we are 8-1 4th favourite for the drop..

[Sleeping_Easy]

In many ways the RSC signing epitomised why Hughes was inadequate. All the money and talent out there to choose from and he signed him? Not capable of taking us where we have now gone.

And here's a great article on the bollocks media reaction to the sacking of Hughes. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.wsc.co.uk/content/view/4798/38/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.wsc.co.uk/content/view/4798/38/</a>

Some favourite quotes:

I say this part was true in the main. Think it was talksport that said silva and yaya were "a barcelona reserve and david who.." and the merson said aguero would be this seasons flop. Thats not even getting a prediction wrong thats just a shocking lack of knowledge on european football.

I think they knew Silva, Yaya and Aguero were all fine players, I just think it was them trying not to take us seriously, it's like Thompson predicting at least a top four finish for the dippers ever year. There is no logic to that at all he just hoped that would happen, therfore he needs to talk up the dippers and discredit City and any other competitor. that is what they've been doing on Soccer Saturday, any neutral with a brain would see that City are a club on the up and would be challenging for honours but they all have their own agenda's to promote, hence why they love anything rag and discredit us in any way they can.

The funny thing is that in a few years if we continue to fight "at the top table" as they love to say, it will come full circle, we could sign a Bebe for £20M and they'll say he is "an exciting prospect." They just say what they THINK the general public want to hear, when they think opinions are changing they backtrack and change everything they say. It is pretty pathetic really, Sky Sports is just like a tabloid newspaper.

About as good a summary of the english sports media as there could be...

 

[Mike D]

The way I see it is that Hughes was probably the right choice at the time of his appointment but once the ADUG takeover happened the job was simply too big for him.

As black mamba said, Hughes is by no means a bad manager but he's by no means a great manager either. He's more suited to managing on lower transfer budgets IMO. However, I thought his sacking was badly timed - as he'd been given the opportunity to spend big in the summer 2009 transfer window I felt he deserved that whole season to see how his signings panned out. It made little sense to me to let him spend all that money then get shut a few months later.

In hindsight though, it's proved to be the right decision. Mancini is clearly an upgrade on Hughes. Can we honestly say that we'd be sat here today as Premier League champions if Hughes was still in charge? I'd have to say the answer to that is no.

I agree with your sentiments in your first paragraph, but giving MH and allowing him to spend was a big mistake and showed the owners up for their niavity at the time. Anybody with a football brain could see that MH was out of his depth at the end of the season after taking the club systematically backwards despite topping Sven's men up with a whole new team of players to the tune of £150mil we finished worse off than under Sven.

You only have to look at the dross that Hughes brought in that we can't shift or have had to give away the likes of Bellamy, Bridge, and Crocky we have had to or will have to give away. Then when you throw in Adebayour then you have £60mil + worth of talent plus the wages we've been paying these leaches.

I would never be critical of the owners but the question is that I've always liked to ask is why did we not move for Bobby early after all he wasn't in a job at the time ?

 

[brian the blue]

with half of sparky's players.

Eh?

There are 3 players that regularly play that were signed by Hughes: Kompany, Barry and Lescott.

Kompany has turned out to be a great signing, but under Hughes he was poor. Hughes had him in central midfield and someone bumped a thread from 09 or 2010 with about 10 pages slating Kompany about how he isn't good enough.

Barry was a decent signing for a "respectable" price (considering his other buys) but Barry's performances didn't really pick up until Hughes had gone.

Lescott at the time was a shocking signing in my book. Not because I don't rate Lescott, just at the time he was in no way a £22 million pound defender. The whole saga of his signing was embarrassing, it lasted all summer with Moyes slagging us off and us getting ripped in the papers about tapping him up or whatever. The sad thing about it is, Hughes made an even worse "value-for-money" signing in Santa fucking Cruz. But, as with Kompany, as soon as Hughes left and Mancini took over his performances started to pick up and now Lescott looks a top defender.

Hughes was stupid enough to buy Given and try to farm Hart off elsewhere. He brought
Tevez and his **** of an agent to the club and allowed them to run the show. The signing of de Jong was a poor one as well, de Jong had 6 months left on his contract and we paid £18 million pounds for him, he's not even an £18 million pound player if he had 5 years left on a contract. Adebayor is another example of a poor signing, he played well in his first 4 games and then gave up, another £25 million spunked down the drain, not forgetting his ridiculous wages which means we're not stuck with him.

