The mancityfans.net football forum

JonnyAsh wrote:We would be able to borrow from Barclays or whoever, on the same terms as The Rags, Chelski or Anyone else. It's just that we can structure our repayments. I know it's stupid, as we don't need to borrow any money, and we would be paying interest on a loan we don't need, but I can't see how they could find a flaw, especially as our income in 3 years would be equal to that of Arsenal and Chelsea, and the Scouse surely

I'm guessing that they will limit the loans allowed to a percentage of the turnover thereby still entrenching the relative size of the clubs, as those already in the ECL have a massive turnover advantage. They seem determined to do this so we just HAVE to beat them to the punch and qualify quickly. All we can do is pray to the sky fairy that Hughes can make the step up.

If we rapidly establish ourselves we will become 'the elite', and will make the rules! One meeting between Platini and the Sheik's people should do it. Though Platini 'looks forward to meeting him', I doubt the Sheik will have room in his diary for that Twat himself.

if a clubs spending power is going to be based on their turnover then what is stopping MCFC going out and buying a hotel chain or another non football income stream, this would surely count as income for MCFC just as the chelsea village does for chelsea.

Socrates wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

Socrates wrote:This is a very real threat and something I have been worried about for some time. In fact I was branded as impatient and stupid, around the turn of the year, for wanting to see more urgency in getting us to the top and it is the reason I believed it was too risky to wait and see whether Hughes could make the large step up in class he was/is being asked to and wanted to see a proven manager in place asap. A judgement based on percentages and probablities and one which I stand by no matter what the eventual outcome is with Hughes. The naive minds have now woken up and smelled the coffee. Thankfully the management of the club already twigged and brought forward player investement intended for the next 3 years. So all is not yet lost.

Soc, you state that the reason you wanted Hughes out was because of this and that the naive minds have woken and smelled the coffee? Well excuse me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it these Naive Minds who actually had trust in the management and had smelt the coffee, had bacon butties and caught the worm as they say; unlike you who were sleeping!

You have also stated that the management have twigged, so does this mean you are actually giving Hughes credit for the insight he has shown and credit to the people who actually stood by the clubs management decision?

This is not a dig at you mate, but when you come over 'I told you so' when in reality it is those who supported Hughes continuation in post, then I seem to get a little confused!?!

Sorry, but the actual fact is that Hughes still remains unproven. Three narrow wins, playing fairly poorly, against three of the poorest sides in the division in no more than "so far so good." Long, long way to go before we find out whether the huge gamble of keeping Hughes has paid off. The percentage call would definitely have been to recruit a manager with proven success. The time constraints I was eluding to earlier in the year remain. The events since just prove the basis of my analysis was correct. Those who supported Hughes "continuity" are yet to be proven right about ANYTHING. In fact their arguments at the time about slow building and organic change have been absolutely blown away by the actions of Hughes himself!

All the arguments that were given were all speculation if I remember rightly, driven by the need for people to protect/condemn Hughes. However, the main point is that those people had faith in what Hughes was doing, which has proven true with regard to our progression, has it not?

The question of Hughes' managerial capabilities are still to be determined, especially in the light of having to look after the squad/personalities that we have now. But, I would suggest that he has got 75% of it right so far because even if he cannot get the results that he/we expect, then at least if he goes he has assembled a true class squad, that with the right coaching should be in the Top 6, and looking to break into the Top 4.

As you say, the % call would have been to employ a top manager with a pedigree of winning things, however there weren't to many of them about falling over themselves to get in the City seat. So, why not go for the next best thing, a manager who many were saying was the future.

I wonder though, how many of the so called 'Pedigree Managers' would want the Hotseat at City today?

john@staustell wrote:If we rapidly establish ourselves we will become 'the elite', and will make the rules! One meeting between Platini and the Sheik's people should do it. Though Platini 'looks forward to meeting him', I doubt the Sheik will have room in his diary for that Twat himself.

