Sven

[The Fat el Hombre]

Because he wasn't sacked on his performance last season.

Course he was. I'm pretty sure that our dismal season last year played a factor in Hughes' sacking and rightly so

 

[Balti]

Sven was good for City and it only went tits up when Franky decided to 'tighten the bolt'.

I'd love him around the place again.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The difference is that Sven got better results than Hughes, and with much much less money. So, IMO, the decision to sack Sven was wrong, but the decision to sack Hughes was right.

I wasn't talking about the rationale behind them, just the manner. In both cases the owner undermined the manager.

But if you insist, under Sven we got 1.45 points per game whereas up to his sacking, Hughes had 1.7 ppg this season. But why let the facts spoil your opinion.

What about the points per game per pound stat?

And anyway, we don't need stats to know Hughes was clueless.

 

[gelly]

I wasn't talking about the rationale behind them, just the manner. In both cases the owner undermined the manager.

But if you insist, under Sven we got 1.45 points per game whereas up to his sacking, Hughes had 1.7 ppg this season. But why let the facts spoil your opinion.

All I will say is Thaksin and Erikkson were the catalyst for what we have now, doubt it would have happened if they had not come. Lest we forget there were an awful lot of higher profile teams around than us that Sheikh Mansour could have spent his money on. Fantastic publicity, and all in all not bad players, Erikkson was extremly unfortunate to lose Bojinov, shows what luck plays in this game. Compared to whAT WE Had to endure before, it was a privelage to watch.
Sven and Frank we salute you.

Yeah Sven would have raised the profile of City. The man is a media hub. Also Mancini is raising City's profile in Italy and Europe. After every game, Gazette and Corriere, the biggest sports papers in Italy have articles about City and Mancini.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Because he wasn't sacked on his performance last season.

Course he was. I'm pretty sure that our dismal season last year played a factor in Hughes' sacking and rightly so

Not even this season's performance played a part in Hughes's sacking. It was all down to something else. The stuff about "trajectory" was a smokescreen.

 

[sweep]

Course he was. I'm pretty sure that our dismal season last year played a factor in Hughes' sacking and rightly so

Not even this season's performance played a part in Hughes's sacking. It was all down to something else. The stuff about "trajectory" was a smokescreen.

They'd seen his list of requested transfers and didn't fancy them?

 

[barney8]

I'll always say that the way Thaksin got rid of Sven was a disgrace and I'd definitely have him back at some function.

Not much different to the way the current owners got rid of Hughes really. Thaksin wanted instant success and wasn't prepared to wait for it. Thaksin undermined Sven by saying things in public. Hughes was undermined by the club looking for a new manager behind his back.

If it was done behind his back, how could it undermine him? If he didn't know about it, then it could not have affected him in any way.

 

[Blue Suede Shoes]

It would look very strange if Sven comes back after being City manager to work for City *under* the current manager. It's like admitting he sucks. Which he doesn't, and also he can afford not to admit it even if he does.

So: Ain't gonna happen. Sven is not coming back to City.

And "All he cares about is money"? He had like a million pound golden parachute at Notts, which he waived. So obviously that's not *all* he cares about. He probably cares about football and, obviously women, the ugly fuck. :)

 

[moomba]

Even in a PR role, Sven coming back would be good.

Got a lot of time for what he achieved at the club.

 

[supercity36]

as a director of football he would be good. with svens contacts we would really go places. he waived 2.5m by resigning from notts county, and their new kosher chairman said sven was a true gentlemen. i agree with him