Khaldoon al Mubarak - the new Peter Swales?

[cleavers]

Sorry to say this Prestwich_blue but this thread is embarrasing you, I've long thought of you as somebody sensible on here, but creating this (and I regret replying because it keeps it up top) is frankly a disgrace.

You know full well that there is no comparison, and that the media looking in on this board are rubbing their hands at this, but I wonder what our clubs owners think about it ? Tongue in cheek or not.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Al Mubarak has apparently taken personal responsibility for Mancini's appointment and a place in the top 4. So when we're no better off in May, it'll be another chance to compare the two. If it all goes tits-up then KA-M has to go but I'll at least regain some respect for him if he does.

nice to see that you believe the new manager will succeed before he has even spoken to the fans

I don't believe that, whoever the manager is, we will get top 4 before next season. And I have already said that is what I would have expected from Hughes.

We aren't ready yet but I'd love to have my words rammed down my throat. However I'm confident that won't happen.

 

[squirtyflower]

.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Sorry to say this Prestwich_blue but this thread is embarrasing you, I've long thought of you as somebody sensible on here, but creating this (and I regret replying because it keeps it up top) is frankly a disgrace.

You know full well that there is no comparison, and that the media looking in on this board are rubbing their hands at this, but I wonder what our clubs owners think about it ? Tongue in cheek or not.

I hope our owners are reading it. And it brings a blush to their faces. If you don't like it then feel free to go on another board. You've clearly got it in for me haven't you so I've no interest whatsoever in your opinion.

 

[halpo123]

so would you like him and the Sheikh to go?

Al Mubarak has apparently taken personal responsibility for Mancini's appointment and a place in the top 4. So when we're no better off in May, it'll be another chance to compare the two. If it all goes tits-up then KA-M has to go but I'll at least regain some respect for him if he does.

i`ve sided with you recently but whats happened as happened ,let it go
We all like to think our opinions are the right ones but we really know
very little of whats actually gone on.The chairman does,so lets trust
his judgement .Only last week you were telling people that things in
the garden were rosy
Whats changed ? a new manager ,well in the past we`ve had to change
managers because we were in the shit ,now we`ve changed the manager
with a great squad and money to burn.Get behind the club things have
never looked so bright.I feel for Hughes i really do but i feel for the club
an hell of a lot more and continuing this war amongst ourselves is doing
no favours to any of us

 

[cleavers]

You've clearly got it in for me haven't you so I've no interest whatsoever in your opinion.

LOL, because I have an opinion ?

Ooops sorry for that, I don't "have it in" for anybody. I just posted my opinion, maybe you didn't read my whole post, like the bit where I said "I've long thought of you as somebody sensible on here".

Deary me !

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

You've clearly got it in for me haven't you so I've no interest whatsoever in your opinion.

LOL, because I have an opinion ?

Ooops sorry for that, I don't "have it in" for anybody. I just posted my opinion, maybe you didn't read my whole post, like the bit where I said "I've long thought of you as somebody sensible on here".

Deary me !

Ok maybe I was a bit harsh there. Sorry - had a shit day which I'll post about tomorrow.

But to answer your original points, the club provided the bullets and the gun. I simply pulled the trigger. And you were kind enough to call me one of the more sensible posters so perhaps, maybe, I could be right on this. I've made it clear time and time again that I'm not emotionally attached to Hughes but believe a manager needs time, regardless of the money spent.

If he'd been given adequate time (i.e. at least to the end of the season) and failed then I'd be 100% supportive of the owners.

If we'd been in the bottom half and struggling to find the net then I'd be 100% supportive of the owners.

But he's really only had 17 games after spending the bulk of the money and they've talked time and time again about loyalty and their support for Hughes. So to say that he "clearly" wasn't on target is ludicrous. Because it isn't clear to me and I'm pretty bright.

