What will our amazing PR machine produce now?

[john@staustell]

It wouldn't be so shit, if the top brass at City hadn't been constantly giving out the message to the press that they were more patient than other owners etc. However much some people don't rate Hughes & moan about the goals conceded, the fact is that we're right in the thick of a top 4 battle & still manage to play 4-5 attacking players in the team every game. Almost unheard of for a manager to be sacked in those circumstances so when you put it all together, the image the club was portraying & the actual truth are two very different things.

If we hadn't blabbed on about having 'patience' we wouldn't be getting so much shit but we did so we are.

Not sure about that Ted, depends on your take on patience. Some would've shipped him out when we started flirting with the relegation zone last Xmas. Some would've hooked him at the end of the season (which was pretty shite), but no they gave him a full 18 months. I thought now was a fair time for the assessment, but I must admit I thought we had done just enough, and been a bit unlucky with dodgy defending. I was sure we would get better in the second half.

The owners obviously decided that the results weren't good enough for the investment and time given, and they surely believe they have been more than patient with a man they did not appoint.

[irblinx]

but I must admit I thought we had done just enough, and been a bit unlucky with dodgy defending. I was sure we would get better in the second half.

There are those that would point out that the worse he coached the very expensive defenders that he bought the "unluckier" he became!!

[lythamblue]

Bob,

The 1st point is that Lytham was discussing the difference between what the owners SAID and what they DID. That was the whole point of his post.

Exactly!

This thread, and my opinions within it, are not about whether Hughes should be sacked or whether Mancini is better/worse or whatever. It's about a 'change of behaviour' from our owners and what effect it may have on us in the medium and longer term.

Don't get me wrong, I still believe that the arrival of our new owners is probably the best thing that has happened to MCFC in the last 30 years (if not ever), I doubt we will ever be posting on here again in 'Relegation' threads where City are concerned and I am delighted, relieved and thankful that our financial future is secure for the long term.

However, they have spent 18 months convincing the Press that they are not indeed 'crazy rich Arabs that think they can do anything they want' and have sold the PR principle that they are a patient, realistic, respectful and wish to create a respected dynasty with solid foundations etc. Within that PR model they have constantly expressed their support of 'The Manager', academy, social responsibilities, club history, loyal fan base etc. They have even gone out of their way to embrace G14 members professionally and establish good links with the likes of AC Milan, Barca and god knows who else. It was almost as if they were prepared to let our success develop and evolve organically and even accepted there may be a few issues to sort out on the way.

Just when they get to the point of the media (and us fans) starting to accept all of this ....... then this happens!!

Therefore, the point is that I agree with the concerns by the OP that their recent behaviour seems totally out of character with what has been previously displayed and thus makes you question how much of it is genuine, how much of it is just PR and have the events of the last week done any serious damage to our longer term hopes of creating a well respected football dynasty?

[Ted Hughes]

Bob,

The 1st point is that Lytham was discussing the difference between what the owners SAID and what they DID. That was the whole point of his post.

Exactly!

This thread, and my opinions within it, are not about whether Hughes should be sacked or whether Mancini is better/worse or whatever. It's about a 'change of behaviour' from our owners and what effect it may have on us in the medium and longer term.

Don't get me wrong, I still believe that the arrival of our new owners is probably the best thing that has happened to MCFC in the last 30 years (if not ever), I doubt we will ever be posting on here again in 'Relegation' threads where City are concerned and I am delighted, relieved and thankful that our financial future is secure for the long term.

However, they have spent 18 months convincing the Press that they are not indeed 'crazy rich Arabs that think they can do anything they want' and have sold the PR principle that they are a patient, realistic, respectful and wish to create a respected dynasty with solid foundations etc. Within that PR model they have constantly expressed their support of 'The Manager', academy, social responsibilities, club history, loyal fan base etc. They have even gone out of their way to embrace G14 members professionally and establish good links with the likes of AC Milan, Barca and god knows who else. It was almost as if they were prepared to let our success develop and evolve organically and even accepted there may be a few issues to sort out on the way.

