I've Got it Wrong it Seems

[Soulboy]

I also would love him to be a success. It would be fantastic that a British manager could win things, that he built a club up to challenge the very best. I was all for that approach.

Unfortunately, you might as well have given the job to Megson, Allardyce or any of the other workaday mediocre managers that infest the Premiership.

You wanna be the best... then you have to employ the best. Simples.

And for all Hughes bravado, he has absolutely no track record as a manager. A manager out of his depth.

You can tell a weak frightrened manager in football, as well as any other business... they surround themselves with yes-men, lackeys, lick-spittles, old mates, people who are grateful for a job as no one else would pay them the salaries they are now "earning".

It was when Hughes filled out the club with his disciples that I realised how frightened a manager he was. In my business I often come across Empire-builders, who surround themselves with yes-men, who make themselves sound important because everyone agrees with them! And you know that they are cheating the business. They don't employ the best... just the ones who will back them!

I think the crux of this situation is Hughes relationship with Cook. The CEO is inextricably linked with Hughes and to sack him would be an admission of failure and put his own job in jeopardy. So I don't expect any knee-jerk reactions from the CEO... he's on too good a bung to commit career suicide!

But come April, fauilure to be top 4 will see movement, and ther fact that Kenyon is now out of a job may yet prove to be significant.

Too many inexperienced amateurs running the club and even the owners will see that soon.

That's an interesting point. I haven't really found it too strange that he's filled the club with people he's familiar with but building on your theory the more he employs the more the club have to get rid of when/if Hughes goes. This gives more security to his own job because of the massive disruption his dismissal will cause. You could well be right.

I've not given up on him YET. His signings have been good on the whole but on the other hand, all those signings seem to be geared to a 4 3 3 but now he's insisting on bloody 4 4 2 and making those signings look shit.

Kenyon at City? I've just been a little sick in my mouth. Looking at it professionally though, he is probably the best man for the job. Still doesn't make the man any less odious though.

At least he's a City fan!!!

 

[m27]

That's an interesting point. I haven't really found it too strange that he's filled the club with people he's familiar with but building on your theory the more he employs the more the club have to get rid of when/if Hughes goes. This gives more security to his own job because of the massive disruption his dismissal will cause. You could well be right.

I've not given up on him YET. His signings have been good on the whole but on the other hand, all those signings seem to be geared to a 4 3 3 but now he's insisting on bloody 4 4 2 and making those signings look shit.

Kenyon at City? I've just been a little sick in my mouth. Looking at it professionally though, he is probably the best man for the job. Still doesn't make the man any less odious though.

At least he's a City fan!!!

Ha ha ha! This is true.

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

Just mentioned this in a couple of posts on another thread. Can't be bothered typing the same thing again and don't know how to copy consecutive posts from other threads so I'm just going to do a rubbish cut and paste job.



I have thought about this too.

Obviously every manager brings in their own people, but not many go about the moving on and replacement of previous staff with as much Stalinist zeal as Hughes has done. That he has replaced them all, almost exclusively with members of the Taffia and not people who just might be better but have no previous connection with him, makes the chances of him being moved on even smaller.

The club is now stuffed full of Mark Hughes accolytes - quite a remarkable achievement in just 15 months - and moving Hughes on would mean that any new manager would be greeted with loads of people who are extremely loyal to the previous manager. Not the usual situation where a new manager is met with staff who usually have some sort of continuation with the club for a number of yearrs and experience of a few managers.

I'm still convinced that Hughes' McCarthy esque eagerness to replace anyone who is not oin the Taffia with the likes of Neil Roberts (I mean, come on - best man for the job?) and other Welsh/Hughes loyalists is symtomatic of his inability to work with people who are his own men and a lack of man management ability.

However, the consideration that it makes it an awful lot more difficult and awkward for the club to sack him is something that I have been wondering about a lot in recent weeks.







Agreed. One of the the things that struck me early on was how Hughes needed a large 'support structure' and not necessarily composed of the brightest and best. Its long past the point where I feel that it is akin to an infestation which after two months or so infects the new players leading to lethergy, poor decision making and a curious inability to defend.

Still at least we can afford to have the place fumigated :)





Well, yes, the cost would not be an issue - but the massive upheaval would be.

Can you imagine any top manager coming in and being comfortable with so many staff, in different parts of the club, who are neither 'club men' or necessarily the best men for the job.

Yes, every new manager is faced with working with people they don't know and aren't their own appointments and they have to get on with it (that's the art of being a manager - well, unless you are Hughes and cannot work with anyone who isn't in the Taffia). But when they are all relatively new, owe their positions to their mate appointing them and don't have the experience and trust network built up through fairly long association with the club (which in turn gives them assurances that they will not be sacked as the previous manager's yes men) it makes it all very awkward.