Sorry John but I disagree mate. I really don't think it is as simple as that.
For all their money and their relative success and no matter that they challenged the already established CL G14 group on the pitch, Chelsea were never accepted, nor invited to join that group. They were left isolated and on the outside. In their case money and relative success did not gain them access to the power brokers' table. It is possible they still aren't accepted and that Abramovitch is using the newer threat of City to try and force his way on to it.
Remember that when Chelsea were on the rise, there were only 2 qualifying places and Chelsea threatened the positions of the rags and Arsenal.
I think our problem is double sided and we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we are not successful on the pitch, our threat merely dissipates and goes away. It we do succeed on the pitch our threat actually increases, thus increasing the possibility of a backlash against us.

1...We must succeed on the pitch. Qualification to the CL ASAP is crucial to our progress.
2...We must be seen to massively increase our turnover, in order to balance the books and negate the present moves against us.
3...(and this I feel is the most important) We MUST create friends in the right places. We must ensure we have allies in the corridors of power. It is there that the decisions will be made and we need to have a strong lobby to defend our interests. The English clubs must be stopped from using their ex G14 cohorts and UeFA and disabled from shutting the door on us.

I am certain that City are well aware of the situation, the position we are in and what needs to be done. It is possibly the motive behind our recent "flirtation" and "getting to know you" meetings with Barca. Even our recent friendly with Celtic. I can see us cuddling up with other European based G14 clubs in the near future too.

Beefymcfc wrote:

Socrates wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

Socrates wrote:This is a very real threat and something I have been worried about for some time. In fact I was branded as impatient and stupid, around the turn of the year, for wanting to see more urgency in getting us to the top and it is the reason I believed it was too risky to wait and see whether Hughes could make the large step up in class he was/is being asked to and wanted to see a proven manager in place asap. A judgement based on percentages and probablities and one which I stand by no matter what the eventual outcome is with Hughes. The naive minds have now woken up and smelled the coffee. Thankfully the management of the club already twigged and brought forward player investement intended for the next 3 years. So all is not yet lost.

Soc, you state that the reason you wanted Hughes out was because of this and that the naive minds have woken and smelled the coffee? Well excuse me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it these Naive Minds who actually had trust in the management and had smelt the coffee, had bacon butties and caught the worm as they say; unlike you who were sleeping!

You have also stated that the management have twigged, so does this mean you are actually giving Hughes credit for the insight he has shown and credit to the people who actually stood by the clubs management decision?

This is not a dig at you mate, but when you come over 'I told you so' when in reality it is those who supported Hughes continuation in post, then I seem to get a little confused!?!

Sorry, but the actual fact is that Hughes still remains unproven. Three narrow wins, playing fairly poorly, against three of the poorest sides in the division in no more than "so far so good." Long, long way to go before we find out whether the huge gamble of keeping Hughes has paid off. The percentage call would definitely have been to recruit a manager with proven success. The time constraints I was eluding to earlier in the year remain. The events since just prove the basis of my analysis was correct. Those who supported Hughes "continuity" are yet to be proven right about ANYTHING. In fact their arguments at the time about slow building and organic change have been absolutely blown away by the actions of Hughes himself!

All the arguments that were given were all speculation if I remember rightly, driven by the need for people to protect/condemn Hughes. However, the main point is that those people had faith in what Hughes was doing, which has proven true with regard to our progression, has it not?

The question of Hughes' managerial capabilities are still to be determined, especially in the light of having to look after the squad/personalities that we have now. But, I would suggest that he has got 75% of it right so far because even if he cannot get the results that he/we expect, then at least if he goes he has assembled a true class squad, that with the right coaching should be in the Top 6, and looking to break into the Top 4.

As you say, the % call would have been to employ a top manager with a pedigree of winning things, however there weren't to many of them about falling over themselves to get in the City seat. So, why not go for the next best thing, a manager who many were saying was the future.

I wonder though, how many of the so called 'Pedigree Managers' would want the Hotseat at City today?