Just when they get to the point of the media (and us fans) starting to accept all of this ....... then this happens!!

Therefore, the point is that I agree with the concerns by the OP that their recent behaviour seems totally out of character with what has been previously displayed and thus makes you question how much of it is genuine, how much of it is just PR and have the events of the last week done any serious damage to our longer term hopes of creating a well respected football dynasty?

In tonight's Evening News, Spencer is publicly asking Cook why he was making a point of telling journalists they believed in stability when he knew it wasn't true as some of the journalists actually believed it.

Here is a more detailed exerpt on the same subject from Oliver Holt's column:


'..So don't get indignant with us, Garry. Please. Don't even try. Because even you must remember what you said to a group of us in Abu Dhabi six weeks ago.

It was the week before England played Qatar in Doha, remember?

Remember talking to me and my colleague from The Independent outside the lobby of the Emirates Palace Hotel and pouring scorn on other journalists who were saying Rafa Benitez should be sacked?

Remember saying how stupid they were? Remember saying how counter-productive that knee-jerk culture in English football was? Remember implying you were above all that and ridiculing the idea Hughes' job was in danger?

And remember finally agreeing to sit down with some other journalists and praising Hughes to the skies, comparing him even to Michael Jordan in terms of his stature?

Remember all that? I'm only asking because three weeks after those chats in Abu Dhabi - not three months or three years - the ever-so-honourable Khaldoon was meeting up with Mancini and the decision had been taken that Hughes was toast.

That's not knee-jerk. It's fast-twitch. It's R.E.M.'


It's this kind of thing that bothers me more than the actual sacking & gives me worries about the future of the club, which I didn't have previously.

[irblinx]

It's this kind of thing that bothers me more than the actual sacking & gives me worries about the future of the club, which I didn't have previously.

All it proves is that Cook is a train wreck when it comes to handling the press, something that we all already knew. The owner and the chairman said that they would give Hughes time and that they had faith in him when they arrived at City, 18 months and over £200m later their faith had disappeared so they decided to bring in someone of their own choosing. Those are the facts of the situation with regards to our owner and his people.

Cook however is a different kettle of fish, he is all about trying to suck up to the press and tell them what he thinks they want to hear right up to the point that they turned on us when he became even more of a bumbling idiot. It wouldn't surprise me to see Cook out of the door or moved further behind it as a result of his handling of the whole affair.

[carl_feedthegoat]

Bob,

The 1st point is that Lytham was discussing the difference between what the owners SAID and what they DID. That was the whole point of his post.

Exactly!

This thread, and my opinions within it, are not about whether Hughes should be sacked or whether Mancini is better/worse or whatever. It's about a 'change of behaviour' from our owners and what effect it may have on us in the medium and longer term.

Don't get me wrong, I still believe that the arrival of our new owners is probably the best thing that has happened to MCFC in the last 30 years (if not ever), I doubt we will ever be posting on here again in 'Relegation' threads where City are concerned and I am delighted, relieved and thankful that our financial future is secure for the long term.

However, they have spent 18 months convincing the Press that they are not indeed 'crazy rich Arabs that think they can do anything they want' and have sold the PR principle that they are a patient, realistic, respectful and wish to create a respected dynasty with solid foundations etc. Within that PR model they have constantly expressed their support of 'The Manager', academy, social responsibilities, club history, loyal fan base etc. They have even gone out of their way to embrace G14 members professionally and establish good links with the likes of AC Milan, Barca and god knows who else. It was almost as if they were prepared to let our success develop and evolve organically and even accepted there may be a few issues to sort out on the way.

Just when they get to the point of the media (and us fans) starting to accept all of this ....... then this happens!!

