mark hughes

CAPSLOCK · Post by **CAPSLOCK** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 2:43 pm

Thers more to this than the payment of his salary

Bobo might want to put some meat on the bones, but theres damage to reputation, at the very least

It would be nice to see a court case

Prufrock · Post by **Prufrock** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:49 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Prufrock wrote:Meh was always gonna happen.
Er, didn't we have a friendly bet in which you swore up and down that his City would trump Martin O'Neill's Villa?

Pfft, I think that must have been a different Prufrock

.

I do seem to remember stressing at the time I reckoned Hughes's City would finish above O'Neill's Villa if he managed to survive till the end of the season, and I still reckon they would have done, but meh, it happens.

Lord Kangana · Post by **Lord Kangana** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:53 pm

CAPSLOCK wrote:Thers more to this than the payment of his salary

Bobo might want to put some meat on the bones, but theres damage to reputation, at the very least

It would be nice to see a court case

It'll never ever get to court. What do you want Mark, couple of mil, three? We've got more money than we know what the f*ck to do with, thats why we bought a football club, so help yourself. They'll not like being seen as dishonorable, either.

boltonboris · Post by **boltonboris** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:55 pm

Yep... "Here's £3m. Now keep your fecking mouth shut"

bobo the clown · Post by **bobo the clown** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:14 pm

H. Pedersen wrote:
rockthereebok wrote:it looks like he was on track to meet agreed targets... Wonder if there could be a court case in this sacking...
I doubt it. They still have to pay him for his contract, right? It's not like Curbishley, who decided to walk and therefore had to claim constructive dismissal to get paid.

Everything depends on the contents of the contract, which we're never going to see.

If they have him on a contract with a fixed period (they have ... & it has 18 months to run) and they pay him according to its termination conditions then there's little to gain from a court case. What I read is that they will pay him up, so it's very difficult to see any grounds for legal procedings. It would cost a fortune & if any offer made isn't bettered by the court then Hughes would be liable for costs as it would be seen as a vexatious case to have brought.

Regarding "loss of reputation" he's a football manager ... sacking comes with the territory. Which employer will not now consider him who would have done before last Saturday ? Have they attacked him, called him something perverse ? No ... simply suggested he hadn't met their agreed targets. That would be easy to prove, or disprove, as the targets will exist somewhere.

It's simple enough though ... they wanted rid, he was fairly shabbily treated in some ways, but in others they were correct to feel progress was slow (relatively). But they'll pay him a fortune to go.

There may well yet be more huffing & puffing, but no court case.

Dave Sutton's barnet · Post by **Dave Sutton's barnet** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:50 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
Prufrock wrote:Meh was always gonna happen.
Er, didn't we have a friendly bet in which you swore up and down that his City would trump Martin O'Neill's Villa?
Pfft, I think that must have been a different Prufrock .

I do seem to remember stressing at the time I reckoned Hughes's City would finish above O'Neill's Villa if he managed to survive till the end of the season, and I still reckon they would have done, but meh, it happens.

For the record, you said a bit of both:

Prufrock wrote:I'd put money on City finishing above Villa next season, and they are a better bet long term to win stuff and get into the Champions League.

Prufrock wrote:
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:(...)I stand by my extended virtual handshake. For as long as both current managers are in situ, Villa will finish higher than City.
Hmmmm. I'm confident City will finish above Villa next year. I'm not confident Sparky will still be boss. But feck it, since it's only a virtual handshake, why not...

[/url]

...and Ancelotti and Pellegrini are still going strong, much to everyone's surprise...

"You can't just wave £100m notes and get who you want"

bobo the clown · Post by **bobo the clown** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:52 am

All this said & done, the mechanics of all this are pretty unsavoury.

It's as clear as day that Citeh decided to bin Hughes some time ago. With Hughes saying he knew nothing till 5pm on Saturday (which is odd, as everyone else did) and now the club saying that the decision was finally made after the match ... despite Mancini actually being there at the game. Now Mancini agrees that he knew weeks ago, though Garry Cook directly contradicts that. It shows the murky side of all this pretty clearly.

That said, if Bolton do get rid of Megson we'd expect that they'd investigate options beforehand.

Dave Sutton's barnet · Post by **Dave Sutton's barnet** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:19 am

Garry Cook is getting a rather unfestive shoeing this morning from all and sundry. Have to admit he's done a good job of personifying the club's hubris.

Mind, it's quite funny that Cook's claim - that they club only started searching for a new manager after last Wednesday's loss at Spurs - was almost immediately contradicted by Mancini saying talks had started in the first week of December.

It's a tough line to draw. Bobo's right that we'd be upset if Gartside sacked Megson then said "I haven't a clue who's going to replace him". If managers truly are "one loss from the sack" or "have two games to save their job", shouldn't a decent chairman/chief exec be discreetly assessing possible replacements? Momentarily disregarding ethics or employment law, isn't that the way it happens?

Connect with your social network account

mark hughes

Who is online