The mancityfans.net football forum

You're all aware that WHUFC may be taken over before the window closes.

In fact our lack of transfer business (more specifically the lack of any sales) is linked to this. The prospective buyers have insisted on the squad being 'sold as seen'.

Neither of these matters would of themselves prompt me to start a thread on your board, but there's a rumour that, if one set of buyers prevailed with their offer (and it appears likely), they will give the tin tack to the present coaching team of Zola and Clarke and offer the job to...

...Mark Hughes.

So, lets say for instance, we

(a) refrain from any sales, and
(b) can make purchases to the total amount of £10M (small beer I appreciate, but there are no sheikhs vying for WHU for some curious reason)

would you think Hughes would do better than Zola (i.e. definitely keep us up)? Or should we stick with Gianfranco?
I have my own opinion, but wondered about yours.

I think Hughes would be ideal for you.
He's great with a small budget, and he can definately get underacheivers, overacheiving.
Plus he'd sign RSC and get him off our books ;D

I think he could spend that 10 mill very, very wisely, and keep you up, probably with a 12th or 13th place finish.

That said, I think Zola can also keep you up, and should be given the chance to. I think Hughes will next manage either Liverpool or in the Bundesliga.

I suspect the party you're referring to is the Cellino one? If that happens, Zola is definitely out of WHU, I'm not sure if because he will be sacked or because he will resign but I know the two can't really stand each other, old rust from the days Zola was a Cagliari player.

Now, onto your question, it's hard to say if Hughes would keep you up for sure, but I think he is definitely more suited to that kind of situation that he was to the one here at City. I'd like for Zola to stay and see the season through as I think he could keep you up (he did well with you last season, didn't he?) But sadly if Cellino buys the club this won't happen anyway so Hughes is as good a replacement as any other.

I can't moan about us sacking Hughes then suggest your mob sack Gianfranco.
He's a great football man, winner, nice guy and got some success under his belt.
He's had his team sold out from under him, so give him some money to repair that damage then stick with him.

It's a big question isn't it. Personally, although i do like Zola, he wants to play football which sometimes you cannot afford. Hughes would change that dimension, mix it up and try and get your lads to battle to the end. He is good in the market with limited budgets and I'm sure he could steer you clear of the relegation zone.

The 2 problems I envisage:

1. Are your players able to handle the change from an outgoing football playing Italian, to an aloof, battling Welshman?

2. Would Hughes take the job? No disrespect to W Ham, but is this the role he wants to take on?

So, in short, yes to Hughes.

Forget about Hughes, we'll have that Collison kid thanks :)

I think in the long run you'd be better served by keeping zola. THat being said, the points that could come with 'new manager syndrome' could potentially save your prem season if it comes down to it at the end. ( i don't think it will though)

My opinion is to keep zola in, and let him reinforce his wrongfully depleted team. I actually quite like west ham, there's no way they should be going down, I have faith in Zola to keep them up.

that all being said, as a short term thing, Hughes could be a decent solution too ... unfortunately I don't think anyone has a say as it seems even if zola isn't fired he'll quit if this italian guy takes over.

With a limited budget ..... I think hughes would achieve more than Zola.

However, Hughes would be a practicalist and he would make you another 'old style' Blackburn and you would not play in the style that Zola would promote.

In summary, the Best of both worlds would be Zola with some cash. If only limited cash is available ..... go for Hughes as it will be no good to you playing attractive football ...... in the championship!

I could see West Ham been a team which Hughes would consider taking charge of. I love Zola to bits as a former player. As a manager I'm not convinced but its early days.

West Ham need to start battling to get results now until the end of the season and put aside thoughts of playing pretty passing football. On a related note, do you want Robinho on a free loan till the end of the season? ;-)

Hughes would keep youse up mate i'm sure and quite well aswell, he is great with a small budget and would see you finish around 12th or 13th, I also believe Zola will keep you up however and I think it would be very harsh to sack him.

Well Walmai, if you want to get relegated. Get Hughes in.

zuricity wrote:Well Walmai, if you want to get relegated. Get Hughes in.

Nah mate, he always does better in the 2nd half of the season.

Yes, Hughes would be ideal for you in the situation you find yourself. Problem is, I don't think he'd be long term solution for you either considering West Ham are always expected to play certain type of football.

ian494 wrote:

zuricity wrote:Well Walmai, if you want to get relegated. Get Hughes in.

Nah mate, he always does better in the 2nd half of the season.

Apparently !

Damn ! I forgot that !

Beefymcfc wrote:It's a big question isn't it. Personally, although i do like Zola, he wants to play football which sometimes you cannot afford. Hughes would change that dimension, mix it up and try and get your lads to battle to the end. He is good in the market with limited budgets and I'm sure he could steer you clear of the relegation zone.

The 2 problems I envisage:

1. Are your players able to handle the change from an outgoing football playing Italian, to an aloof, battling Welshman?

2. Would Hughes take the job? No disrespect to W Ham, but is this the role he wants to take on?

So, in short, yes to Hughes.

(1) Good question. I suppose that Hughes would be more comparable to Curbishley (who bought the lion's share of the players with whom Zola is now working). I can't say for sure, to be honest.

(2) Again, fair point. I doubt that one of the bidders (who isn't the Italian who's pretty much out of the running if I understand correctly) would have started off the rumour unless Hughes hadn't given the nod, but it could be a bluff.

Thanks everyone for your answers; I am just working through them.

I think you should back Zola, Hughes isn't the answer.

MaseCTID wrote:Forget about Hughes, we'll have that Collison kid thanks :)

The poor lad's having a tough patch on the pitch at the moment, but, obviously has reasons for this.

If the take over is worth anything at all, it'll mean we reinforce the wish to keep these players, not sell them on!

MaineRoadMemories wrote: do you want Robinho on a free loan till the end of the season? ;-)

Only if you keep paying his wages!

I think Hughes could certainly have a pretty strong chance of keeping you up.

But as others have said, it's a shit state of affairs when a great football guy (lovely chap as well) who plays football the right way is facing the boot after showing tremendous loyalty and sticking with the club through a period in which most managers and those with less balls/integrity would have walked and left West Ham right up Queer Street.

I find it pretty sickening that three historic clubs (yes, even if one of them is "that lot") find themselves in financial schtuck and facing significant uncertainty after being allowed to fall into the wrong hands. We have been very lucky....unbelievably so. But personally I'd take a Premiership with West Ham, United and Liverpool in it over one absent those three teams any day of the week.

Good luck Walmai and good luck Hammers