Therefore, the point is that I agree with the concerns by the OP that their recent behaviour seems totally out of character with what has been previously displayed and thus makes you question how much of it is genuine, how much of it is just PR and have the events of the last week done any serious damage to our longer term hopes of creating a well respected football dynasty?

In tonight's Evening News, Spencer is publicly asking Cook why he was making a point of telling journalists they believed in stability when he knew it wasn't true as some of the journalists actually believed it.

Here is a more detailed exerpt on the same subject from Oliver Holt's column:


'..So don't get indignant with us, Garry. Please. Don't even try. Because even you must remember what you said to a group of us in Abu Dhabi six weeks ago.

It was the week before England played Qatar in Doha, remember?

Remember talking to me and my colleague from The Independent outside the lobby of the Emirates Palace Hotel and pouring scorn on other journalists who were saying Rafa Benitez should be sacked?

Remember saying how stupid they were? Remember saying how counter-productive that knee-jerk culture in English football was? Remember implying you were above all that and ridiculing the idea Hughes' job was in danger?

And remember finally agreeing to sit down with some other journalists and praising Hughes to the skies, comparing him even to Michael Jordan in terms of his stature?

Remember all that? I'm only asking because three weeks after those chats in Abu Dhabi - not three months or three years - the ever-so-honourable Khaldoon was meeting up with Mancini and the decision had been taken that Hughes was toast.

That's not knee-jerk. It's fast-twitch. It's R.E.M.'


It's this kind of thing that bothers me more than the actual sacking & gives me worries about the future of the club, which I didn't have previously.

MAYBE THAT WAS WHAT HE ACTUALLY THOUGHT AND BELIEVED AT THE TIME - IF THE OWNERS MADE A U TURN IT,S DOWN TO HIM TO CONVINCE AND "COOK" UP ANOTHER REASON WHY THAT ACTION WAS TAKEN - THATS LIFE AND THATS HIS JOB.

MAYBE COOK SHOULDNT BE TALKING SO MUCH WHEN HE DOESNT HAVE TO FFS THEN HE WONT GET HIMSELF INTO BACKTRACKING ON HIS PREVIOUS.
AS FOR THE OWNERS - IM STILL THANKFULL THEY BOUGHT US AND IM NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE FUTURE EITHER - SO WHAT THEY DID A U TURN - HOW MANY OWNERS HAVE DONE THE SAME????

THE ARABS HAVE DONE MORE FOR CITY THAN ANYONE BEFORE THEM AND I FOR ONE WONT GET ALL HET UP BECAUSE THEY DID A U TURN ON A MANAGEMENT DECISION.

[DoomMerchant]

Bob,

The 1st point is that Lytham was discussing the difference between what the owners SAID and what they DID. That was the whole point of his post.

Exactly!

This thread, and my opinions within it, are not about whether Hughes should be sacked or whether Mancini is better/worse or whatever. It's about a 'change of behaviour' from our owners and what effect it may have on us in the medium and longer term.

Don't get me wrong, I still believe that the arrival of our new owners is probably the best thing that has happened to MCFC in the last 30 years (if not ever), I doubt we will ever be posting on here again in 'Relegation' threads where City are concerned and I am delighted, relieved and thankful that our financial future is secure for the long term.

However, they have spent 18 months convincing the Press that they are not indeed 'crazy rich Arabs that think they can do anything they want' and have sold the PR principle that they are a patient, realistic, respectful and wish to create a respected dynasty with solid foundations etc. Within that PR model they have constantly expressed their support of 'The Manager', academy, social responsibilities, club history, loyal fan base etc. They have even gone out of their way to embrace G14 members professionally and establish good links with the likes of AC Milan, Barca and god knows who else. It was almost as if they were prepared to let our success develop and evolve organically and even accepted there may be a few issues to sort out on the way.

Just when they get to the point of the media (and us fans) starting to accept all of this ....... then this happens!!

