Leslie's Sacking

[aaron bond]

I think the point is that there was absolutely no need for it to be handled this way. Whether people like Hughes or not, if they were going to sack him he could & should have been sacked immediately after the Spuds game. The reason he wasn't is supposed to be that the chairman wanted to sack him in person so left him to squirm on the hook until he turned up to put him out of his misery at the weekend because he was busy doing something more important during the week. He's then fucked off again & left someone with the incompetent media skills of Cook to explain it all.

Shabby, disgraceful & has brought us the worst publicity we've ever had in my lifetime of supporting City. As the people involved have money & we need it, everyone is happy to pretend it's fine to behave like that.

But we couldn't sack him after the Spurs match as we didn't have a replacement lined up yet.

We were not going to sack Hughes and be left managerless. The board and owners wanted to make sure we had a replacement confirmed before getting rid. That is a perfectly logical thing to do.

It is a shame that it was leaked out before Khaldoon and Cook could tell Hughes themselves, but I think ensuring we had a new manager before sacking Hughes was the right thing to do.

We would have been in a worse position within the club if we went through a period with no manager at all!

We all know now that's not true but I don't want to get into arguments about it. I'm 100% behind Mancini now & hope the board are too.

What isn't true? That Mancini wasn't confirmed as manager until the Friday?

I wasn't starting an argument, I'm just expressing my opinion on a forum, as you did!

[Ted Hughes]

I think the point is that there was absolutely no need for it to be handled this way. Whether people like Hughes or not, if they were going to sack him he could & should have been sacked immediately after the Spuds game. The reason he wasn't is supposed to be that the chairman wanted to sack him in person so left him to squirm on the hook until he turned up to put him out of his misery at the weekend because he was busy doing something more important during the week. He's then fucked off again & left someone with the incompetent media skills of Cook to explain it all.

Shabby, disgraceful & has brought us the worst publicity we've ever had in my lifetime of supporting City. As the people involved have money & we need it, everyone is happy to pretend it's fine to behave like that.

But we couldn't sack him after the Spurs match as we didn't have a replacement lined up yet.

We were not going to sack Hughes and be left managerless. The board and owners wanted to make sure we had a replacement confirmed before getting rid. That is a perfectly logical thing to do.

It is a shame that it was leaked out before Khaldoon and Cook could tell Hughes themselves, but I think ensuring we had a new manager before sacking Hughes was the right thing to do.

We would have been in a worse position within the club if we went through a period with no manager at all!

We all know now that's not true but I don't want to get into arguments about it. I'm 100% behind Mancini now & hope the board are too.

What isn't true? That Mancini wasn't confirmed as manager until the Friday?

I wasn't starting an argument, I'm just expressing my opinion on a forum, as you did!

I'm not criticising you, I'm just saying I can't be arsed getting into an argument about it so I won't be continuing down that path.

[Patrick]

I dont see too much wrong with the way it was handled - just a bit ruthless which I see as a lot better than our old modus operandi

There is also always a lot of furore when you sack a manager - remember Sven?

But I would like to say that Hughes seems to have handled it with the greatest dignity

Lets just hope we can keep one now for a few years

[Beefymcfc]

It's quite simple, Hughes was given time and resources to fight for the top spots. Mancini, who had been linked with us upto a year ago and was still in the employ of Inter, was given time to sort his English out and finish his dispute with them, which he did in October. Hughes didn't live upto the owners expectations after a run of 'How many draws' culminating in a below par 1-1 draw to the mighty Hull. Mancini was then called upon whilst Hughes, who was still in our employ, was left to do his job and the new manager sorted his shit out. Unfortunately for the owners plans, (fortunate for us) Hughes managed to beat Arse in the cup and Chelsea in the league (would've looked a little silly to sack him then eh), however the draw at lowly Bolton and loss to Spuds was the ideal time. Mancini was prepped to move and the inevitable happened.

There is no right way or wrong way to terminate someones contract, however on this occassion, I feel the board did what was right for the club, allowing an employee to do his job. If Hughes had carried on his good work from the Arse and Chelsea match, he would still be the gaffer and Mancini would still be in the background.

[Renato_CTID]

Can someone please take the time and highlight to me how it was done badly? I just don't see what was wrong with it. Not one bit. I had no problem with Cookie's press conference either.

It's never pleasant to sack the manager. I thought it was handled satisfactorily.

I keep reading snide remarks from posters about how poorly we handled it. Please explain yourselves and how it could have been handled better.

I'm Italian and obviously disgusted of how many managers our serie A chairmen sacked every season!
So I always appreciate English football for the way all boards strongly defend every manager's effort to do well their difficult job.
But Sheick Mansour made his takeover without giving the job to a man he kept faith in!
Hughesy was the Shinawatra's man and failed. Do you remember any poor performances just like the Forest home game in last FA Cup or the Baggies away in last Premier League? Could the richest club of the world actually win the draws consecutive record with players like Given, Barry, Adebayor or Tevez? I respect English football traditions but City couldn't go on with a nervous Welsh man unable to understand so many high level footballers. So welcome definitively to Mancio, a winning man in his carrier with Fiorentina and FC Inter, and not Wales or Rovers indeed!

[Beefymcfc]

I dont see too much wrong with the way it was handled - just a bit ruthless which I see as a lot better than our old modus operandi

There is also always a lot of furore when you sack a manager - remember Sven?

