The mancityfans.net football forum

ronk wrote:

conkers wrote:

Alex Sapphire wrote:

ross.mcfc wrote:I do believe that was his first visit back to the coms since his departure. I wonder if there was any reason why he came to the game tonight.

.

Johnson to County on loan?

Sven left around the time he came on.

eh? Johnson barely played at all last year. Johnson did most of his good work under Sven but actually was playing under Pearce (and playing well). There was a lot of discussion of how he was already a better player than Barton in terms of the structure of the team and his ability to take corners.

Think he's referring to last night, ie Sven left the stadium in the last few minutes as Johnson came on as sub...

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:Sven pulled the wool over my eyes for a long time, and I was quite disappointed when he was given the boot.
When I look back on his tenure, I just think "conman"
Every week, telling us we were playing great football, when in reality it didn't often rise much above what Pearce produced.
The entertainment on offer has improved dramatically since he went and I don't lament his going at all.

That about sums it up for me - gutted when he went, even signed the petition, but with hindsight it was for the best. Just not forceful enough as a manager. Always liked him as a person, though.

Ive got a feeling Sven was networking - maybe he wants one of our England under 20's. (dont sell him Mee though, whatever you do)

Original Dub wrote:
He finished ahead of Sven in the league with much less money. Says it all really.

Er yes. Except when Hughes took over the same club and finished lower than the previous season...

...under Sven.

And with even crappier cup runs to boot. F**king genius that Hughes chap last year :) **

And as a general point whats with all this 'Sven's era' crap? Since when did 11 months in charge of a football club become a f**king era? 11 months in charge is an era if you're a caretaker manager and are quietly amazed you have made it that far. Besides you can't judge a manager until his second season or at least 12 months in charge. I know this for a fact because I read it here and on other forums from people arguing that Hughes needs more time. So in must be true.

Isn't it?

** My bad. I overlooked the UEFA cup run. That was the highlight so I withdraw that comment and give Hughes his due on that one.

Rag_hater wrote:My memory isn't so short that I consider the start of this season to be the start of Hughes tenure and to me the start he has to this season does not escape from the fact that he was here last year and that year was worse than the year before.
And whether the Hughes lovers decide that it is not a fair comparison to compare the 07/08 season with the 08/09 season I dont see why I cannot compare the two.
Just because the results of the comparison do not favour the Hughes lovers does not mean they should be ignored.
And last year it was said that it was unfair to compare Svens full season against Hughes's around Xmas time when the debate began because Hughes had not had a full season to be judged on, however now they both have a full season to be judged on it is somehow not fair if one makes a decision that does not favour Hughes.
The fact that Hughes is now in his second season and being judged on that, does not seem fair on Sven. To me somehow as Sven didnt have a second season to spend an unlimited amount of cash like Hughes it seems somewhat unfair on him to say he was incapable of building a project that would have lasted.
Now he has had a full season it is still apperently unfair and the 09/10 season is what he should be judged on.Same old codswallop.

Sven was sacked for a reason.Grasp it like everyone else has on this board and at least try and give Hughes a chance.
Its obvious you dont like the fella but you cant argue hes doin his best.Give the guy a pat on the back and let the negativity go for the time being m8.
Enjoy whats going on at the minute..In my 40yrs of bein a blue iv never been so excited about the current squad.Embrace it and be happy my friend..Sven was a lazy laid back bastard.I myself liked him but compared to whats goin on now theres no contest.Forget him.

Money & chairmen & takeovers have just clouded the issue. Hughes has proved he can build a team without money & get it into Europe & have cup runs etc. The big worry that people had was that his City team would play dull, negative football. It's the opposite.

If Hughes went to Bolton now & Sven went to Blackburn now. Next season's Bolton team would suddenly contain some hitherto unknown gems & be climbing the league vying for top 8. Next season's Blackburn team would be playing in the Championship with a load of weak foreign lazy twats sulking on the wage bill whist Sven managed Barbados.

I was a Sven fan & I still like the bloke but I've realised now that he's not on the same level; he's a Swedish Ron Atkinson.

Ted Hughes wrote:Money & chairmen & takeovers have just clouded the issue. Hughes has proved he can build a team without money & get it into Europe & have cup runs etc. The big worry that people had was that his City team would play dull, negative football. It's the opposite.

