Oliver Holt - Why Manchester City has lost its soul...

[Petetheblu]

THIS

the sooner the press realise we dont give a fuck about the bullshit they write the better

Maybe we don't. But they are right this time.

If you want success then you have to shut up and put up as NO one will just hand it to you.

If this is how it's going to be then I'm more than happy to live with it, as this club was dying on it's knees and a long standing joke before the ADUG take over and I'd rather die trying to get to our feet than die on our knees as servants to the soulless smarmy top four brigade. FUCK THE PRESS and anyone else who thinks their words will stop City....

 

[BobKowalski]

Well I suggest that Oliver has a chat to Moyes about Hughes 'quiet dignified style' when it came to 'vulgar' transfer dealings :)

I will say it again. Sheikh Mansour has spent half a billion pounds in 16 months in purchasing the club and funding transfers. This I think entitles hm to finally put a man of his choosing in charge of the football team. I stress again that this is his first managerial decision in his ownership of the club in 16 months. Not his second or tenth but first. I am continually astonished that people are incensed that after spending half a billion pounds they begrudge Shiek Mansour wanting to put his man in charge of the football team.

They found Hughes wanting after observing him in charge for 16 months and made a decision. I can accept that people disagree with the Sheikh's decision or even the ruthless manner in which it was done but all this angst and emotional stress amongst the fans and the media is borderline insanity.

 

[Anonymous]

I can kind of understand people sticking up for others in the club when they feel as though they've been wronged even if it is to the point of having a dig at other fans (I don't like it but I know where it's coming from).

But to stick up for the fucking press when they are sticking the knife in??? No, I don't get that at all.

 

[judleberry]

Actually I put this thread in first, then posted the text in another thread.

Thanks for your contribution.

Ok then my apologies, but did you need to add it to the other thread as well, more or less at the same time ? Also are you going to put it in every thread ?

Sorry I'm a mere moderator, trying (and failing badly) to keep some sanity.

I felt that it was an interesting article, and thought I would share it with my fellow bluemooners who may not have read it yet, so I posted a thread, as one would frequently do.

I then read a thread where I believed it also contributed to a more factual stance on an argument that had been made in a different article that was on a different thread, and so I put a link on the post I made, in case anyone wanted to click on it and read it, in order to back up what I was saying, to attempt to make a more rounded debate.

May I please be absolved?

 

[squirtyflower]

Ok then my apologies, but did you need to add it to the other thread as well, more or less at the same time ? Also are you going to put it in every thread ?

Sorry I'm a mere moderator, trying (and failing badly) to keep some sanity.

I felt that it was an interesting article, and thought I would share it with my fellow bluemooners who may not have read it yet, so I posted a thread, as one would frequently do.

I then read a thread where I believed it also contributed to a more factual stance on an argument that had been made in a different article that was on a different thread, and so I put a link on the post I made in order to back up what I was saying, to attempt to make a more rounded debate.

May I please be absolved?

only if you get on your knees and beg

 

[cleavers]

May I please be absolved?

You were already, I apologised above ;-)

 

[bizzbo]

well, look, it's an opinion piece.
words like 'soul' are just window dressing on sentimentality. people don't like to see others lose their job.

olly holt is right in one respect, that they didn't have to do it now, they could have given him until the end of the season.

but then he goes on to imply this is obviously a short term decision, and that is a superficial judgement. if it was a short-term decision it makes little sense to think the upheaval caused by the sacking is outweighed by Mancini's competance, in terms of our chances of gettting fourth this year.

the decision makes a lot more sense if you think about it on a more basic level. rightly or wrongly they felt they had arrived at their judgement on Hughes, what was the point in allowing him more time to impose his methods, his players, to allow him and his staff to become more entwined with the club? why give him tens of milliions of pounds? why not let someone else try?

what happened when sven spent half a season as a dead-man? a vicious media war and a split club. all sorts of things printed about thaksin. it might have ended up the same for certain people connected with city if hughes was desperately fighting to keep his job. as you see here, the press need little encouragement to lay into football administrators, especially foreigners. I liked many things about hughes, he showed a lot of dignity when dealing with Thaksin, and he showed it again yesterday, but he is no angel in these matters. this time last year when he was under great pressure a whole flurry of stories appeared in the press laying the blame at all sorts of things, saying all sorts of things about players. IMO hughes has too many friends in the media, and the football world, to risk anything apart from a clean break.

if he is going, you probably have to get rid of him. at the very least you have nothing to lose by letting someone else try. it's that simple. it's never pretty, but it is pretty straightforward. it will not have happened this way by design. personally I believe city realised how desperate he was to keep his job, and what that meant he might say and do.

if you've worked in HR, you'll know what I'm talking about. you are taking away someone's livelihood, their dignity, their status. in desperate times people do desperate things. in fact the way this sacking happened showed Mark under a very good light. city look heartless, but not stupid.

we have lost goodwill, but perhaps we have avoided a repeat of the end of sven's time here.

 

[browny33]

The article is just spun very nicely to make us look bad, of course it gets people to buy his paper. Which is about on a par with Viz when it comes to being a credible source of reporting.

