In your view, would this be a good idea?

[walmai]

Nice one Ant - nice sentiment.

:thup:

[walmai]

Would anyone object to this thread being posted as a link on my 'home' site?

[Alioune DVToure]

It's a tough question because the job Hughes was faced with at City (i.e. in terms of immediate funds and the expectations as a consequence) would be a million miles from what he'd face at West Ham. In many ways he might do an even better job with the pressure off. Didn't he finish 6th twice at Blackburn (it was definitely at least once) whilst more or less breaking even in terms of net transfer ins and outs?

I thought Hughes was a good manger when we brought him in and I still thought he was a good manager when we let him go. I'd be pleased for him to get another good job, but sorry to see this happen at the expense of a guy like Zola.

[edge275]

It would be a great appointment....For the other bottom 10 clubs.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Would anyone object to this thread being posted as a link on my 'home' site?

KUMB? It's good site that. I read it every now and then.

Go ahead.

[DoomMerchant]

i think you would have a better chance of staying up with those players and Hughes than those players and Zola tbh. Hughes played some fantastic attacking footy with us last season and this season, so the idea that he couldn't do that with West Ham is ridiculous.

If you sign up Hughes and he keeps you up can you please post us Stanislaus and Hines? Poke plenty if airholes in the box so that they can breathe on their journey.

cheers

[Blue Blood]

Would anyone object to this thread being posted as a link on my 'home' site?

KUMB? It's good site that. I read it every now and then.

Go ahead.

I second that, KUMB is an excellent site. One of the few football forums worth reading.

[BobKowalski]

I'd stick with the Zola/Clarke combo. I've been impressed with the fighting qualities in the West Ham side (Chelsea, Villla at the weekend) as well as the football that Zola likes his sides to play and if you get some stability and cash with a takeover then I think he will steer the club away from trouble.

That said I expect with the takeover the new owners will get a new manager. It would be shame though. As to Hughes. Not an improvement on what you have but unlikely to get you relegated. Better than Megson but thats about the only positive.

[irblinx]

I just don't think Hughes is the right type of manager for WHU, West Ham always have and always should be a footballing side and I think Hughes will revert to type and mould a team of cloggers

[zuricity]

I just don't think Hughes is the right type of manager for WHU, West Ham always have and always should be a footballing side and I think Hughes will revert to type and mould a team of cloggers

You could have cut that sentence short to just the first eleven words....... :-)

[Blue2]

Stick with Zola, Hughes is shite

[Im_Spartacus]

My only problem in West Ham's predicament would be, his approach to the players he inherits.

We all called certain players in the squad for having the wrong attitude last season, but the whole squad was rock bottom towards xmas, as Hughes had made it clear he wanted his own men in, and he had no time for those players from the old regime.

My worry is that if he wants a team built in his mould, he will flirt his next team very close to relegation - as indeed he did with us. Without £100m to spend in each window, he could succeed in achieving that next time.

[aaron bond]

Stick with Zola.

Let's not forget that West Ham finished above us last season despite having no money to spend and being forced to sell players. In my opinion Zola did a great job last season, and has earned the right to another season.

[walmai]

Your comments are appreciated, concerning club and site.

If you've got ten minutes spare, have a butcher's at the debate on our site:

http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... &start=120

[Alex Sapphire]

just having a quick ganders and spotted a post from our own tractor boy.
which suggests you're lurking here.
Show yourself to your friends Jim. Don't make us beg.
Any event Happy New year to you

[bluej]

just having a quick ganders and spotted a post from our own tractor boy.
which suggests you're lurking here.
Show yourself to your friends Jim. Don't make us beg.
Any event Happy New year to you

Yeah I saw that - I was only here briefly when he left, thought I recognised the name.

[Nick]

is it worth putting money on? They've stopped taking bets on zola getting sacked.

[walmai]

They did that a while back with Redknapp - who's still in place in the Spuds hotseat.

[Goataldo]

Big risk changing your horses midstream.

I'd keep Zola, though I personally think Hughes is a good manager and he'd keep you up.

Don't know enough about Gianfranco's management to rate him, although I suppose 19 points from 21 games tells it's own story in a way. I guess I want him to succeed cos he's seems like one of life's genuinely decent people (and he was a fantastic player to watch). I think you'll stay up with him in charge, and reassess at the end of the season.

And like loads of Blues I have a soft spot for West Ham, so I hope you don't go down anyway. Bon chance.

[Bianchi on Ice]

Whoever takes over should keep Zola and give him next season to show he's on the right track. That near enough equals the length of Hughes' tenure at City. Obviously Zola won't get the finances with which to strengthen that Hughes did, but whatever he gets they should trust him to spend it. By replacing Zola with Hughes you are also, I think, replacing one philosophy with another. Hughes would be better off at Bolton, Wolves or Sunderland where the expectation is only raised by results rather than results AND style of play. In my opinion Hughes has had his shot at the top but now should set his sights lower. West Ham is the wrong job for him.