in the defence of the hughes outers

[Big G]

Not read all the thread, just skimmed a few posts,
Are some people anti Hughes just because he is an ex rag meaning than he cant be accepted over here?

 

[Bill]

Ooops, got mixed up with the Challenger 1978 quote.

No problem mate. Made me laugh.

me too, cully out:)

 

[Cully]

No problem mate. Made me laugh.

me too, cully out:)

And they all lived happily ever after, in a cottage, in Wales.
Just a stones throw away from the Hughes home.
Some could visit Mark, others could actually throw stones at the...........

 

[PowderBlue]

Another question for me on this is who is at the club who would advise the owner or chairman re whether MH is taking the right road. I'll admit some ignrance on this but do we have a board as such as we have outright ownership? Who would say 'Hiddinks available, lets go for him' or such like. Would it be Cook or Marwood - traditional boards would start to develop factions against and for and eventually one side would win out. How does or would it work at City these days?

 

[Anonymous]

Another question for me on this is who is at the club who would advise the owner or chairman re whether MH is taking the right road. I'll admit some ignrance on this but do we have a board as such as we have outright ownership? Who would say 'Hiddinks available, lets go for him' or such like. Would it be Cook or Marwood - traditional boards would start to develop factions against and for and eventually one side would win out. How does or would it work at City these days?

I imagine that ultimately it's going to be Khaldoon's decision in conjunction with the sheikh. I doubt very much whether Cook or Marwood would have any say...

 

[Dyed Petya]

Another question for me on this is who is at the club who would advise the owner or chairman re whether MH is taking the right road. I'll admit some ignrance on this but do we have a board as such as we have outright ownership? Who would say 'Hiddinks available, lets go for him' or such like. Would it be Cook or Marwood - traditional boards would start to develop factions against and for and eventually one side would win out. How does or would it work at City these days?

I imagine that ultimately it's going to be Khaldoon's decision in conjunction with the sheikh. I doubt very much whether Cook or Marwood would have any say...

I disagree in that I think that the owner and chairman would probably listen to the views of Cook (as advised my Marwood), but clearly if they find them unconvincing, then it's the Sheikh's wishes that will carry weight.

 

[blueinsa]

I would imagine that our owner has advisor's that are unconnected to the club but know football and as such are able to give advice impartially as well?

 

[PistonBlue]

Not read all the thread, just skimmed a few posts,
Are some people anti Hughes just because he is an ex rag meaning than he cant be accepted over here?

Yes that has definitely got something to with it for a lot of blues, me included.

I was very much against his appointment. I'd go as far as saying I felt betrayed by the club at the time. I've gradually seen some good things in him and I even defend him on occasion, like yesterday when I thought he did nothing wrong.

It's very easy to find fault because of his past though. And he was always going to divide the fans, there's no surprise in that. For my age group (I was 18-early 20's at my daftest, going all the away games etc, when he was a rag). I hated the man, hated him, so it's not easy to suddenly accept him as the man to lead us.

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

Sorry KB, past achievements?
Have you seen our record at Anfield?[/quote

Not just at Anfield though is it? generally MH uses this terminology during press conferences as part of his explanation for the result. I think someone on here quite rightly described it as (lowering expectations). I don't want to hear about the past and maybe he is not as confident as he should be, when talking about City, it was a good result (without reference to the past)

 

[yerwot?]

as has been mentioned ,it may be age-related,if you have watched the club falling off a cliff on a regular basis,each false dawn slowly chipping away the status of the club,then you can be forgiven for saying 'hang on,we've been here before and ended up worse off'.Unlike a lot of posters i dont know MH personally so cant comment on his personality,did see a lot of him as a player, ruthless would seem to fit.He looks uncomfortable on camera,but so what? The personal dislike of him should count for nothing,but as the season unfolds the criticism of his tactics carry more weight ,and those of us who preached stability take more notice. To me the players look over-coached,like chelsea under scolari, frightened of thinking for themselves,trying to stick with a strategy instead of winning the game.The point yesterday cannot hide the lack of belief shown by the team,there was no swagger,no domination that top teams have,and the first half looked like two teams more worried about not losing instead of aiming for the top. Under MH city are a reaction side,we cant dictate the game, we sit back and wait to see what happens,hit on the break but we dont do it well and resort to the dreaded long punt,whch only works when it happens before the opposition have turned to face it. The clock is ticking,a few more under-performances will start to affect the players and the outers will have a field-day.