judleberry
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 404
Why Manchester City has lost its soul by sacking Mark Hughes, says Oliver Holt
Under their new owner, Sheikh Mansour, Manchester City said they would be an honourable club.
They said loyalty would be one of their cornerstones, that they would not make knee-jerk decisions.
The new regime said it wanted to do things right. That it was in this for the long haul.
They said they understood that it took time to build a club and how strongly they believed in manager Mark Hughes.
They said, basically, that they would be Chelsea with a bit more class.
Oh yes, and when they spoke to a journalist who had said Rafa Benitez deserved more time at Liverpool this season, they slapped him on the back and said it was good to see at least one member of the press looking long-term.
This, by the way, all happened barely a month ago in Abu Dhabi when City were on a mid-season break there.
And this weekend, sadly, pretty much all of it was exposed as cheap talk from hollow men with a lot of cash and not a lot of style.
Because on Saturday, the manager they valued so much found out from newspaper stories that he was about to be sacked.
Not from Sheikh Mansour. Or the chairman, Khaldoon Al-Mubarak. But from newspapers. Real class, that.
The same went for the players. They started getting texts from their friends on Saturday morning telling them Hughes was finished. Still no word from the club.
So Hughes and his team went into the game against Sunderland knowing that whatever the result, it would make no difference. Another mark of true class from Khaldoon and the rest.
After the game, another of the many crackers City have been involved in this season, Kolo Toure and Shay Given were summoned to the boardroom to be told the news so they could relay it to the players.
The players were also banned from giving interviews. Another interesting move, that, in this brave new world. If in doubt, gag the players. Silence any possible internal opposition. Autocratic and pathetic.
A few of the players went to see Hughes and his backroom team after the game. Hughes was there with his father. They were both clearly upset.
Hughes was entitled to feel betrayed. All the talk from the club hierarchy, all the promises of sober judgments and long-term planning, had ended like this.
The sack after just two defeats in 17 games this season, fewer than any other Premier League team.
The sack after leading the club to its first domestic Cup semi-final for 28 years.
The sack after leading the club to sixth place in the table with a game in hand on leading rivals.
If City won that game in hand, they would be just three points off a Champions League spot which was the absolute limit of their ambitions this season.
Many, no doubt, will shrug their shoulders and say 'that's football'. It's just life in the Premier League, where long-term planning is a luxury few managers enjoy.
But that ignores the fact that a club like Liverpool has, so far at least, stuck by Benitez despite a torrid season and recognised that changing managers often only provokes instability.
It also misses the point. Because Sheikh Mansour and his cronies could have afforded to be loyal to Hughes at least until the end of the season.
They didn't have the financial pressures that a team like Hull City or Portsmouth or Stoke City are struggling with. They didn't have to hit the panic button.
They could have stuck with Hughes and rewarded the progress he had made. The other leading teams are as inconsistent as City. Hughes may well have got them into the top four.
But now City will have to reap what they have sown.
First of all, that will mean a widespread loss of goodwill. Because the way they've behaved towards Hughes shows that, actually, they've got less class than Chelsea, not more.
Hughes was one of the reasons why a lot of neutrals still liked City even when others were put off by what they saw as the vulgar show of wealth from Sheikh Mansour in the transfer market. Hughes' quiet, dignified style was the antidote to that.
Hughes at least had a Manchester connection, even if it was from the red side of town. He was someone English supporters could relate to. He had been one of the finest players of his generation.
In the midst of another foreign takeover, the presence of Hughes gave City a bit of soul, some kind of link to the past. It's lost that soul now.
Roberto Mancini may be a fine manager but to most fans he's just another name plucked from the football stratosphere. No connection to English football, apart from a brief spell at Leicester. Certainly no connection to City.
The club are going to struggle to justify appointing him instead of Hughes, just as they must be embarrassed by the fact that they must have been planning Mancini's arrival for a long time to be able to appoint him on Saturday evening.
Some players were already voicing disquiet yesterday about the role of Brian Kidd, the new assistant manager, in all of this, too.
Kidd had a position at City's academy and questions are being asked about how long he had known of Mancini's impending arrival. He may find he is regarded with suspicion and distrust by the City dressing room.
Good luck, then, to Sheikh Mansour and to Khaldoon Al-Mubarak. Good luck in trying to persuade everyone that there's something noble about what they're trying to do at City.
Good luck in persuading everyone that their ambitions are flanked by lofty ideals.
There's no point persisting with that garbage any more. As of Saturday, they've climbed aboard the ship of fools.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/blogs/mirror-football-blog/Why-Manchester-City-has-lost-its-soul-by-sacking-Mark-Hughes-says-Oliver-Holt-article264823.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion ... 64823.html</a>
_______________
This, to me, seems like there are going to be a quair few unhappy players.