Therefore, the point is that I agree with the concerns by the OP that their recent behaviour seems totally out of character with what has been previously displayed and thus makes you question how much of it is genuine, how much of it is just PR and have the events of the last week done any serious damage to our longer term hopes of creating a well respected football dynasty?

In tonight's Evening News, Spencer is publicly asking Cook why he was making a point of telling journalists they believed in stability when he knew it wasn't true as some of the journalists actually believed it.

Here is a more detailed exerpt on the same subject from Oliver Holt's column:


'..So don't get indignant with us, Garry. Please. Don't even try. Because even you must remember what you said to a group of us in Abu Dhabi six weeks ago.

It was the week before England played Qatar in Doha, remember?

Remember talking to me and my colleague from The Independent outside the lobby of the Emirates Palace Hotel and pouring scorn on other journalists who were saying Rafa Benitez should be sacked?

Remember saying how stupid they were? Remember saying how counter-productive that knee-jerk culture in English football was? Remember implying you were above all that and ridiculing the idea Hughes' job was in danger?

And remember finally agreeing to sit down with some other journalists and praising Hughes to the skies, comparing him even to Michael Jordan in terms of his stature?

Remember all that? I'm only asking because three weeks after those chats in Abu Dhabi - not three months or three years - the ever-so-honourable Khaldoon was meeting up with Mancini and the decision had been taken that Hughes was toast.

That's not knee-jerk. It's fast-twitch. It's R.E.M.'


It's this kind of thing that bothers me more than the actual sacking & gives me worries about the future of the club, which I didn't have previously.

again, i dunno why Cook has had to talk so much about it...before or after. When you love the sound of your own voice, eventually you are going to talk some bullshit that gets you into trouble. Cook needs to stay away from the media for about 3 months at least and chill the fucl out.

The press slagging is just non-fucking stop on these issues, and honestly, i think to most City fans, not all, but most...they could see Hughes sacking coming for months with our performances on the pitch. Not wanting to reopen that debate, but my point is how the neutral or media get off acting like sacking him was such an indignity is just silly. Nearly every football fan i've ever met in the last 16 months who's talked to me about City has talked about three things -- how lucky we are with the big wedge of cash, how much they are certain that City will matter on a big stage given time, and how they didn't think Hughes was the man for the job. Without fail.

I wish the media would get over this false indignity...i've read more bullshit and seen more City-bashing interviews this week than i can stomach. it's disheartening.

cheers

[Ted Hughes]

It's this kind of thing that bothers me more than the actual sacking & gives me worries about the future of the club, which I didn't have previously.

All it proves is that Cook is a train wreck when it comes to handling the press, something that we all already knew. The owner and the chairman said that they would give Hughes time and that they had faith in him when they arrived at City, 18 months and over £200m later their faith had disappeared so they decided to bring in someone of their own choosing. Those are the facts of the situation with regards to our owner and his people.

Cook however is a different kettle of fish, he is all about trying to suck up to the press and tell them what he thinks they want to hear right up to the point that they turned on us when he became even more of a bumbling idiot. It wouldn't surprise me to see Cook out of the door or moved further behind it as a result of his handling of the whole affair.

What concerns me is the possibility indeed probability that Cook said these things because it's what he believed was the plan by the owners. Khaldoon's statements back this up. If that's the case, how do we know where we genuinely stand regarding the future?

I recon I'll just enjoy the next few years & hope we still continue to exist after that.

[lythamblue]

THE ARABS HAVE DONE MORE FOR CITY THAN ANYONE BEFORE THEM AND I FOR ONE WONT GET ALL HET UP BECAUSE THEY DID A U TURN ON A MANAGEMENT DECISION.

Fair enough!

But ..... how would you feel if they also did a U turn on The Academy, ticket pricing, social responsibilities, corporate govenance etc.

I'm not implying they will ..... I am just a little bit wary of what to believe anymore and will be wondering if it is truth or propaganda. Unfortunalely, so may other future players we are trying to recruit or even future managers if Mancini gets the boot in 6 months time.