If Hughes went to Bolton now & Sven went to Blackburn now. Next season's Bolton team would suddenly contain some hitherto unknown gems & be climbing the league vying for top 8. Next season's Blackburn team would be playing in the Championship with a load of weak foreign lazy twats sulking on the wage bill whist Sven managed Barbados.

I was a Sven fan & I still like the bloke but I've realised now that he's not on the same level; he's a Swedish Ron Atkinson.

So what you are saying is that Hughes can succeed with no money whereas Sven need money to succeed.

Remind me again, do we have money or not?

Slim wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Money & chairmen & takeovers have just clouded the issue. Hughes has proved he can build a team without money & get it into Europe & have cup runs etc. The big worry that people had was that his City team would play dull, negative football. It's the opposite.

If Hughes went to Bolton now & Sven went to Blackburn now. Next season's Bolton team would suddenly contain some hitherto unknown gems & be climbing the league vying for top 8. Next season's Blackburn team would be playing in the Championship with a load of weak foreign lazy twats sulking on the wage bill whist Sven managed Barbados.

I was a Sven fan & I still like the bloke but I've realised now that he's not on the same level; he's a Swedish Ron Atkinson.

So what you are saying is that Hughes can succeed with no money whereas Sven need money to succeed.

Remind me again, do we have money or not?

No I'm saying that Hughes is miles better, with or without money & that Sven is like Fat Ron; a short term gambling boom & bust manager, who will just move on to the next job & do the same for as long as someone will pay him plenty to do it, which is not for much longer I fear.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Slim wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Money & chairmen & takeovers have just clouded the issue. Hughes has proved he can build a team without money & get it into Europe & have cup runs etc. The big worry that people had was that his City team would play dull, negative football. It's the opposite.

If Hughes went to Bolton now & Sven went to Blackburn now. Next season's Bolton team would suddenly contain some hitherto unknown gems & be climbing the league vying for top 8. Next season's Blackburn team would be playing in the Championship with a load of weak foreign lazy twats sulking on the wage bill whist Sven managed Barbados.

I was a Sven fan & I still like the bloke but I've realised now that he's not on the same level; he's a Swedish Ron Atkinson.

So what you are saying is that Hughes can succeed with no money whereas Sven need money to succeed.

Remind me again, do we have money or not?

No I'm saying that Hughes is miles better, with or without money & that Sven is like Fat Ron; a short term gambling boom & bust manager, who will just move on to the next job & do the same for as long as someone will pay him plenty to do it, which is not for much longer I fear.

Weel said.
Thats all he is.
Clever bloke Sven..You embrace him when hes on your side but when hes gone you have lived a short memory of him..Nights blues zzzz

So let me get this right.

Sven takes over a complete mess of a side, spends £40M and buys a few players and finishes 9th and qualified for Europe.

Hughes takes over Sven's side, spends £53M in the summer and roughly the same in January and finishes 10th and didn't qualify for Europe.

If we are comparing apples to apples here, please explain how Hughes is MILES better than Sven.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Slim wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Money & chairmen & takeovers have just clouded the issue. Hughes has proved he can build a team without money & get it into Europe & have cup runs etc. The big worry that people had was that his City team would play dull, negative football. It's the opposite.

If Hughes went to Bolton now & Sven went to Blackburn now. Next season's Bolton team would suddenly contain some hitherto unknown gems & be climbing the league vying for top 8. Next season's Blackburn team would be playing in the Championship with a load of weak foreign lazy twats sulking on the wage bill whist Sven managed Barbados.

I was a Sven fan & I still like the bloke but I've realised now that he's not on the same level; he's a Swedish Ron Atkinson.

So what you are saying is that Hughes can succeed with no money whereas Sven need money to succeed.

Remind me again, do we have money or not?

No I'm saying that Hughes is miles better, with or without money & that Sven is like Fat Ron; a short term gambling boom & bust manager, who will just move on to the next job & do the same for as long as someone will pay him plenty to do it, which is not for much longer I fear.

LOL! "Hughes is miles better, with or without money" are we going to base this on career achievements or just because you say so?

Do us a favour and research before you make such ludicrous claims. In 3 years Sven turned Sampdoria from chumps to Champions when he had the money behind him.

