heres a theory without much to back it up:
I believe MH new of the problems within the squad all along. FWIW i believe Sven realised roughly the same thing around christmas last year. I believe MH's initial strategy, under thaksin, was one of containment, of minimising the impact that this had on results.
didnt things really go south shortly after MH's meeting with Mansour? Mansour came back and said "his strategy is compelling" "he has my absolute mandate". MH made some interesting comments about the way that Mansour and co valued 'trust' above everything else?.
So I am tempted to believe that as a result of their meeting, having convinced Mansour that these issues would always undermine the club unless they were addressed, MH was, perhaps explicitly, given a mandate to address these issues directly. Mansour would have been aware that things could get messy, as indeed they have. From his point of view, it makes sense to let MH do the dirty work, even if he fails and has to be replaced, it will make the club a healthier prospect for any other manager who comes in.
I believe they probably would have faith that he is the man to perform the necessary surgery, that they were impressed and grateful that he had the courage and vision to identify and present them with unpalatable truths. However, they are not going to commit themselves publicly to MH beyond this season. being pragmatic, they would realise that there is a chance he might fail to do so. so it would be fair to say that progress this season would primarily be adressing the problems, and laying the foundation for what is to come. doing this satisfactorily would earn him a second year to deliver success that would be more tangible, a neat way for a man without a proven track record at the levels the owners are aiming at, to prove himself, step-by-step.
anyway, had thaksin remained and money been short, MH would have been wise to pursue a conservative strategy, contain/ignore underlying issues, keep people sweet, in order to give himself the best chance at achieving the more modest short term goals. under this scenario, Jo and Elano, for example would have been far more important, central, even, to what the club was going to achieve, and to add a touch of glamour to proceedings. thus they would probably have been managed quite differently. as things turned out, robinho has all the glamour, so if Jo and Elano were to stay it would have to be on the same terms as everyone else. Understandably both may suddenly have felt insecure in their positions when ADG arrived. They could have been protected, but it seems that MH did not do so. This is the crux of it. I believe that was a concious decision, not to damage their performances deliberately, which would have been unthinkable, but to find out how both reacted when left to their own devices. The questions were effectively asked of both, how comitted are you, how much do you believe in yourself, how much can you put in, how much will you let yourselves be moulded by our ideas. and both have failed to come up with the correct answers. in the short term, it's a loss, because you've had two players underperforming, but in the long term, it's a win, because you know exactly who you are dealing with, and can decide wether to keep them or not based on that. please understand i am using Jo and Elano as examples. the same is basically true of everyone within the squad. the outcome is just particularly clear with these two.
I think many of us are starting to come up with a heirachy of who is who at the club, with the likes of SWP and Ireland at the front, and the Hamann's and such at the back. it's even possible to discern the damage that has already been done by the underlying negativity to some of our young players. Jim Cassell and co turn out fantastic young players, and none of them deserves to end up as damaged goods after a season or two in the first year. that damage cannot be allowed to continue.