The point Jon is making there is that we need to be able to get in Champion's League quickish in order to be in the mix when decisions are made and also to show that we were "there" financially before these decisions are made. And he is spot on.

I'm also worried that Soc is worried about this as he knows more about accounting and numbers than any of us.

Beefymcfc wrote:

Socrates wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

Socrates wrote:This is a very real threat and something I have been worried about for some time. In fact I was branded as impatient and stupid, around the turn of the year, for wanting to see more urgency in getting us to the top and it is the reason I believed it was too risky to wait and see whether Hughes could make the large step up in class he was/is being asked to and wanted to see a proven manager in place asap. A judgement based on percentages and probablities and one which I stand by no matter what the eventual outcome is with Hughes. The naive minds have now woken up and smelled the coffee. Thankfully the management of the club already twigged and brought forward player investement intended for the next 3 years. So all is not yet lost.

Soc, you state that the reason you wanted Hughes out was because of this and that the naive minds have woken and smelled the coffee? Well excuse me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it these Naive Minds who actually had trust in the management and had smelt the coffee, had bacon butties and caught the worm as they say; unlike you who were sleeping!

You have also stated that the management have twigged, so does this mean you are actually giving Hughes credit for the insight he has shown and credit to the people who actually stood by the clubs management decision?

This is not a dig at you mate, but when you come over 'I told you so' when in reality it is those who supported Hughes continuation in post, then I seem to get a little confused!?!

Sorry, but the actual fact is that Hughes still remains unproven. Three narrow wins, playing fairly poorly, against three of the poorest sides in the division in no more than "so far so good." Long, long way to go before we find out whether the huge gamble of keeping Hughes has paid off. The percentage call would definitely have been to recruit a manager with proven success. The time constraints I was eluding to earlier in the year remain. The events since just prove the basis of my analysis was correct. Those who supported Hughes "continuity" are yet to be proven right about ANYTHING. In fact their arguments at the time about slow building and organic change have been absolutely blown away by the actions of Hughes himself!

All the arguments that were given were all speculation if I remember rightly, driven by the need for people to protect/condemn Hughes. However, the main point is that those people had faith in what Hughes was doing, which has proven true with regard to our progression, has it not?

The question of Hughes' managerial capabilities are still to be determined, especially in the light of having to look after the squad/personalities that we have now. But, I would suggest that he has got 75% of it right so far because even if he cannot get the results that he/we expect, then at least if he goes he has assembled a true class squad, that with the right coaching should be in the Top 6, and looking to break into the Top 4.

As you say, the % call would have been to employ a top manager with a pedigree of winning things, however there weren't to many of them about falling over themselves to get in the City seat. So, why not go for the next best thing, a manager who many were saying was the future.

I wonder though, how many of the so called 'Pedigree Managers' would want the Hotseat at City today?

Those arguments were not about that from me! They were about the need for speed and, as even you now agree, the percentage call! I don't want any further arguments, in fact I'm trying to draw people onto common ground! The lower percentage call was taken and the die is now cast. We either get there with Hughes or we don't. It's too late for plan B already. There's no time for organic change and we probably won't get a second shot. I think people like John68 can now see the danger that I was seeing 8 months ago. I'm hoping maybe we will understand each other better now, nothing more nothing less.

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

Socrates wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

Socrates wrote:This is a very real threat and something I have been worried about for some time. In fact I was branded as impatient and stupid, around the turn of the year, for wanting to see more urgency in getting us to the top and it is the reason I believed it was too risky to wait and see whether Hughes could make the large step up in class he was/is being asked to and wanted to see a proven manager in place asap. A judgement based on percentages and probablities and one which I stand by no matter what the eventual outcome is with Hughes. The naive minds have now woken up and smelled the coffee. Thankfully the management of the club already twigged and brought forward player investement intended for the next 3 years. So all is not yet lost.

Soc, you state that the reason you wanted Hughes out was because of this and that the naive minds have woken and smelled the coffee? Well excuse me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it these Naive Minds who actually had trust in the management and had smelt the coffee, had bacon butties and caught the worm as they say; unlike you who were sleeping!