Irrespective of how well we've done since, Hughes is simply a piss poor manager.

You make some good points but there's a lot of revisionist shit in there.

Mancini has indeed gotten more out of some of Hughes' signings than Hughes did but as already stated NDJ had just signed a new contract at Hamburg. Lescott did indeed have a shaky start, however he was already coming into good form before Hughes was sacked but then picked up an injury that kept him out until a good few weeks into Mancini's reign. Kompany was never a poor player under Hughes - he just wasn't being played in his best position. As for Given, well I don't remember a single dissenting voice when he was signed. Every City fan I know welcomed his signing and saw him as a better 'keeper than Hart at that time. Tevez was probably as much a Khaldoon/Cook signing as he was a Hughes signing so I don't see what the issue is there. Besides, were you moaning about that one back when he first signed? Somehow, I doubt it. Adebayor, for all his issues, was considered to be a damn good striker at the time and again, I don't seem to remember many (if any) City fans moaning about him signing. The only true stinker of a signing was RSC.

What makes me laugh is that you imply that Hughes was responsible for negotiating all the big money contracts for these players when the reality is that that side of things probably had nothing to do with him. And besides, what type of players did you expect a team that had just finished 10th in the league to attract? And whoever was managing the club at the time, we would've had to overpay on transfers and wages to attract a better calibre of player to the club.

Fair enough on de Jong's contract, I didn't realise he'd extended it before we signed him.

While Hughes was manager, though, I presume he was given the final say on signings considering the fact we signed Bellamy after losing out on Kaka? Hughes should've known when to walk away from deals when he was getting well and truely ripped off. Look at Mancini now, refusing to budge on agents fee's on Hazard - Albeit, it's easier for Mancini to do that now we're champions and have a great squad, but he still knows when he thinks we're being ripped off (and yes, the FFP rules will have something to do with it as well).

In my opinion, Hughes should never have gone anywhere near the likes of Santa Cruz, Lescott, Bridge or De Jong for the prices we ended up paying for them. Couple that together with the freezing out of our most creative central player in Elano and his simple inability to organise a defence are why we should've sacked him after the 08/09 season.

 

[Bill]

Eh?

There are 3 players that regularly play that were signed by Hughes: Kompany, Barry and Lescott.

Kompany has turned out to be a great signing, but under Hughes he was poor. Hughes had him in central midfield and someone bumped a thread from 09 or 2010 with about 10 pages slating Kompany about how he isn't good enough.

Barry was a decent signing for a "respectable" price (considering his other buys) but Barry's performances didn't really pick up until Hughes had gone.

Lescott at the time was a shocking signing in my book. Not because I don't rate Lescott, just at the time he was in no way a £22 million pound defender. The whole saga of his signing was embarrassing, it lasted all summer with Moyes slagging us off and us getting ripped in the papers about tapping him up or whatever. The sad thing about it is, Hughes made an even worse "value-for-money" signing in Santa fucking Cruz. But, as with Kompany, as soon as Hughes left and Mancini took over his performances started to pick up and now Lescott looks a top defender.

Hughes was stupid enough to buy Given and try to farm Hart off elsewhere. He brought
Tevez and his **** of an agent to the club and allowed them to run the show. The signing of de Jong was a poor one as well, de Jong had 6 months left on his contract and we paid £18 million pounds for him, he's not even an £18 million pound player if he had 5 years left on a contract. Adebayor is another example of a poor signing, he played well in his first 4 games and then gave up, another £25 million spunked down the drain, not forgetting his ridiculous wages which means we're not stuck with him.

Irrespective of how well we've done since, Hughes is simply a piss poor manager.

You make some good points but there's a lot of revisionist shit in there.