I suppose you may argue that who gives a shit providing we are piling up trophies etc, but that might not happen unless we achieve credibility within the football industry.

[irblinx]

It's this kind of thing that bothers me more than the actual sacking & gives me worries about the future of the club, which I didn't have previously.

All it proves is that Cook is a train wreck when it comes to handling the press, something that we all already knew. The owner and the chairman said that they would give Hughes time and that they had faith in him when they arrived at City, 18 months and over £200m later their faith had disappeared so they decided to bring in someone of their own choosing. Those are the facts of the situation with regards to our owner and his people.

Cook however is a different kettle of fish, he is all about trying to suck up to the press and tell them what he thinks they want to hear right up to the point that they turned on us when he became even more of a bumbling idiot. It wouldn't surprise me to see Cook out of the door or moved further behind it as a result of his handling of the whole affair.

What concerns me is the possibility indeed probability that Cook said these things because it's what he believed was the plan by the owners. Khaldoon's statements back this up. If that's the case, how do we know where we genuinely stand regarding the future?

I recon I'll just enjoy the next few years & hope we still continue to exist after that.

Khaldoon's statements when?

[carl_feedthegoat]

THE ARABS HAVE DONE MORE FOR CITY THAN ANYONE BEFORE THEM AND I FOR ONE WONT GET ALL HET UP BECAUSE THEY DID A U TURN ON A MANAGEMENT DECISION.

Fair enough!

But ..... how would you feel if they also did a U turn on The Academy, ticket pricing, social responsibilities, corporate govenance etc.

I'm not implying they will ..... I am just a little bit wary of what to believe anymore and will be wondering if it is truth or propaganda. Unfortunalely, so may other future players we are trying to recruit or even future managers if Mancini gets the boot in 6 months time.

I suppose you may argue that who gives a shit providing we are piling up trophies etc, but that might not happen unless we achieve credibility within the football industry.

PURE SPECULATION LYTH - AS FOR THE ACADEMY AND TICKET PRICING I THINK WE HAVE DONE MORE YTD THAN ANY OTHER CLUB WORLD WIDE - IN FACT WE COULD ASK FOR NO MORE WHERE THOSE 2 ISSUES ARE CONCERNED.

IVE JUST READ THIS PIECE FROM COOK - INTERESTING.

Garry Cook goes on the defensive

By Harry Harris, Football Correspondent

December 22, 2009

* Comment
* Email
* Print

Garry Cook has strongly defended Manchester City's conduct in sacking Mark Hughes and claimed that the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Roberto Mancini have been unfairly represented in the media. However, the chief executive has also told ESPN Soccernet that City were exploring possible managerial alternatives to Hughes as early as last summer.

Garry Cook

GettyImages

Garry Cook has responded forcefully to recent criticism

• Mancini wants Robinho stay
• Cook denies conspiracy claims
• Paper Round: Cook spoils the broth
• Onuoha out for up to a month

Cook has been criticised for his performance when presenting Mancini in Monday's press conference after he stated that contact had first been made with the former Inter Milan coach following a defeat to Tottenham on December 16. Mancini then revealed he had spoken with chairman Khaldoon al-Mubarak a fortnight ago in a meeting that Cook claims was merely a "general discussion".

City's conduct in removing Hughes has been roundly scrutinised by the national press but Cook is adamant that those involved in negotiations had the club's best interests at heart when sounding out Mancini in advance of informing the Welshman his services were no longer required following a 4-3 win over Sunderland at the weekend.

Indeed, Cook has revealed that possible alternatives to Hughes have been considered for some time as City were keen to have a contingency plan to support their lofty ambitions should a change in staff be required.

Cook told ESPN Soccernet: "It is important for the fans to appreciate the ambitions of this club and its owners. Before the season started we went about our business plan for the year meticulously. We did our scenario planning, mapping out the season, the results we were seeking and in those plans we looked at the options open to us if we were in a position when we needed to look for a new manager before Christmas.