You have also stated that the management have twigged, so does this mean you are actually giving Hughes credit for the insight he has shown and credit to the people who actually stood by the clubs management decision?

This is not a dig at you mate, but when you come over 'I told you so' when in reality it is those who supported Hughes continuation in post, then I seem to get a little confused!?!

Sorry, but the actual fact is that Hughes still remains unproven. Three narrow wins, playing fairly poorly, against three of the poorest sides in the division in no more than "so far so good." Long, long way to go before we find out whether the huge gamble of keeping Hughes has paid off. The percentage call would definitely have been to recruit a manager with proven success. The time constraints I was eluding to earlier in the year remain. The events since just prove the basis of my analysis was correct. Those who supported Hughes "continuity" are yet to be proven right about ANYTHING. In fact their arguments at the time about slow building and organic change have been absolutely blown away by the actions of Hughes himself!

All the arguments that were given were all speculation if I remember rightly, driven by the need for people to protect/condemn Hughes. However, the main point is that those people had faith in what Hughes was doing, which has proven true with regard to our progression, has it not?

The question of Hughes' managerial capabilities are still to be determined, especially in the light of having to look after the squad/personalities that we have now. But, I would suggest that he has got 75% of it right so far because even if he cannot get the results that he/we expect, then at least if he goes he has assembled a true class squad, that with the right coaching should be in the Top 6, and looking to break into the Top 4.

As you say, the % call would have been to employ a top manager with a pedigree of winning things, however there weren't to many of them about falling over themselves to get in the City seat. So, why not go for the next best thing, a manager who many were saying was the future.

I wonder though, how many of the so called 'Pedigree Managers' would want the Hotseat at City today?

The point Jon is making there is that we need to be able to get in Champion's League quickish in order to be in the mix when decisions are made and also to show that we were "there" financially before these decisions are made. And he is spot on.

I'm also worried that Soc is worried about this as he knows more about accounting and numbers than any of us.

Not just to be "in the mix" but more importantly to get our turnover up to the levels we need!

All this nebulous speculation about changes suggested by Platini is all just a bunch of tosh. Just as soon as this idiot tries to get anything done, European Community law will stop him and there will be plenty of clubs from all over the EU ready to take UEFA to court in Brussels. Platini is making dumb statements and should be careful he doesn't lose his job. None of this will ever happen.

If we finish top four this season, great . Platini is going to be mobbed anyway because of the complete logistics cock up of the next Euro competition. The last one was a very expensive exercise , ripping spectators off, with very small stadia and all kinds of logistic problems. I imagine even the power clubs are having a go at Platini - all except Madrid that is.

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:The point Jon is making there is that we need to be able to get in Champion's League quickish in order to be in the mix when decisions are made and also to show that we were "there" financially before these decisions are made. And he is spot on.

I'm also worried that Soc is worried about this as he knows more about accounting and numbers than any of us.

I think every Blue understands the need for sorting ourselves financially after Platini's comments, however the original inference was not aimed generally at that but at the way Hughes was perceived to be not up to the task and that those individuals supporting his management were therefore following blindly. The truth is, many probably did follow blindly but had faith in his abilities to take us forward; which in my book, he has done with the overwhelming amount of talent he has brought in.

Socrates wrote:Those arguments were not about that from me! They were about the need for speed and, as even you now agree, the percentage call! I don't want any further arguments, in fact I'm trying to draw people onto common ground! The lower percentage call was taken and the die is now cast. We either get there with Hughes or we don't. It's too late for plan B already. There's no time for organic change and we probably won't get a second shot. I think people like John68 can now see the danger that I was seeing 8 months ago. I'm hoping maybe we will understand each other better now, nothing more nothing less.