Mancini has indeed gotten more out of some of Hughes' signings than Hughes did but as already stated NDJ had just signed a new contract at Hamburg. Lescott did indeed have a shaky start, however he was already coming into good form before Hughes was sacked but then picked up an injury that kept him out until a good few weeks into Mancini's reign. Kompany was never a poor player under Hughes - he just wasn't being played in his best position. As for Given, well I don't remember a single dissenting voice when he was signed. Every City fan I know welcomed his signing and saw him as a better 'keeper than Hart at that time. Tevez was probably as much a Khaldoon/Cook signing as he was a Hughes signing so I don't see what the issue is there. Besides, were you moaning about that one back when he first signed? Somehow, I doubt it. Adebayor, for all his issues, was considered to be a damn good striker at the time and again, I don't seem to remember many (if any) City fans moaning about him signing. The only true stinker of a signing was RSC.

What makes me laugh is that you imply that Hughes was responsible for negotiating all the big money contracts for these players when the reality is that that side of things probably had nothing to do with him. And besides, what type of players did you expect a team that had just finished 10th in the league to attract? And whoever was managing the club at the time, we would've had to overpay on transfers and wages to attract a better calibre of player to the club.

Fair enough on de Jong's contract, I didn't realise he'd extended it before we signed him.

While Hughes was manager, though, I presume he was given the final say on signings considering the fact we signed Bellamy after losing out on Kaka? Hughes should've known when to walk away from deals when he was getting well and truely ripped off. Look at Mancini now, refusing to budge on agents fee's on Hazard - Albeit, it's easier for Mancini to do that now we're champions and have a great squad, but he still knows when he thinks we're being ripped off (and yes, the FFP rules will have something to do with it as well).

In my opinion, Hughes should never have gone anywhere near the likes of Santa Cruz, Lescott, Bridge or De Jong for the prices we ended up paying for them. Couple that together with the freezing out of our most creative central player in Elano and his simple inability to organise a defence are why we should've sacked him after the 08/09 season.

except that rsc apart they were all better than what we had.

 

[Shaelumstash]

You make some good points but there's a lot of revisionist shit in there.

Mancini has indeed gotten more out of some of Hughes' signings than Hughes did but as already stated NDJ had just signed a new contract at Hamburg. Lescott did indeed have a shaky start, however he was already coming into good form before Hughes was sacked but then picked up an injury that kept him out until a good few weeks into Mancini's reign. Kompany was never a poor player under Hughes - he just wasn't being played in his best position. As for Given, well I don't remember a single dissenting voice when he was signed. Every City fan I know welcomed his signing and saw him as a better 'keeper than Hart at that time. Tevez was probably as much a Khaldoon/Cook signing as he was a Hughes signing so I don't see what the issue is there. Besides, were you moaning about that one back when he first signed? Somehow, I doubt it. Adebayor, for all his issues, was considered to be a damn good striker at the time and again, I don't seem to remember many (if any) City fans moaning about him signing. The only true stinker of a signing was RSC.

What makes me laugh is that you imply that Hughes was responsible for negotiating all the big money contracts for these players when the reality is that that side of things probably had nothing to do with him. And besides, what type of players did you expect a team that had just finished 10th in the league to attract? And whoever was managing the club at the time, we would've had to overpay on transfers and wages to attract a better calibre of player to the club.

Fair enough on de Jong's contract, I didn't realise he'd extended it before we signed him.

While Hughes was manager, though, I presume he was given the final say on signings considering the fact we signed Bellamy after losing out on Kaka? Hughes should've known when to walk away from deals when he was getting well and truely ripped off. Look at Mancini now, refusing to budge on agents fee's on Hazard - Albeit, it's easier for Mancini to do that now we're champions and have a great squad, but he still knows when he thinks we're being ripped off (and yes, the FFP rules will have something to do with it as well).

In my opinion, Hughes should never have gone anywhere near the likes of Santa Cruz, Lescott, Bridge or De Jong for the prices we ended up paying for them. Couple that together with the freezing out of our most creative central player in Elano and his simple inability to organise a defence are why we should've sacked him after the 08/09 season.

except that rsc apart they were all better than what we had.

But still not good enough though. Yes Bellamy was an improvement on Kelvin Etuhu, but still only good enough to finish 10th in the league - not good enough.

 

[city diehard]

agreed, no way could hughes attract silva and co, said it many times. i have never "dismissed" mancini but nor will i dismiss sparky. they both played a part in where we are now.

Your opinion of Mancini, unless I'm going crazy, was once very negative and you were convinced he wouldn't win us trophies.

you have the wrong guy, i was negative about him being negative, which he was, in fact pathetically so. i have never said he'd not win us out, in fact i went to a fans forum and put him straight :) once he'd got a grasp of the prem he's been outstanding.