"Pay him plenty to do it". Because he's to only money grabbing sod in football right?

If Sven was still here and had strung a few wins together people would be supporting him the way people are supporting Hughes now. Fans are so fickle.

LookMumI'mOnMCF.net wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

Slim wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Money & chairmen & takeovers have just clouded the issue. Hughes has proved he can build a team without money & get it into Europe & have cup runs etc. The big worry that people had was that his City team would play dull, negative football. It's the opposite.

If Hughes went to Bolton now & Sven went to Blackburn now. Next season's Bolton team would suddenly contain some hitherto unknown gems & be climbing the league vying for top 8. Next season's Blackburn team would be playing in the Championship with a load of weak foreign lazy twats sulking on the wage bill whist Sven managed Barbados.

I was a Sven fan & I still like the bloke but I've realised now that he's not on the same level; he's a Swedish Ron Atkinson.

So what you are saying is that Hughes can succeed with no money whereas Sven need money to succeed.

Remind me again, do we have money or not?

No I'm saying that Hughes is miles better, with or without money & that Sven is like Fat Ron; a short term gambling boom & bust manager, who will just move on to the next job & do the same for as long as someone will pay him plenty to do it, which is not for much longer I fear.

LOL! "Hughes is miles better, with or without money" are we going to base this on career achievements or just because you say so?

Do us a favour and research before you make such ludicrous claims. In 3 years Sven turned Sampdoria from chumps to Champions when he had the money behind him.

"Pay him plenty to do it". Because he's to only money grabbing sod in football right?

If Sven was still here and had strung a few wins together people would be supporting him the way people are supporting Hughes now. Fans are so fickle.

exactly spot on. He did the same with money in Lazio and in lesser scale in Portugal. So history would point towards that he'd do well. But either way it's just guessing as we'll never know.

I could say that Hughes would've got us relegated in situation Sven took over, someone would say he would've won the league. No one knows. However what we do know is that Sven took over really really appalling set of players, worked the markets for few weeks and basically revamped the squad and got us 9th. In that timescale he had to change things around there was always going to be few duffers bought. I am personally very thankfull to Sven for good work he did for us.

Bottom line here is that I don't think there is any point of arguing over which is better. Some people are going in full 'Dev' mode of overly hating every other manager and overly loving every other. Of our managers over the past decade only Pearce was complete joke and Hughes got close last season but is improving this season. Keegan, Royle and Sven mostly did good job.

Bit harsh on Pearce that.
The guy was asked to manage with a kitty of three and six. A comparison might be Paul Hart at Pompey this season. When you've got no money and your players wanting out, it is an unenviable task to pick up points in the Premier League. He did as much as could be expected albeit in a particularly dull way.

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:Bit harsh on Pearce that.
The guy was asked to manage with a kitty of three and six. A comparison might be Paul Hart at Pompey this season. When you've got no money and your players wanting out, it is an unenviable task to pick up points in the Premier League. He did as much as could be expected albeit in a particularly dull way.

MOSTLY dull with "funny" spells

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

LookMumI'mOnMCF.net wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

Slim wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:Money & chairmen & takeovers have just clouded the issue. Hughes has proved he can build a team without money & get it into Europe & have cup runs etc. The big worry that people had was that his City team would play dull, negative football. It's the opposite.

If Hughes went to Bolton now & Sven went to Blackburn now. Next season's Bolton team would suddenly contain some hitherto unknown gems & be climbing the league vying for top 8. Next season's Blackburn team would be playing in the Championship with a load of weak foreign lazy twats sulking on the wage bill whist Sven managed Barbados.

I was a Sven fan & I still like the bloke but I've realised now that he's not on the same level; he's a Swedish Ron Atkinson.

So what you are saying is that Hughes can succeed with no money whereas Sven need money to succeed.

Remind me again, do we have money or not?

No I'm saying that Hughes is miles better, with or without money & that Sven is like Fat Ron; a short term gambling boom & bust manager, who will just move on to the next job & do the same for as long as someone will pay him plenty to do it, which is not for much longer I fear.

LOL! "Hughes is miles better, with or without money" are we going to base this on career achievements or just because you say so?