Mate, I think you'll find that we are all on common ground here as we all see what is happening to the club, on and off the pitch. The % call was taken because Hughes was seen as the future of football management and proved to our owners through his forward thinking strategy, that he was up to the job. Also, like I've stated, which Top manager actually wanted the job as I didn't see many applying for a position that wasn't vacant. As for the Plan B, there is always one. If Hughes isn't performing (which I'm sure we all hope he will) then he gets moved on and another manager replaces him, which will be of the ilk you have mentioned as I'm sure any of the Top managers would see City as a very good proposition.

And yes, I do understand you in every sense, and I do understand your concerns, but those concerns have to be put into context and at this moment in time they seem a little unfounded. Hughes for me has done a very good job this summer and the lads have done the bizz on the field where it counts. The only concern I have at this moment in time is if he decides to drop the likes of Robinho on a regular basis (which I'm sure he won't), as players of his standard and popularity are the ones that bring in the fans and therefore the money!

Zurich,
One of the major dangers I see is that too many are looking at Platini and UeFA and what they are doing. The UeFA role in this is relatively unimportant.
I see the main danger to our progress coming from our own "top four". By using their allies in the ex G14 cartel, they are defending their own self interest and if the published figures are to be believed, their very financial existance. They are not working to a UeFA agenda but as they did once before at the outset and design of the present CL format, they are working to an agenda of their own greed.

The position as i see it is that they will happily use Platini and UeFA to pass the legislation they need as long as it suits them and that is the only role that UeFA will play in this...to act as their "patsy" and formalise the rules the cartel has drawn up...(as happened with the CL)

The real cause for concern is that, the cartel have all the power, they have the finances and they own the product. If UeFA refuse to play their game, the cartel can simply walk away, go it alone and make their own terms and conditions for entry. If that happened, we could find the door slammed shut, without any rights of appeal.

Tend to agree with Zuri - it would prolly only take one Bosman type of European Court action and the whole thing would at very least be paralysed buying us time as this gets caught up in the inevitable quagmire of interminable Euro legal proceedure - this action could very well include a litany of biggish clubs headed by Barca and including the likes of Rangers, Celtic , Spuds , Valencia etc
The words " baked" and "half" immediately spring to mind when discussing Mr. Platini and his trevails.

john68 wrote:Zurich,
One of the major dangers I see is that too many are looking at Platini and UeFA and what they are doing. The UeFA role in this is relatively unimportant.
I see the main danger to our progress coming from our own "top four". By using their allies in the ex G14 cartel, they are defending their own self interest and if the published figures are to be believed, their very financial existance. They are not working to a UeFA agenda but as they did once before at the outset and design of the present CL format, they are working to an agenda of their own greed.

The position as i see it is that they will happily use Platini and UeFA to pass the legislation they need as long as it suits them and that is the only role that UeFA will play in this...to act as their "patsy" and formalise the rules the cartel has drawn up...(as happened with the CL)

The real cause for concern is that, the cartel have all the power, they have the finances and they own the product. If UeFA refuse to play their game, the cartel can simply walk away, go it alone and make their own terms and conditions for entry. If that happened, we could find the door slammed shut, without any rights of appeal.

Then , as you see it, I hope the G14 do go it alone.

It will soon die a death , because UEFA will introduce restrictions on how they can acquire their players. People in other countries want to watch the CL or the new Europa league not G14 football.

The 'cartel' as you see it cannot simply do anything they want. You don't seriously think the Bundesliga will let München drop out do you without consequences ?

Similarly so in France, Italy or Spain. There are very strict employment laws in Germany, France, Italy ans Spain. Football is not isolated from the laws of these countries.

I'm afraid the English press are doing what they always do, building up something out of nothing.

I can't believe so many sensible posters are looking at this seriously. Platini hasn't introduced a single one of his daft proposals yet. It's just him generating debate to sell papers, so the media don't bother making up stuff that he might care about.

This wouldn't happen for a host of reasons already discussed: Loopholes, collateral damage etc. But there's also the simple issue of enforceability. It's one thing to threaten to throw out teams for spending too much, it's another to actually do it, especially to one of the big boys.

