|
Post by serpico on Jan 15, 2018 16:32:51 GMT
I'm a massive lambert skeptic, I'd have kept Hughes on so long as he was given some dough during this window.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jan 15, 2018 16:33:46 GMT
No chance,Hughes should have gone at the end of last season never mind Jan 6th
|
|
|
Post by chamberlain on Jan 15, 2018 16:34:06 GMT
Not me he’d lost it
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jan 15, 2018 16:35:07 GMT
Hughes had to go on principle, however the club as a whole has shown its true colours. If they are not interested or willing to fund it and run it properly they should have sold, Lambert is a poor choice, especially on the length of contract. He’s out of work, a 6 month contract with an option on both sides would have made business sense.Can't agree. If Stoke have a fault they are too good an employer. They look after the players and they stick by the manager, possibly to a fault. They have done the right thing by backing their choice with a decent contract. If he fails then it is an expense to the business to get rid of him, but putting Lambert in the right positive frame of mind is the right thing to do to start.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Jan 15, 2018 16:35:40 GMT
He had to go but that's not the issue. The issue is the fact he should've been sacked in the summer and yet again after the Bournemouth game imo. We simply waited too long to act and this is the result of that fatal hesitation.
|
|
|
Post by shrewspotter on Jan 15, 2018 16:35:56 GMT
We were going down with Hughes for sure
As for lambert it's uninspiring but you never know.
A change was needed albeit it wasn't quite the one we had in mind
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2018 16:36:00 GMT
HUGHES OUT!
Lost the plot 2 seasons worth
New broom needed
May prove to be a masterstroke
You just never know with football
I.e. Leicester should never of survived then won the league
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2018 16:38:26 GMT
Hughes had to go on principle, however the club as a whole has shown its true colours. If they are not interested or willing to fund it and run it properly they should have sold, Lambert is a poor choice, especially on the length of contract. He’s out of work, a 6 month contract with an option on both sides would have made business sense. The 2.5 year deal, as others have said, could well equate to a pay off if a better candidate arrives on the scene I don't think it's about faith in him over three seasons. Still a short-term appointment in my eyes
|
|
|
Post by dobing1863 on Jan 15, 2018 16:38:39 GMT
Unknown in the capacity of Stoke city manager ,against joyless ,arrogant double speak clueless twat,not really a contest.
|
|
|
Post by knightonstokie on Jan 15, 2018 16:42:42 GMT
Not me, he had lost it seemed to repeat the same tactics and decisions in hope they would work this time.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Jan 15, 2018 16:43:26 GMT
Hughes had to go...the Board have been exposed for their lack of planning (Get rid of Carto and Scholes)...we have to back Paul Lambert and hope he can succeed
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Jan 15, 2018 16:44:38 GMT
With MH we definitely looked like we were heading down, with Lanbert we seem to have at least a bit of hope, which may quickly be dispelled.
|
|
|
Post by itsallgonepetetone on Jan 15, 2018 16:47:07 GMT
Hughes had to go on principle, however the club as a whole has shown its true colours. If they are not interested or willing to fund it and run it properly they should have sold, Lambert is a poor choice, especially on the length of contract. He’s out of work, a 6 month contract with an option on both sides would have made business sense.Can't agree. If Stoke have a fault they are too good an employer. They look after the players and they stick by the manager, possibly to a fault. They have done the right thing by backing their choice with a decent contract. If he fails then it is an expense to the business to get rid of him, but putting Lambert in the right positive frame of mind is the right thing to do to start. It suicidal to tie yourself to a manager for that period when the odds are you are going down - especially when he was 4th choice. They didn’t want him 3 days ago so why would they want him in 2 years time? At least a break clause at the end of the year would have allowed some evaluation - we are just rewarding someone to take us down. If he keeps us up, but can’t make a significant difference why would we want him next year when there will be other available candidates? If he takes us down why would we want to reward him with a 2 year payoff?
|
|
|
Post by cousindupree on Jan 15, 2018 16:53:59 GMT
You would have hoped that someone within the board of directors might have thought that Hughes was in trouble in the summer, all you had to do was look at the run of form. The squad needed major surgery and we didn't want to throw money at it. So wouldn't it have been prudent to have some plans in place if we did sack him? It looks like a 'oh shit what do we do now and who is available?' reaction to me. It reeks of the bad planning, and an amateurish way a business worth over £100m is being run. In the past I have been astonished at some of the poor decisions seasoned businessmen at SCFC have made and this one is likely to be the most disastrous.
|
|
|
Post by knightonstokie on Jan 15, 2018 16:55:35 GMT
Can't agree. If Stoke have a fault they are too good an employer. They look after the players and they stick by the manager, possibly to a fault. They have done the right thing by backing their choice with a decent contract. If he fails then it is an expense to the business to get rid of him, but putting Lambert in the right positive frame of mind is the right thing to do to start. It suicidal to tie yourself to a manager for that period when the odds are you are going down - especially when he was 4th choice. They didn’t want him 3 days ago so why would they want him in 2 years time? At least a break clause at the end of the year would have allowed some evaluation - we are just rewarding someone to take us down. If he keeps us up, but can’t make a significant difference why would we want him next year when there will be other available candidates? If he takes us down why would we want to reward him with a 2 year payoff? Whose to say there isn't a relegation clause in contract to say we owe him nothing if he takes us down?
|
|
|
Post by ruts66 on Jan 15, 2018 16:57:33 GMT
Sadly, Hughes morphed from a progressive, capable, mid-table manager to a dejected, disinterested looking figure purely going through the motions.