Do us a favour and research before you make such ludicrous claims. In 3 years Sven turned Sampdoria from chumps to Champions when he had the money behind him.

"Pay him plenty to do it". Because he's to only money grabbing sod in football right?

If Sven was still here and had strung a few wins together people would be supporting him the way people are supporting Hughes now. Fans are so fickle.

exactly spot on. He did the same with money in Lazio and in lesser scale in Portugal. So history would point towards that he'd do well. But either way it's just guessing as we'll never know.

I could say that Hughes would've got us relegated in situation Sven took over, someone would say he would've won the league. No one knows. However what we do know is that Sven took over really really appalling set of players, worked the markets for few weeks and basically revamped the squad and got us 9th. In that timescale he had to change things around there was always going to be few duffers bought. I am personally very thankfull to Sven for good work he did for us.

Bottom line here is that I don't think there is any point of arguing over which is better. Some people are going in full 'Dev' mode of overly hating every other manager and overly loving every other. Of our managers over the past decade only Pearce was complete joke and Hughes got close last season but is improving this season. Keegan, Royle and Sven mostly did good job.

Hold on there mate - you're contradicting yourself there!

How can you be so thankful to Sven and call Pearce a complete joke?? You highlight that Sven had to work with an appalling set of players and "only had" a few weeks to spend over £40m?!

Pearce took over a team that was on a serious slide, had fuck all money to spend and finished 8th, with better football than Sven. Sure, the football got more negative as we became a selling club (something that Sven never had to deal with), but he kept us afloat during the harder recent times and IMO did more for this club than Sven did, so I think its extremely unfair of you to praise Sven's ninth finish and in the same breath go into full 'Dev' mode about Pearce.

We were a penalty kick away from European qualification via the league under Pearce - something that hasn't been achieved under ANY of the managers mentioned. He came closest, yet you're thankful to Sven and Pearce is a complete joke?

Very, very wrong IMO.

Slim wrote:So let me get this right.

Sven takes over a complete mess of a side, spends £40M and buys a few players and finishes 9th and qualified for Europe.

Hughes takes over Sven's side, spends £53M in the summer and roughly the same in January and finishes 10th and didn't qualify for Europe.

If we are comparing apples to apples here, please explain how Hughes is MILES better than Sven.

Please also explain why there wasnt a huge sack/hate Sven campaign - the apples look pretty similar to me

I too liked sven and was sad he went and even sadder when his replacement was "ex rag hughes"

In hindsight though I believe Sven was much more keeganesquethan we might believe - I remember reading an analysis of his cv - yes he won stuff but the article - from The Times - also pointed out that when he left, usually after a few seasons, the teams were actually no better and often poorer than when he had arrived.

The other point that seems to be overlooked is that whilst Sven focussed on football the current manager seems much more focussed on the bigger picture - club structure, training facilities, staff facilities - in fact right at the beginning he stated that he was going to be involved in every aspect of the club and improve it. Professionalism just seems to shine through and I really believe that this shift in attitude is a fundamental foundation of a great future

Sven was much more laid back and er.... laid - not an environment that would have stamped out typical city imho


Ive just had a look on WIKI at svens cv.....

1977–1978 Degerfors
1979–1982 Göteborg
1982–1984 Benfica
1984–1987 Roma
1987–1989 Fiorentina
1989–1992 Benfica
1992–1997 Sampdoria
1997–2001 Lazio
2001–2006 England
2007–2008 Manchester City
2008–2009 Mexico

Why has he not managed a club for more than 5 seasons and averaged less than 3? Probably Nancys fault

Original Dub wrote:

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

LookMumI'mOnMCF.net wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:
No I'm saying that Hughes is miles better, with or without money & that Sven is like Fat Ron; a short term gambling boom & bust manager, who will just move on to the next job & do the same for as long as someone will pay him plenty to do it, which is not for much longer I fear.

LOL! "Hughes is miles better, with or without money" are we going to base this on career achievements or just because you say so?

Do us a favour and research before you make such ludicrous claims. In 3 years Sven turned Sampdoria from chumps to Champions when he had the money behind him.

"Pay him plenty to do it". Because he's to only money grabbing sod in football right?