The Premier League look after themselves, they don't want to play 2nd fiddle to UEFA. We saw that when Liverpool finished 5th but won the CL. UEFA then broke/changed their own rules to get them in.

With a charm offensive they might just be able to get away with excluding us from Europe, but we'd suddenly be popular and they'd be the bad guys. It would turn fans off. We could afford to be out for a year if it came to it, but how would Sky feel. Now change it so that it's the winner of the prem that's not allowed compete for the CL. Platini is a politician, he doesn't have the spine, the rules would be tweaked to make everything look good.

But he doesn't lose anything by making a few noises about trying to control expenses. It's only a problem if he tries doing something about it. He won't.

Beefymcfc wrote:

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:The point Jon is making there is that we need to be able to get in Champion's League quickish in order to be in the mix when decisions are made and also to show that we were "there" financially before these decisions are made. And he is spot on.

I'm also worried that Soc is worried about this as he knows more about accounting and numbers than any of us.

I think every Blue understands the need for sorting ourselves financially after Platini's comments, however the original inference was not aimed generally at that but at the way Hughes was perceived to be not up to the task and that those individuals supporting his management were therefore following blindly. The truth is, many probably did follow blindly but had faith in his abilities to take us forward; which in my book, he has done with the overwhelming amount of talent he has brought in.

Socrates wrote:Those arguments were not about that from me! They were about the need for speed and, as even you now agree, the percentage call! I don't want any further arguments, in fact I'm trying to draw people onto common ground! The lower percentage call was taken and the die is now cast. We either get there with Hughes or we don't. It's too late for plan B already. There's no time for organic change and we probably won't get a second shot. I think people like John68 can now see the danger that I was seeing 8 months ago. I'm hoping maybe we will understand each other better now, nothing more nothing less.

Mate, I think you'll find that we are all on common ground here as we all see what is happening to the club, on and off the pitch. The % call was taken because Hughes was seen as the future of football management and proved to our owners through his forward thinking strategy, that he was up to the job. Also, like I've stated, which Top manager actually wanted the job as I didn't see many applying for a position that wasn't vacant. As for the Plan B, there is always one. If Hughes isn't performing (which I'm sure we all hope he will) then he gets moved on and another manager replaces him, which will be of the ilk you have mentioned as I'm sure any of the Top managers would see City as a very good proposition.

And yes, I do understand you in every sense, and I do understand your concerns, but those concerns have to be put into context and at this moment in time they seem a little unfounded. Hughes for me has done a very good job this summer and the lads have done the bizz on the field where it counts. The only concern I have at this moment in time is if he decides to drop the likes of Robinho on a regular basis (which I'm sure he won't), as players of his standard and popularity are the ones that bring in the fans and therefore the money!

You are missing so many points I give up. There is no plan B because plan B will be too late. The percentage call wasn't taken. That's my point. As for your statement that there wasn't a queue of managers for a non-existent vacancy, well duh...

As for those clever, clever people not taking this seriously. Do you really think this is just Platini spouting? This is some serious vested interests closing rank. They will try and do this and relying on the courts to save us is folly.

Socrates wrote: Do you really think this is just Platini spouting?

I bet my car and half my bank account on it..

I trust that cleverer men than me and you and the entire collective of mancityfans.net are at the helm and will unleash armies of lawyers, accountants and men with thick moneystuffed envelopes to ensure that even if it comes to fruition, it will not touch us.

Abu Dhabi wrote:

Socrates wrote: Do you really think this is just Platini spouting?

I bet my car and half my bank account on it..

You will lose. The big 4 and G14 are behind this, the fact they have already found "get outs" for Real should tell you that. It will not be nearly as easy to wriggle past as you think.

I too think this threat is too serious to be ignored. I also think the club by their actions have shown that they too take the threat seriously. Socs is right in saying that their are some very serious vested interests involved in this and if they close ranks, we could well be blocked. Closing ranks maybe the only way for some of them to survive.