Just airing the jumped up pundits of this world opinions, it was how we won games not case of being negative teams just didn't appreciate the status quo being disturbed.

-- Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:24 pm --

I don't think Mark Hughes was that bad a manager , but bein' an ex-rag , he had his haters from the start .....

he did okay during his time here , as he had at Blackburn , but it's Mancini who has instilled greater consistency into our results ...... and it's that which has paid off .

Not that even he has had it all his own way ...... he was too cautious in his early days here , and he's finally realised , not before time either , that my policy is better than his ......

that being , give teams more problems than they can give you and you've got a much better chance of winning football matches!

I'd argue that sparky's results were very consistent... Just a shame they were consistently draws

Drawing at home v Burnley, Hull and Fulham were clear highlights to enjoy under Sparkless, De Niro?

 

[Bill]

Your opinion of Mancini, unless I'm going crazy, was once very negative and you were convinced he wouldn't win us trophies.

you have the wrong guy, i was negative about him being negative, which he was, in fact pathetically so. i have never said he'd not win us out, in fact i went to a fans forum and put him straight :) once he'd got a grasp of the prem he's been outstanding.

Just airing the jumped up pundits of this world opinions, it was how we won games not case of being negative teams just didn't appreciate the status quo being disturbed.

-- Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:24 pm --

I don't think Mark Hughes was that bad a manager , but bein' an ex-rag , he had his haters from the start .....

he did okay during his time here , as he had at Blackburn , but it's Mancini who has instilled greater consistency into our results ...... and it's that which has paid off .

Not that even he has had it all his own way ...... he was too cautious in his early days here , and he's finally realised , not before time either , that my policy is better than his ......

that being , give teams more problems than they can give you and you've got a much better chance of winning football matches!

I'd argue that sparky's results were very consistent... Just a shame they were consistently draws

Drawing at home v Burnley, Hull and Fulham were clear highlights to enjoy under Sparkless, De Niro?

well firstly we were very very unlucky in those games, secondly no one is saying hughes was flawless, i'm saying neither was mancini.
the assisination of hughes on here 3 years on is quite honestly embarrassing.

 

[jimharri]

you have the wrong guy, i was negative about him being negative, which he was, in fact pathetically so. i have never said he'd not win us out, in fact i went to a fans forum and put him straight :) once he'd got a grasp of the prem he's been outstanding.

Just airing the jumped up pundits of this world opinions, it was how we won games not case of being negative teams just didn't appreciate the status quo being disturbed.

-- Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:24 pm --

I'd argue that sparky's results were very consistent... Just a shame they were consistently draws

Drawing at home v Burnley, Hull and Fulham were clear highlights to enjoy under Sparkless, De Niro?

well firstly we were very very unlucky in those games, secondly no one is saying hughes was flawless, i'm saying neither was mancini.
the assisination of hughes on here 3 years on is quite honestly embarrassing.

You're wasting your time Bill. Most people on here are deeply prejudiced against Hughes. I gave up trying to defend parts of his reign, as it is a pointless exercise in futility. There's none so blind as those that can't/won't see. Let it go Bill; your blood pressure will thank you for it!

 

[Bill]

Just airing the jumped up pundits of this world opinions, it was how we won games not case of being negative teams just didn't appreciate the status quo being disturbed.

-- Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:24 pm --



Drawing at home v Burnley, Hull and Fulham were clear highlights to enjoy under Sparkless, De Niro?

well firstly we were very very unlucky in those games, secondly no one is saying hughes was flawless, i'm saying neither was mancini.
the assisination of hughes on here 3 years on is quite honestly embarrassing.

You're wasting your time Bill. Most people on here are deeply prejudiced against Hughes. I gave up trying to defend parts of his reign, as it is a pointless exercise in futility. There's none so blind as those that can't/won't see. Let it go Bill; your blood pressure will thank you for it!

i dont like injustice jim, yes we have an upgarde on hughes but the venom is actually there because of his utd connections, it was from the start with some. the thing is they probably never even went to see us play.

as i say, embarrassing.

 

[Ray78]

A good manager who signed some quality players but couldn't put it all together. What sealed his fate was our limp display against Spurs.