 

[bizzbo]

PB, hughes was extremely dignified when he arrived, which was extremely important post-sven's 8-1, when thaksin was unravelling, and he was extremely dignified yesterday, but I don't rate the image of MH as an unwavering beacon of dignity and professionalism.....

last year, there was a lot of pettiness, infighting, back-stabbing, leaks to the press when he was under pressure. this year we've had inappropriate comments about other team's players, examples of undermining referees, the last of which he clearly went too far with, his childish, theatrical response to the cameras when Arsene Wenger didn't shake his hand....he was no angel, nor do i expect any football manager to be one.

yesterday you practically painted him as a white knight who saw off Thaksin single-handedly. can you really justify that? I understand there are valid reasons for people to have invested emotionally in him, but surely that's taking it too far.

he was a decent guy on balance, I'm sure, better than most, but you and several others are in danger of beatifying him. funnily enough exactly the same thing happened when sven left, yet he gets precious little respect now. it's almost as if they made sven into a holy figure so they could hate thaksin even more... now he's gone, there's no need to do that.

 

[selim]

Thaksin regime almost forced Man City boss Hughes to quit

Mark Hughes has revealed that he came "close" to walking away from Manchester City in the summer of 2008, at the tail end of the club's ownership by Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Thai prime minister, reports The Guardian.

"The reality wasn't exactly what was described and sold to me," he said. "In fairness, we were able to go into the transfer market, but there seemed a focus that players had to be sold, and I realised that maybe the resources weren't in place that I thought."

He described the facilities at City's Carrington training ground as "rundown" and "not fit for purpose". There was, he said, "confusion and miscommunication" about players who might be sold, with Stephen Ireland told he would be leaving when Hughes had not approved any decision to sell him.

Thaksin was eventually convicted of fraud in Bangkok and sentenced to three years in prison.

Hughes said that at the time he tried to concentrate solely on managing the football club, hoping his job would not be affected by Thaksin's problems.

"Probably naively, I thought you could separate the two, but obviously you can't. If you are single-minded, you have to work purposefully," he said, "and if you get to a point where it is untenable and not manageable, then you make the decision to walk away. I never got to that point but I was close."
-----------------------------------------
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.tribalfootball.com/thaksin-regime-almost-forced-man-city-boss-hughes-quit-326381" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.tribalfootball.com/thaksin-r ... uit-326381</a>


Hope this help you calm down!

 

[cleavers]

Ok maybe I was a bit harsh there. Sorry - had a shit day which I'll post about tomorrow.

.....

If he'd been given adequate time (i.e. at least to the end of the season) and failed then I'd be 100% supportive of the owners.

If we'd been in the bottom half and struggling to find the net then I'd be 100% supportive of the owners.

But he's really only had 17 games after spending the bulk of the money and they've talked time and time again about loyalty and their support for Hughes. So to say that he "clearly" wasn't on target is ludicrous. Because it isn't clear to me and I'm pretty bright.

Ok no problem we all have shite days !

I still think this topic (or at least the title of it) is a bit embarrasing, and I doubt you intended it that way.

He'd not only had 17 games, he'd had 55 league games (plus cups), 26 of the league games away, of which we have only won 4, not a great return I'm sure you'd agree, that's not teething trouble.

In nearly 18 months with various defenders, we failed miserably to work out how to defend crosses, he had resorted to long ball on a number of occasions, and yet played players who are comfortable with a close quick passing game to feet, he'd played players out of position regularly (one of his favourites too). He'd had enough time in charge, spent a very large sum of money, on some very good players, and in both seasons we have started well and deteriorated.

I can personally see why they made a change now, a brave decision for me, but why should they have let him spend more money next month, and bring in more players ? He'd already got 'his' team, so why would he need to bring in more players ? We weren't improving, his results this season have without any doubt got worse since the start, and the defeat at Spurs was a very poor performance, against a team that were themselves pretty poor on the night, he played a very slow left back against one of the quicker right wingers in the league, who was awarded man of the match.

For me he did his best, but his best wasn't good enough for ADUG, and they decided it was time for a change, whether that change is for the better I have no idea, but its done now, and comparing ADUG with Swales is not right, and you know it isn't.