Using the rags as an example. Their financial position is quite precarious. In the year they won the CL. They increased their turnover by 20%, yet still made a £44M loss. This would have included all the marketting and merchandising income they would have recieved as CL Champs. It would also include whatever debt repayments they made.
Last season, without the chance to market themselves as CL winners, they would have lost a chunk of income, whilst their debt will have increased even further. It will be interesting to see the next set of figures they issue.
Without CL income, they are financial dead ducks. Whilst there was only a top four there was relative safety for them and the risk of losing out was only small. Now City are on the scene, that risk has increased dramatically. To fall out of CL qualification would mean financial disaster for them, they depend on it. By negating the risk of City qualifying (by fair means or foul), they substantially diminish the risks of non qualification and possible financial meltdown.

This scenario would also, (to some extent) affect the others in the English top four. For them, it could be a battle for their survival.

City have obviously changed their strategy and speeded up the project as a response to defend City's interests.

Socrates wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:The point Jon is making there is that we need to be able to get in Champion's League quickish in order to be in the mix when decisions are made and also to show that we were "there" financially before these decisions are made. And he is spot on.

I'm also worried that Soc is worried about this as he knows more about accounting and numbers than any of us.

I think every Blue understands the need for sorting ourselves financially after Platini's comments, however the original inference was not aimed generally at that but at the way Hughes was perceived to be not up to the task and that those individuals supporting his management were therefore following blindly. The truth is, many probably did follow blindly but had faith in his abilities to take us forward; which in my book, he has done with the overwhelming amount of talent he has brought in.

Socrates wrote:Those arguments were not about that from me! They were about the need for speed and, as even you now agree, the percentage call! I don't want any further arguments, in fact I'm trying to draw people onto common ground! The lower percentage call was taken and the die is now cast. We either get there with Hughes or we don't. It's too late for plan B already. There's no time for organic change and we probably won't get a second shot. I think people like John68 can now see the danger that I was seeing 8 months ago. I'm hoping maybe we will understand each other better now, nothing more nothing less.

Mate, I think you'll find that we are all on common ground here as we all see what is happening to the club, on and off the pitch. The % call was taken because Hughes was seen as the future of football management and proved to our owners through his forward thinking strategy, that he was up to the job. Also, like I've stated, which Top manager actually wanted the job as I didn't see many applying for a position that wasn't vacant. As for the Plan B, there is always one. If Hughes isn't performing (which I'm sure we all hope he will) then he gets moved on and another manager replaces him, which will be of the ilk you have mentioned as I'm sure any of the Top managers would see City as a very good proposition.

And yes, I do understand you in every sense, and I do understand your concerns, but those concerns have to be put into context and at this moment in time they seem a little unfounded. Hughes for me has done a very good job this summer and the lads have done the bizz on the field where it counts. The only concern I have at this moment in time is if he decides to drop the likes of Robinho on a regular basis (which I'm sure he won't), as players of his standard and popularity are the ones that bring in the fans and therefore the money!

You are missing so many points I give up. There is no plan B because plan B will be too late. The percentage call wasn't taken. That's my point. As for your statement that there wasn't a queue of managers for a non-existent vacancy, well duh...

As for those clever, clever people not taking this seriously. Do you really think this is just Platini spouting? This is some serious vested interests closing rank. They will try and do this and relying on the courts to save us is folly.

I totaly understand the point and there is no need for the childish/patronising comments either. You've basically stated that we are fucked and fucked again, and this has been aided by our owners insistence on keeping Hughes; therefore we are fucked because of Hughes as there is no option for change.

Excuse me if I'm getting you wrong but it seems my intelligence seems to be lacking!?!

Being as there are so many variables, why isn't there a Plan B or C or D. Who says that Hughes is going to fail? Who says that if Hughes doesn't achieve top spot this year, that we won't achieve it next? Who says we won't have the financial income by 2012 to keep the likes of Platini happy? Who says Platini will be there next year? Who says the Sheihk would let this happen?

The variables are endless Jon, so your random statement doesn't quite cover the reality; just one extreme scenario.