I dare say the transfer team had a part in it but Hughes' lack of imagination and game management throughout 2017 was, at times, baffling.
He had to go and should have gone much sooner in order to have avoided the recent shambles.
After reading Lambert's wiki page there's enough to suggest he's a capable manager who since Norwich joined some very difficult situations so he's brave and not afraid of a challenge. With PC's backing (if there's time to get anyone decent) he might just keep us up.
I'll back him because as a supporter that's all we can really do...
|
|
|
Post by rondogmcmuffin on Jan 15, 2018 17:00:31 GMT
Nah. Hughes had to go. Period Hughes was a spent force. Lambert may surprise us - BUT he needs our support, he doesn't need mindless, imbecilic backbiting and resentment. We have a manager, we have a team - and they are our club. Let's pull our fingers out and back them. Let's hope he doesn't to either soak up the culture or come on the oatcake then
|
|
|
Post by itsallgonepetetone on Jan 15, 2018 17:00:55 GMT
It suicidal to tie yourself to a manager for that period when the odds are you are going down - especially when he was 4th choice. They didn’t want him 3 days ago so why would they want him in 2 years time? At least a break clause at the end of the year would have allowed some evaluation - we are just rewarding someone to take us down. If he keeps us up, but can’t make a significant difference why would we want him next year when there will be other available candidates? If he takes us down why would we want to reward him with a 2 year payoff? Whose to say there isn't a relegation clause in contract to say we owe him nothing if he takes us down? Maybe, but I don’t have a huge amount of faith that the club would be diligent enough to protect itself. Based on the fact that they didn’t get their No1 target, a high profile name or a bright star that could build a dynasty, why promote the 2.5 years? It smacks of desperation.
|
|
|
Post by adoptedessexstokie on Jan 15, 2018 17:02:26 GMT
No
Stoke under Lesley were a sinking ship. We've given ourselves half a chance at survival!
|
|
|
Post by knightonstokie on Jan 15, 2018 17:04:06 GMT
Whose to say there isn't a relegation clause in contract to say we owe him nothing if he takes us down? Maybe, but I don’t have a huge amount of faith that the club would be diligent enough to protect itself. Based on the fact that they didn’t get their No1 target, a high profile name or a bright star that could build a dynasty, why promote the 2.5 years? Just playing devils advocate really. The 2.5 could be because Lambert played hard ball knowing that he wasn't the first choice and others had publicly said no.
|
|
|
Post by knightonstokie on Jan 15, 2018 17:05:00 GMT
Maybe, but I don’t have a huge amount of faith that the club would be diligent enough to protect itself. Based on the fact that they didn’t get their No1 target, a high profile name or a bright star that could build a dynasty, why promote the 2.5 years? Just playing devils advocate really. The 2.5 could be because Lambert played hard ball knowing that he wasn't the first choice and others had publicly said no. Could you imagine the reactions if he said no as well
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Jan 15, 2018 17:07:57 GMT
No Hughes was given every chance to redeem himself in the last 18 months but failed. On that basis I cannot believe his tactics and views would change and we would continue to be in grave danger of relegation.
Lambert comes with his own ideas, tactics and at least an enthusiasm to put them into practice. No guarantees of course but the change may just rescue us.
|
|
|
Post by itsallgonepetetone on Jan 15, 2018 17:08:22 GMT
Maybe, but I don’t have a huge amount of faith that the club would be diligent enough to protect itself. Based on the fact that they didn’t get their No1 target, a high profile name or a bright star that could build a dynasty, why promote the 2.5 years? Just playing devils advocate really. The 2.5 could be because Lambert played hard ball knowing that he wasn't the first choice and others had publicly said no. It’s the more likely.
|
|
|
Post by FbrgVaStkFan on Jan 15, 2018 17:08:53 GMT
There weren't any wheels left to fall off. Hughes had to go after those last three games--whatever amount of respect he had left was gone.
|
|
|
Post by mickmacc on Jan 15, 2018 17:09:46 GMT
I wouldn’t have kept Hughes. Nor would I have gone for someone worse
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Jan 15, 2018 17:10:15 GMT
Have to disagree there buddy.
|
|
|
Post by greystokie on Jan 15, 2018 17:12:06 GMT
I'm convinced that if LMH had stayed we'd be relegated. At least with Lambert there is a chance of us staying up. It's the only straw to clutch on as I'm not at all impressed with who we've ended up with.
|
|
|
Post by johnmarshcardschool on Jan 15, 2018 17:13:07 GMT
Hughes was a spent force. He had totally lost it at Stoke so had to go. Maybe the question should be who would prefer no manager rather than Lambert.
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Jan 15, 2018 17:15:35 GMT
Sparky had run out of steam and ideas,i hope new ideas will turn the corner for us the squad is better than the results so get behind what we have instead posting negativity,did you want Hughes to stay?
|
|
|
Post by johnmarshcardschool on Jan 15, 2018 17:17:17 GMT
Just playing devils advocate really. The 2.5 could be because Lambert played hard ball knowing that he wasn't the first choice and others had publicly said no. It’s the more likely. And maybe, if Lambert isn't on a huge amount of money, the board can afford to pay him off early anyway.
|
|