But I would like to say that Hughes seems to have handled it with the greatest dignity

Lets just hope we can keep one now for a few years

Totally agree with your statement Pat, especially about the way Hughes has handled the situation. I didn't exactly want Hughes at the club but in these 18 months he has shown to be a very dignified and loyal person. I will remember him fondly in our history, a man who changed everything that we used to be and gave us a rejuvenated future with a truely professional infrastructure and work ethic; built on stone, rather than sand!

[ronk]

I think the point is that there was absolutely no need for it to be handled this way. Whether people like Hughes or not, if they were going to sack him he could & should have been sacked immediately after the Spuds game. The reason he wasn't is supposed to be that the chairman wanted to sack him in person so left him to squirm on the hook until he turned up to put him out of his misery at the weekend because he was busy doing something more important during the week. He's then fucked off again & left someone with the incompetent media skills of Cook to explain it all.

Shabby, disgraceful & has brought us the worst publicity we've ever had in my lifetime of supporting City. As the people involved have money & we need it, everyone is happy to pretend it's fine to behave like that.

Harsh words, and unfair IMHO. We've had some pretty bad publicity down through the years, this is very minor. Doesn't register on the Joseph Barton school of scandal. We sacked a manager and got a few bad headlines, I would have thought you'd be used to it by now.

The problem with sacking Hughes was that he installed his own tight-knit back-room staff. Normally, you can put the assistant manager in charge for a few games, we didn't have that option. It had to be a clean break. The deal was done the day before the game, it wasn't possible to get Mancini in in time. The sacking could never have happened otherwise if it happened swiftly during the season.

We never even gave Hughes the dreaded vote of confidence, it can't have been handled that badly.

[Mase]

Paul Walsh was sticking up for City on Soccer Saturday this afternoon, basically saying we did it in thr right way, he wasn't told on Thursday because the chairman wanted to come and tell him to his face, etc.
Phil Thompson and the rest of the not rights giving it the big un though.

[carl_feedthegoat]

What MRM said. Adding to the fact that he actually was sacked despite not being awful of course.

I've noticed MH has laid low for a while. Even now he knows how to play the media perfectly. He's staying out of it and playing the bigger man. Pair play to him.

LYING LOW ? YEP HE,S PROBABLY IN BARBADOS SURROUNDED BY PINA COLADAS.

[Bluez]

Can someone please take the time and highlight to me how it was done badly? I just don't see what was wrong with it. Not one bit. I had no problem with Cookie's press conference either.

It's never pleasant to sack the manager. I thought it was handled satisfactorily.

I keep reading snide remarks from posters about how poorly we handled it. Please explain yourselves and how it could have been handled better.

If Hughes had been sacked on Friday night or Saturday morning all the debate woud have been about how he had done, and it wouldl be easily justifiable.

Where it went wrong was the story was leaked, everyone knew he was going to be fired, yet he was allowed to walk to the dugout and take charge of the game. Whether you like him or not he did not deserve that.

To put another take on it, Spurs were hammered when it came out Jol was fired during the European cup game, we did the same and were also hammered. We probably got it worse because Jol is a foreign manager, so who gives a shit. hughes is a british manager who is generally well regarded in teh game, also from the story leaking to him taking charge of his last game was longer than with Jol

[Grob]

What MRM said. Adding to the fact that he actually was sacked despite not being awful of course.

I've noticed MH has laid low for a while. Even now he knows how to play the media perfectly. He's staying out of it and playing the bigger man. Pair play to him.

Alot of clubs put clauses in their staff contracts which basically silences the employee from 'portraying the club in a bad light' to the press. Considering Sven and his staff and Mark and all his staff havnt said anything negative, id imagine we use these clauses, mate.

[Beefymcfc]

Paul Walsh was sticking up for City on Soccer Saturday this afternoon, basically saying we did it in thr right way, he wasn't told on Thursday because the chairman wanted to come and tell him to his face, etc.
Phil Thompson and the rest of the not rights giving it the big un though.

I seen that as well Mase'y'. Walshy really stuck up for the club and actually talked sense. However the likes of Stelling and Thompson were having none of it. Everytime Walshy said something the camera panned to Thompson and you could see the hatred in his face, burbling absolute tosh in a hope that his facial expressions would get the sympathy vote.

Walshy went on to say that they had to have another manager in place because of the situation with the backroom staff and that's where I had to laugh. Thompson stated that they could have sacked him without any manager in place and there's nothing wrong with a rudderless ship; Hughes should've been given more time, he's only lost 1 game blah blah blah??? Seemed to me that he was more pissed off with Mancini coming to us rather than Hughes actually being sacked.

[Grob]

Paul Walsh was sticking up for City on Soccer Saturday this afternoon, basically saying we did it in thr right way, he wasn't told on Thursday because the chairman wanted to come and tell him to his face, etc.
Phil Thompson and the rest of the not rights giving it the big un though.

I seen that as well Mase'y'. Walshy really stuck up for the club and actually talked sense. However the likes of Stelling and Thompson were having none of it. Everytime Walshy said something the camera panned to Thompson and you could see the hatred in his face, burbling absolute tosh in a hope that his facial expressions would get the sympathy vote.

Walshy went on to say that they had to have another manager in place because of the situation with the backroom staff and that's where I had to laugh. Thompson stated that they could have sacked him without any manager in place and there's nothing wrong with a rudderless ship; Hughes should've been given more time, he's only lost 1 game blah blah blah??? Seemed to me that he was more pissed off with Mancini coming to us rather than Hughes actually being sacked.

Hes just pissed off that Liverscouse wont be finishing ahead of us this season.