"Even at that point we looked at the managers who could be available in a World Cup year, and those who might definitely be available.

"We had no intention of replacing Mark Hughes, but surely as a business we are entitled to examine all the options. We wanted a top-six finish within three years, but we accelerated those targets after such an enormous investment in new players. We were seeking 70 points for the season, and I think it was a touch circumspect of Mark to leave us saying he was on target for sixth place and 70 points. No club since 1995 had finished below fourth place with 70 points.

"We now have a new manager in Roberto Mancini and our ambitions are clear - we want to achieve Champions League football as quickly as we can."

But it is the contentious means by which Cook and his executive board recruited Mancini that have attracted such adverse publicity, which the chief executive feels has bordered on the hysterical.

The dynamics of the football industry are such that clubs invariably sound out managers well in advance. For example, the Liverpool owners contacted Jurgen Klinsmann in 2007 but tried to impress upon their supporters that did not necessarily mean they had made up their minds to replace Rafa Benitez.

Chelsea had tied up a deal with Jose Mourinho two days before Claudio Ranieri led Chelsea into a Champions league semi-final against Monaco and the list of similar cases is endless. In fact, Sven-Goran Eriksson knew he would be leaving City himself before his final game in the 2007-08 season.

Cook said: "I seem to recall Sven was still our manager but he knew he was being replaced before the last game of the season. Sven went into the dressing room and told the players he would not be their coach after the game and to go out and enjoy themselves. They lost 8-I to Middlesbrough. But wasn't that identical circumstances to the way we went about executing our decision to appoint a new manager?"

City had taken soundings about Arsene Wenger, Jose Mourinho, Guus Hiddink and Jurgen Klinsmann. It did not take long through third parties to discover that Wenger doesn't break contracts and is totally committed to Arsenal and that Mourinho would want a fortune and to spend even greater amounts than have already been invested. Hiddink was sounded out as early as Russia's World Cup play-off defeat to Slovenia in November but he wanted a break and would only think about it in the New Year.

Any club with such ambitions and enormous funds would be inclined to do the same but a decision had not necessarily been taken to sack Hughes and Cook is angry at how the club's actions have been depicted in the national media.

"What is really disappointing, and has made this club very angry, is the misinterpretation of our statement," Cook said. "We are so incensed by the misinterpretation that we plan to re-issue the statement again.

"Our main concern is the impact it has on our fans. The key message is that we do not have to apologise for our actions, we have nothing to apologise for, but we want to inform our fans of the facts, of the actions taken that affects those people, the fans, who have given their hearts and soul to their club.

"We feel that the club is being judged by a group of people in the media who do not have the club at heart or care about the club, or take the time to appreciate what this club is all about. The misinterpretation is that we said that the decision to sack Mark Hughes was taken after the Spurs game [on December 16]. It was in fact taken on the Thursday after that game. Roberto said he had a meeting on December 7 in London, but that was a general discussion and as we have said the decision to sack Mark Hughes was taken after the Spurs game.

"Roberto has been caught up in a language issue; in truth he has been shafted. From our point of view it is important that the fans know the facts and the way we have acted in the best interests of the club. We are livid that the media has taken a little information and misinterpreted it and that Roberto has been caught up in the crossfire.

"We feel that we have been falsely represented and in the interests of the club we are prepared to do something about it, and we are in the process of looking into it."

[Socrates]

Bob,
That was a well wrtten wel thought but post but there are several issues to cxhallenge.
The 1st point is that Lytham was discussing the difference between what the owners SAID and what they DID. That was the whole point of his post. By countering his point with your personal opinion, you fail to address this.
"THEY DON'T WANT SUCCESS IMMEDIATELY". Their action of sacking Hughes while on schedule to meet the targets they themselves set...70pts after 38 games...Two wins at Eastlands against inferior opposition in the next 2 games, would meet the halfway maths of that target EXACTLY.
The demand set of Mancini to make top 4 this season and win the League tiitle next...is also pretty immediate in English football terms...especially from the level that we previously were.