Doesn't mention our lack of victories this season and the very many other myriad of things that were quite clearly not right. I've said it before, and hopefully not again, we've got a champions league squad, being forced to play like a mid table team by a mid table manager. I wasn't a hughes inner or outer but his appointment never excited me, his brand of management didn't sit right with me either (it was always somebody elses fault), I wish him well for the future and I hope he does do well in the future, but I doubt it. He's got mid table management written all over him. If he sticks at it long enough he might do an Harry and win a major trophy when he's been at it twenty odd years.

We were not progressing its as simple as that, thats why he got the bullet, theres no mystery to it doesn't make for a good story though does it?

 

[judleberry]

well, look, it's an opinion piece.
words like 'soul' are just window dressing on sentimentality. people don't like to see others lose their job.

olly holt is right in one respect, that they didn't have to do it now, they could have given him until the end of the season.

but then he goes on to imply this is obviously a short term decision, and that is a superficial judgement. if it was a short-term decision it makes little sense to think the upheaval caused by the sacking is outweighed by Mancini's competance, in terms of our chances of gettting fourth this year.

the decision makes a lot more sense if you think about it on a more basic level. rightly or wrongly they felt they had arrived at their judgement on Hughes, what was the point in allowing him more time to impose his methods, his players, to allow him and his staff to become more entwined with the club? why give him tens of milliions of pounds? why not let someone else try?

what happened when sven spent half a season as a dead-man? a vicious media war and a split club. all sorts of things printed about thaksin. it might have ended up the same for certain people connected with city if hughes was desperately fighting to keep his job. as you see here, the press need little encouragement to lay into football administrators, especially foreigners. I liked many things about hughes, he showed a lot of dignity when dealing with Thaksin, and he showed it again yesterday, but he is no angel in these matters. this time last year when he was under great pressure a whole flurry of stories appeared in the press laying the blame at all sorts of things, saying all sorts of things about players. IMO hughes has too many friends in the media, and the football world, to risk anything apart from a clean break.

if he is going, you probably have to get rid of him. at the very least you have nothing to lose by letting someone else try. it's that simple. it's never pretty, but it is pretty straightforward. it will not have happened this way by design. personally I believe city realised how desperate he was to keep his job, and what that meant he might say and do.

if you've worked in HR, you'll know what I'm talking about. you are taking away someone's livelihood, their dignity, their status. in desperate times people do desperate things. in fact the way this sacking happened showed Mark under a very good light. city look heartless, but not stupid.

we have lost goodwill, but perhaps we have avoided a repeat of the end of sven's time here.

Perhaps, I just don't like the idea of Hughes sitting with his dad upset, with his wife sitting beside Brian Kidd who was plotting to have her husband sacked behind his back whilst pretending to be his friend, and that 44000 people at the ground effectively knew he had lost his job before he did.

I don't buy the bit about Hughes sway over the media. I really do think that Hughes gave his all whilst he was hear. Our owner didn't think that was quite good enough. But they should have rewarded him some respect. It is Christmas after all!

 

[Paulmcfc2703]

well, look, it's an opinion piece.
words like 'soul' are just window dressing on sentimentality. people don't like to see others lose their job.

olly holt is right in one respect, that they didn't have to do it now, they could have given him until the end of the season.

but then he goes on to imply this is obviously a short term decision, and that is a superficial judgement. if it was a short-term decision it makes little sense to think the upheaval caused by the sacking is outweighed by Mancini's competance, in terms of our chances of gettting fourth this year.

the decision makes a lot more sense if you think about it on a more basic level. rightly or wrongly they felt they had arrived at their judgement on Hughes, what was the point in allowing him more time to impose his methods, his players, to allow him and his staff to become more entwined with the club? why give him tens of milliions of pounds? why not let someone else try?

what happened when sven spent half a season as a dead-man? a vicious media war and a split club. all sorts of things printed about thaksin. it might have ended up the same for certain people connected with city if hughes was desperately fighting to keep his job. as you see here, the press need little encouragement to lay into football administrators, especially foreigners. I liked many things about hughes, he showed a lot of dignity when dealing with Thaksin, and he showed it again yesterday, but he is no angel in these matters. this time last year when he was under great pressure a whole flurry of stories appeared in the press laying the blame at all sorts of things, saying all sorts of things about players. IMO hughes has too many friends in the media, and the football world, to risk anything apart from a clean break.

if he is going, you probably have to get rid of him. at the very least you have nothing to lose by letting someone else try. it's that simple. it's never pretty, but it is pretty straightforward. it will not have happened this way by design. personally I believe city realised how desperate he was to keep his job, and what that meant he might say and do.

if you've worked in HR, you'll know what I'm talking about. you are taking away someone's livelihood, their dignity, their status. in desperate times people do desperate things. in fact the way this sacking happened showed Mark under a very good light. city look heartless, but not stupid.

we have lost goodwill, but perhaps we have avoided a repeat of the end of sven's time here.

Perhaps, I just don't like the idea of Hughes sitting with his dad upset, with his wife sitting beside Brian Kidd who was plotting to have her husband sacked behind his back whilst pretending to be his friend, and that 44000 people at the ground effectively knew he had lost his job before he did.

I don't buy the bit about Hughes sway over the media. I really do think that Hughes gave his all whilst he was hear. Our owner didn't think that was quite good enough. But they should have rewarded him some respect. It is Christmas after all!

poor guy, how much is his payoff was it only £3 million?