lythamblue wrote:Socrates wrote:[ Sorry but Lytham is just feeling foolish because he pontificated regularly and at great length about the owners backing whoever the incumbent was for a minimum of three years. Like I kept saying again and again though, they would look at least as bad if they continued to back a clearly failing management team!
Firstly, that was not what I said ...... I said they were prepared to give 'the manager' a 3 year run to achieve targets because continuity was a major issue. Certainly to the end of the season and continuing provided we were competive. If we had not achieved champs League by end of year 3 ..... he was a gonner.
Finally, and most importantly, this was not just something I gleemed from 'The Press' . Check your PM's later and I will explain further why I fully believed this to be the case.
You will then understand where my current surprise comes from.
I always knew you had good sources Mark but I think they have felt the need to accelerate their targets (hence the accelerated spending), I believe due to the UEFA threat which is real no matter what some ostriches like to believe. I think they meant it when they said it but have been made to look bad because the targets changed, part by necessity part because of opportunity, and because they hadn't foreseen how quickly it would become obvious that Hughes wasn't going to succeed. We know Hughes can organise a team defensively from his past exploits but he doesn't seem able to organisea team todefend even adequately when required to play attacking football. There was no sign that he could put that right so they felt compelled to find someone that could.