If Sven was still here and had strung a few wins together people would be supporting him the way people are supporting Hughes now. Fans are so fickle.

exactly spot on. He did the same with money in Lazio and in lesser scale in Portugal. So history would point towards that he'd do well. But either way it's just guessing as we'll never know.

I could say that Hughes would've got us relegated in situation Sven took over, someone would say he would've won the league. No one knows. However what we do know is that Sven took over really really appalling set of players, worked the markets for few weeks and basically revamped the squad and got us 9th. In that timescale he had to change things around there was always going to be few duffers bought. I am personally very thankfull to Sven for good work he did for us.

Bottom line here is that I don't think there is any point of arguing over which is better. Some people are going in full 'Dev' mode of overly hating every other manager and overly loving every other. Of our managers over the past decade only Pearce was complete joke and Hughes got close last season but is improving this season. Keegan, Royle and Sven mostly did good job.

Hold on there mate - you're contradicting yourself there!

How can you be so thankful to Sven and call Pearce a complete joke?? You highlight that Sven had to work with an appalling set of players and "only had" a few weeks to spend over £40m?!

Pearce took over a team that was on a serious slide, had fuck all money to spend and finished 8th, with better football than Sven. Sure, the football got more negative as we became a selling club (something that Sven never had to deal with), but he kept us afloat during the harder recent times and IMO did more for this club than Sven did, so I think its extremely unfair of you to praise Sven's ninth finish and in the same breath go into full 'Dev' mode about Pearce.

We were a penalty kick away from European qualification via the league under Pearce - something that hasn't been achieved under ANY of the managers mentioned. He came closest, yet you're thankful to Sven and Pearce is a complete joke?

Very, very wrong IMO.

Hold on, let's not rewrite history. When "Pearce" got us penalty kick away from Europe, he had been in charge ten (or was it eleven?) games. Keegan was in charge for most of that season and if my memory serves me we were 11th when Keegan got the sack so hardly in relegation battle.

However things changed quickly once Pearce got "his own players in" and started to use his own "system" (word "system" being used in loosest possible sense here). In his two FULL seasons in charge we finished 15th and 14th. During those two season we managed to score 72 league goals in 76 games. The football was THE worst I've seen in my time supporting City. Absolutely horrendous. I felt physically sick watching us many times during Pearce era, that painfull it was to watch us basically surrender every time we went behind.

Again I will state that you're being very unfair to Pearce whilst holding Sven in an extremely high regard.

First of all, you can't say it was only half Pearce's doing because Keegan was in charge to begin with. That is completely unfair on the man. When a manager takes over a team on a serious slide that look to have completely lost their way and guides to them to a kick away from European qualification he has to be given FULL credit.

He then had to endure selling our best players and being handed fuck all of a budget to work with. He said it himself, he was there to balance the books and make sure we didn't get relegated, which he did successfully.

Would Sven have been up for the fight? How many goals would we have scored under Sven with the same team? How much more attractive would the football have been with the same team?

I'll say it again, Stuart Pearce did more for this football club than Sven. He finished higher than Sven and then he kept us up when all we seemed to be doing as a club was watching the best players leave.

Sven couldn't finish higher than Pearce. Fact.
Sven wouldn't have rallied that team and kept us up. That may not be a fact, but it is damn likely.
Pearce would never have let us be humiliated by one of the worst teams in the premier league 8 fucking 1!!

So whatever your feelings on Pearce, it is way out of order to call him a complete joke whilst hailing Sven.

I don't actually care who did what as regards titles mates, as Hughes has never before been in the position to spend big money & is much younger & I don't need to do any research on Sven; he won stuff short term after spending loads of money which is exactly the example I was using but in reality that has no bearing on the PL. I'm basing my opinions on what I've personally discovered about the two after observing them closely since their involvement with City. I think Sven reminds me of Ron; similar pro's & cons. Ron almost won the league with the rags playing good football but left behind indiscipline, unfitness & player power which took Baconface years & years to fix, in the end needing drastic measures.

I actually wanted Sven before we went for him & I think he did a good short term job, hampered by nutcases. I didn't want Hughes but I understood why he may be a good appointment & he was hampered even more by nutcases. Since they came I've realised a lot of stuff about both which has formed my opinion but that's all it is; my opinion.

Does anyone actually know why all the ex managers were there????