If Hughes were to go it would no doubt mean that most of his numerous appointments would eventually go - so wedded are they all to being 'Hughes men' (something that Hughes promotes by running down, explicitely or otherwise, anyone here prior to him) - and they would know that too.

It makes it all very, very awkward and difficult. There's no backroom 'City men' left in a lot of positions at the club. And they are exactly the sort of people that the club and a new manager rely on during a period of transition between managers. If nothing else it allows the manager to surround himself with people who were not seen as completely wedded to the previous failed regime and take his time to make his own handful of key appointments.

Not only do I not like his virtual refusal to work with anyone who was not appointed by him (and preferably Welsh), but I am definitel suspicious that Hughes is far too Machiavelian. (So is Ferguson and many others, in fairness - but within your own club and so divisive regarding your own staff and players as he has been in the last year? I don't think so.)

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

What do you think might happen in this interesing though hypothetical scenario?

The owners see the defensive problems and are a bit miffed - they ask Cookie about the defensive coach and his credentials - after more cock ups at the back they demand Cook speaks to Hughes with the idea of relieving Mr Bowen of his position
Discuss

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

Managers are ultimately responsible for the performances on the pitch - not their assistants or coaches.

To lay the blame at Bowen's door would be most unfair to him (although his work obviously makes a contibution to it)

It's a strange thing that happens sometimes, fans get it into their head that assistants or coaches are responsible for it going wrong when, ultimately, they are just putting into practice what the manager asks them to. It happened with Reid and Ellis and has been suggested by various people at various clubs over the years - almost always unfairly imo/

It would be a shithouse of a manager who let his right hand man or one of his coaches take the rap for his team's failings. I do not see Hughes doing that.

Cook, in this totally hypothetical situation, woulld also be a clown for basically looking for anyone to blame other than the manager.

 

[ballymunblue]

whatever system he plays will be no good if the players have no disicipline on the field,i saw hughes telling bridge to stay back yesterday but where was he for burnleys third goal.
at one stage petrov,adebayor and tevez were almost crashing in to each on the touchline

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

So if push came to shove would Hughes fall on his sword if told Bowen had to go (hypothetically speaking of course!)

 

[m27]

Great posts from Soulboy and JMA regarding this matter. The more you look at it the more bulletproof Hughes is making himself. It's worrying if this has been done by Hughes with one eye on getting the sack as that would point to the fact that he is aware of his own failings and isn't as confident in his own ability as he makes out.

Like you say JMA, his refusal to work with anyone that he doesn't know is troubling and so is the removal of staunch City men who want what is best for the club rather than just wanting the manager to be a success. When Hughes is gone they're hardly going to be motivated are they and in worse case scenarios will do their best to prove that Hughes was actually the right man for the job. Bowen and co will obviously walk with Hughes but all his appointments can't be replaced at once because they'd be no fooker at the club!!

 

[Soulboy]

Great posts from Soulboy and JMA regarding this matter. The more you look at it the more bulletproof Hughes is making himself. It's worrying if this has been done by Hughes with one eye on getting the sack as that would point to the fact that he is aware of his own failings and isn't as confident in his own ability as he makes out.

Like you say JMA, his refusal to work with anyone that he doesn't know is troubling and so is the removal of staunch City men who want what is best for the club rather than just wanting the manager to be a success. When Hughes is gone they're hardly going to be motivated are they and in worse case scenarios will do their best to prove that Hughes was actually the right man for the job. Bowen and co will obviously walk with Hughes but all his appointments can't be replaced at once because they'd be no fooker at the club!!

See?

I knew my qualifications in Neuro Linguistic Programming and Managerial Psychology would come in handy one day!

Ha! Ha!

 

[m27]

Great posts from Soulboy and JMA regarding this matter. The more you look at it the more bulletproof Hughes is making himself. It's worrying if this has been done by Hughes with one eye on getting the sack as that would point to the fact that he is aware of his own failings and isn't as confident in his own ability as he makes out.

Like you say JMA, his refusal to work with anyone that he doesn't know is troubling and so is the removal of staunch City men who want what is best for the club rather than just wanting the manager to be a success. When Hughes is gone they're hardly going to be motivated are they and in worse case scenarios will do their best to prove that Hughes was actually the right man for the job. Bowen and co will obviously walk with Hughes but all his appointments can't be replaced at once because they'd be no fooker at the club!!

See?

I knew my qualifications in Neuro Linguistic Programming and Managerial Psychology would come in handy one day!

Ha! Ha!

The heavy irony is that one of the main reasons I have called for Hughes to remain in charge last season and again more recently is because of the disruption behind the scenes his sacking would cause at the club! If indeed this is Hughes's cunning plan, it appears to be working.