By suggesting they wanted to bring in their own man, you tacitly imply that Hughes was not their choice. When they bought the club, they were free to choose whichever manager they wanted. They made the decision to use Hughes as the vehicle for their success. They CHOSE Hughes as THEIR man. It was a decision they made.

As it stands, I happen to agree that Mancini may do a better job and turn out to be a better manager, time will tell. There may be am argument against Kytham, but you failed to meet it.

John, do you really believe that Hughes was on course for 70 points? At the point the decision was made that would mean 44 points in 22 games - at that point we had 11 from the last 10 games! Nobody in their right mind could look at the way we were organised and say that it was a team capable of getting 2 points a game over more than half a season!
Lytham may have a point when he says they said Hughes was for the long term but that doesn't mean that by abandoning Hughes they have abandoned long-termism with it! They merely decided, as in Bob K's excellent post, to make a change having seen more than enough of Hughes's failings to convince them he wasn't upto the task in hand. That doesn't change the long term goal, if anything it reaffirms it. 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!

[lythamblue]

[ 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.

[john@staustell]

I think some are reading too much into this. The owners said they would have patience, and they will probably tell you that they did - 18 months and £200M+ worth of patience. Rather than fire him A) when they came B) last Xmas C) in the summer. They do not believe the results to be good enough after all that.

I believe what Cook said in Doha is irrelevant because he was saying what he thought to be true. I believe that since then he was told - 'right, that's it Gary we've had enough, go get another boss' or - 'go get Mancini' or - 'We're having Mancini, sort out the details'!

So I dont believe our owners have betrayed their declared way of working.

Let's move on.

[Tru_Blu]

Our owners are SMART people.

Seriously MH is no tactician. Spurs play the type of game that allow us to play our game. I think the statement alone got his azz sacked.
Mersyfools are shite this year 4TH UP FOR GRABS people this changes everything $$$$
Azzhole Benitez looked more likely to sacked first which would leave fools looking for a manager (Mancini?) summer to late? maybe :)
Robert Mancini record speaks for itself really 7 trophies 4 yrs vs MH (lol)
This was a very well calculated move. liverfools will end up keeping Fathead and lose that $$ spot. the players we step up to the plate as they will be playing for a spot.

All in all i could care less how this looks to the media because really thats who cares about how MH got the sack. I for one see the bigger advanced picture. Kick the fookers when their down i say.

[john68]

Socs,
Let me make it plain from the start, personally I have no major deal with the sacking of Hughes for his performance.
I have no issue with the employment of mancini. Time itself will tell if these decisions are correct and at present we can merely accept this as a done deal. Too many new managers have come and gone and too many failed, for me to wind my neck out emotionally about events.

Now to the point. We now know as fact that the targets for this season were changed at some point earlier in the year to "around 70pts" (Cook said 70, Hughes said "around" 70). We have currently played 17 games (2 games short of halfway). We currently have 29pts (6pts short of halfway). Two games to play...at home...two wins...and that target is EXACTLY ON SCHEDULE.
I make no judgement as to whether the team under Hughes would win those games.
You make a judgement on whether Hughes could have made the correct number of points needed to to the required target. The fact is, as above, he was 2 wins short, with 2 games to play. What the future might have held is only your opinion and speculation. Your consideration must be that we would have a worse 2nd half of season that 1st....and your speculation that Hughes would be unable to solve the defensive problems.

[BobKowalski]

I think some are reading too much into this. The owners said they would have patience, and they will probably tell you that they did - 18 months and £200M+ worth of patience. Rather than fire him A) when they came B) last Xmas C) in the summer. They do not believe the results to be good enough after all that.

