You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New Times article
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
suvernbloo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 69
Enjoyed that read, thanks Ric.
M
M
mat
Guest
Shame the editor has removed your best lines in the paper.
Where I disagree is on the point of this not being well handled by City.
My preference would have been for Hughes to stay. I think the tactic of changing managers every 5 minutes is one we have tried and it has not proved to be so successful.
Having said that, the Owner and Board clearly lost confidence in Hughes didn’t they? I didn’t but I can understand why they did.
And if they did lose confidence what would we expect them to do? Act, that’s what. When would we want them to act? Now, that’s when?
Would we want them to remove the old manager then act or act then remove the manager once they identified a successor? The latter, obviously.
Once they have a successor and are planning when to release the manager should they do it before a game (when it might negatively affect the performance of the players) or after? After, obviously.
So if they are going to do if after a game how long before the next game should they do it (i.e. how much preparation time to give the next manager for the next game)? As long before the next game as possible, obviously.
So where does that leave us? It leaves us with the best plan being to find a new Manager and once found make the change after a game and as soon after the game as possible. What did they do? Exactly that.
Not the best solution for Mark Hughes, admittedly but the best for MCFC and if they have to choose between the two which do we want them to choose? City, obviously.
Having said all that Garry Cook is not great in front of the camera is he, poor love? Perhaps a bit more PR support is the order of the day.
Long live the Sheik
My preference would have been for Hughes to stay. I think the tactic of changing managers every 5 minutes is one we have tried and it has not proved to be so successful.
Having said that, the Owner and Board clearly lost confidence in Hughes didn’t they? I didn’t but I can understand why they did.
And if they did lose confidence what would we expect them to do? Act, that’s what. When would we want them to act? Now, that’s when?
Would we want them to remove the old manager then act or act then remove the manager once they identified a successor? The latter, obviously.
Once they have a successor and are planning when to release the manager should they do it before a game (when it might negatively affect the performance of the players) or after? After, obviously.
So if they are going to do if after a game how long before the next game should they do it (i.e. how much preparation time to give the next manager for the next game)? As long before the next game as possible, obviously.
So where does that leave us? It leaves us with the best plan being to find a new Manager and once found make the change after a game and as soon after the game as possible. What did they do? Exactly that.
Not the best solution for Mark Hughes, admittedly but the best for MCFC and if they have to choose between the two which do we want them to choose? City, obviously.
Having said all that Garry Cook is not great in front of the camera is he, poor love? Perhaps a bit more PR support is the order of the day.
Long live the Sheik