Mark Hughes has alot to answer for.

Yes, And Mark Hughes' sole intention was to spend far too much money on players too drain the sheikhs coffers.

The reason for this is because he's a rag, He only took the job because Ferguson told him too.

The reason the Lescott transfer dragged on and on was because Moyes and Kenwright only wanted £7-8m and it took weeks for them to accept Citys offer of £25M.



not having a go at the OP but, I don't believe for one minute Hughes wasn't working with the best intentions.....
 
JUSTBLUE08 said:
If ever a manager spent and wasted so much money in the history of football it has to be thec one and only ex rag ...Mark Hughes. lets look at some of the rubbish buys and the costs.

Number 1 /.....Addie ...£25 million.. Number 2/ Lescott ...£25 million...Number 3/ Santa Cruz ...£18 million...4/ Toure ...£12 million.. paying 50% to much for De Jong ..Bridge..Bellamy..( knees /age ). and overspend of £100 million plus .

In addition all the top players would not play for him as a manager which is how he figured in the world standings. NEVER AGAIN PLEASE.


Get over ffs its just boring now.........yeah he may have paid over the odds for some players but that is probably due to the fact that we are the richest club in the world and our increased profile not due to Hughes directly.......try getting behind these players because if they help us to progress to the Champs league who really cares what they cost.
 
Some people will never get over the fact he was employed at United.

For balance he also signed Given, Tevez, De Jong, Kompany, Barry, Zabaleta.

Ferguson signed some duffers as well. Show me a manager that hasn't and you can have the job.
 
JUSTBLUE08 said:
If ever a manager spent and wasted so much money in the history of football it has to be thec one and only ex rag ...Mark Hughes. lets look at some of the rubbish buys and the costs.

Number 1 /.....Addie ...£25 million.. Number 2/ Lescott ...£25 million...Number 3/ Santa Cruz ...£18 million...4/ Toure ...£12 million.. paying 50% to much for De Jong ..Bridge..Bellamy..( knees /age ). and overspend of £100 million plus .

In addition all the top players would not play for him as a manager which is how he figured in the world standings. NEVER AGAIN PLEASE.

yawn, more ill informed drivel.
 
Ntini77 said:
Shooter 83 said:
13m for De Jong is about right.

Santa Cruz(due to injurys) and Toure are the only players we have wasted Money on.

Thought it was 17m ?

If you believe the papers. Remember Martin jol saying 13m was too much for hamburg to turn down.

Paper's said Bellamy 14m, mark Hughes laughed when he heard that and said we paid around 8m.
 
KentBlue said:
Yes, both Tourre and RSC (so far) have been a total waste of money. RSC probably even more so because the guy is a crock. Fat Sam must have laughed his scrotum off when Hughes got him.
Surely RSC only because of his injuries. He's certainly a decent player.

This thread has to go down as one of the worst ever. People re-stating what has already been said by many people many times is pointless. I think some players are good when others don't. We have no idea what anyone else would have been able to bring in, we have no idea how well we'd be playing under Hughes now, we have no idea what Mancini would have done had he been here last summer. And before anyone says yes I know, you don't, you just have an opinion based on what your beliefs are.

Hughes has gone, I wanted him to see out the season but he was sacked, I don't want him back. Mancini has been far from impressive yet but he's got to be given a chance. If we put in a good performance against the Dippers today (regardless of result) I'll be a little more confident. Of course I want a win but it would be nice to do it with room to spare and not by the skin of our teeth for a change.
 
196606_3.jpg
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.