm. You already sound like someone half-demented

This obviously a bit to much for prickwich_blue. You only qoute facts that support you're closet view of football and City. You seem petrified at the thought of success for City, what's the worry, another flat cap and whippet racer, worried that he won't get his hair ruffled by the patronising bastards, who have been telling him City are their second club for the last 30 years. You qoute Rafa getting close to the title, fuck that, he's been to two champions cup finals in that time and proved himself capable of dealing with the best players and getting their respect.
No one has still been able to say why Hughes is a better choice for us than , Jose, Mancinni, Rijkaard, or Van Gaal, for that matter. You can't. No one can, because to say Hughes is better than those mentioned, is two sound like an idiot, which, once you go through the padding on you're posts, is what you are, YFNN.

 

[DINKYDALTON]

Rammy Blue - agree with you about Sven (although I'd have given him another season as you simply can't judge on one season) but the point is that at the end of this season, Hughes will at least catch him in win % and may overtake him and early next season (if he's still here) will overtake him in points per game. So by 10 games in next season, Hughes could actually be our most successful Premiership manager.

You have to consider the circumstances.

SGE took over a squad that had finished 14th on 42 points, had practically no pre season and much less money to spend than MH has had. Still we were 4th by christmas, which shows what difference a quality manager can make. Then he had very little money to spend in the january transfer window. The squad was paper thin, so we faded but still finished 9th on 55 points, 13 points better than the previous season.

MH has spent £110 million to improve on that, but will most likely (?) finish 9th-10th on 50 points. Simply not good enough.

Barney, you're wasting you're typing strength. Hughes is the champion of the fake City fan, thick as pig shit and cowardly with it.

 

[bluenova]

Fascinating figures - it does show with Chelsea and ourselves the kind of money it takes to climb up the tree if you're not already at the top.

Once you have a winning team the cost of staying there diminishes (one of the reasons why the Rags and Arsenal aren't as high as you might imagine) as it becomes a case of topping up/replacing. Winning teams may be able to seel their players for higher prices (these players are after all now seen as winners and there is an element of reflected glory).

I'd like to see a chart that included wages as that's at least as significant as transfers. There's no 'net spend' as wages are going straight out - so you buy a top player for £15m sell him for £15 and that shows you've spent nothing - same as Hull buying a £1m player and selling him for £1m. The difference is that the £15m player may have cost 80k a week or £12m over a three year contract.

I agree with Prestwich_blue that the 'give the manager time' thing is no replacement for money but I'd suggest the position of Spurs and Newcastle in these charts is partly due to switching managers too often. A long term manager only needs to buy two or three players to maintain/renew his team. A new manager usually wants revolution and will often buy eight or more players in a season - then the players he's selling often go cheap because they are seen as failures.

 

[Joycee Banercheck]

SGE took over a squad that had finished 14th on 42 points, had practically no pre season and much less money to spend than MH has had. Still we were 4th by christmas, which shows what difference a quality manager can make. Then he had very little money to spend in the january transfer window. The squad was paper thin, so we faded but still finished 9th on 55 points, 13 points better than the previous season.

MH has spent £110 million to improve on that, but will most likely (?) finish 9th-10th on 50 points. Simply not good enough.

How many players from Sven's purchases played regularly this season?

 

[moomba]

I'd like to see a chart that included wages as that's at least as significant as transfers. There's no 'net spend' as wages are going straight out - so you buy a top player for £15m sell him for £15 and that shows you've spent nothing - same as Hull buying a £1m player and selling him for £1m. The difference is that the £15m player may have cost 80k a week or £12m over a three year contract.

I haven't seen a chart for a year or so, but they do come out regularly. No surprise but the Sky 4 are the biggest spenders, from memory there was always some distance to Newcastle in 5th.

 

[Brucie Bonus]

With Mourinho you have a wealth of experience gained over almost two decades in management, lots of value added (including his abilities with foreign languages, which is NOT to be sneezed at), and people always forget the work he did at Lisbon under Robson, what he did at Leiria in a few months, and Barcelona under Robson and later Van Gaal.

If both men are a gamble, which one is the greater? If both men are a gamble that will cost hundreds of millions of pounds, which man us more likely to get you a decent return? If both men are a gamble, what rational actor would put his money on Hughes over Mourinho? In so far as monies spent could be seen as an investment, I'd like to see the reasoning that would lead a pension fund or the like to buy stock in Hughes Inc. but refuse Jose International.

The records and experience of the two are poles apart. Only City fans could seriously have this deabte.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'd like to see a chart that included wages as that's at least as significant as transfers. There's no 'net spend' as wages are going straight out - so you buy a top player for £15m sell him for £15 and that shows you've spent nothing - same as Hull buying a £1m player and selling him for £1m. The difference is that the £15m player may have cost 80k a week or £12m over a three year contract.

I haven't seen a chart for a year or so, but they do come out regularly. No surprise but the Sky 4 are the biggest spenders, from memory there was always some distance to Newcastle in 5th.

Then Spurs then us usually.

 

[bluenova]

The records and experience of the two are poles apart. Only City fans could seriously have this deabte.

You're right of course. I have thought about this - if we're buying the best players surely we buy the best manager too. Twelve months ago who'd have Hughes over Scolari? Jose does have a magic touch but I never really enjoyed watching Chelsea play stifling possession football. Sven was another who I think was a good manager, and I never understood those who thought his England record was bad, but I didn't enjoy watching his teams hang on to one-nil leads. (Interesting how Capello began with the Italian plan A that Sven followed but has now moved onto a plan B with a faster/attacking style more suited to the English players).

The debate isn't just about who is the best right now, as Jose wins hands down. It's more that our results have improved significantly over the second half of the season (to top 5/6 quality even without the centre back and tall centre forward that we tried to buy), and that we have at times played some fantastic football, which is not what you'd have associated with Hughes previously. The debate for me, is whether Hughes has shown enough promise, that he'll be able to take us on with the much better players we can buy in the summer. A new manager is always a risk and inevitably adds a little disruption, so the choice isn't quite so clear cut.

 

[bluetoes]

plongo go away from here. like reality no one likes you. i know im not wrong ; )