I believe what Cook said in Doha is irrelevant because he was saying what he thought to be true. I believe that since then he was told - 'right, that's it Gary we've had enough, go get another boss' or - 'go get Mancini' or - 'We're having Mancini, sort out the details'!

So I dont believe our owners have betrayed their declared way of working.

Let's move on.

Agreed. I posted elsewhere that Cook's comments 6 weeks ago are irrelevant as 6 weeks ago Cook may have believed Hughes job to be safe and frankly even if he didn't he has no business blabbing about it to the press. The linkage of ADUG losing faith in Hughes to making everything else they say suspect is a bit of a leap especially as they showed commendable loyalty to Hughes last season even to the extent of buying him a brand new team. ADUG just seem to have baulked at buying a new one again in January. Patience, long term planning are essential to any successful business. Keeping City at the heartbeat of the community also makes sense when you consider that City is a PR model for Abu Dhabi as a whole. Equally making City a successful football team is an essential part of the strategy and having long term plans cannot be used as a hiding place for the short term failings of key employees.

I think we can all agree that Cook and live microphones are a dangerous mix. I am fairly neutral on Cook. I could be persuaded that he does good things behind the scenes but then thats his bloody job. I said last season that he should be banned from talking to the press and I can see him being axed at the end of this season but whether he stays or goes I am pretty indifferent to be honest.

[Original Dub]

Socs,
Let me make it plain from the start, personally I have no major deal with the sacking of Hughes for his performance.
I have no issue with the employment of mancini. Time itself will tell if these decisions are correct and at present we can merely accept this as a done deal. Too many new managers have come and gone and too many failed, for me to wind my neck out emotionally about events.

Now to the point. We now know as fact that the targets for this season were changed at some point earlier in the year to "around 70pts" (Cook said 70, Hughes said "around" 70). We have currently played 17 games (2 games short of halfway). We currently have 29pts (6pts short of halfway). Two games to play...at home...two wins...and that target is EXACTLY ON SCHEDULE.
I make no judgement as to whether the team under Hughes would win those games.
You make a judgement on whether Hughes could have made the correct number of points needed to to the required target. The fact is, as above, he was 2 wins short, with 2 games to play. What the future might have held is only your opinion and speculation. Your consideration must be that we would have a worse 2nd half of season that 1st....and your speculation that Hughes would be unable to solve the defensive problems.

Cracking post mate.

[irblinx]

Socs,
Let me make it plain from the start, personally I have no major deal with the sacking of Hughes for his performance.
I have no issue with the employment of mancini. Time itself will tell if these decisions are correct and at present we can merely accept this as a done deal. Too many new managers have come and gone and too many failed, for me to wind my neck out emotionally about events.

Now to the point. We now know as fact that the targets for this season were changed at some point earlier in the year to "around 70pts" (Cook said 70, Hughes said "around" 70). We have currently played 17 games (2 games short of halfway). We currently have 29pts (6pts short of halfway). Two games to play...at home...two wins...and that target is EXACTLY ON SCHEDULE.
I make no judgement as to whether the team under Hughes would win those games.
You make a judgement on whether Hughes could have made the correct number of points needed to to the required target. The fact is, as above, he was 2 wins short, with 2 games to play. What the future might have held is only your opinion and speculation. Your consideration must be that we would have a worse 2nd half of season that 1st....and your speculation that Hughes would be unable to solve the defensive problems.

Two words John, Current Form!

On current form we would not reach 70 pts, never mind the golden run at the start of the season. And also on current form we couldn't defend our way out of a paper bag

[Rag_hater]

Our amazing PR machine will produce whatever spin the Sheikh tells them too.
And all of you that have been so offended by the Sheikh treating the club he bought out of his own money and decided to do what he wants go and support some club whose ethics you like.
I'd have thought some old men like there seem to be on this site would understand how the world works and if youve been led up the garden path believing all the lines the chairman and Cooke have fed you,more the fool you.
Personally they haven't done anything yet to make me feel they have dissed my club.