|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 8:53:57 GMT
When Southampton took on Hughes it made me wonder if this was proof that everything that's gone wrong at Stoke wasn't down to Hughes.
Why would a club take on a manager that had slowly destroyed a stable mid-table club? What defence could Hughes use in his interview for the Southampton job?
I'm beginning to wonder if the appalling player purchases were made with no influence or approval from Hughes and that he was left to simply manage them.
I know there's a management merry-go-round but Southampton's recruitment of Hughes just doesn't make sense unless he's got a bloody good reason in his defence of what's happened at Stoke.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegift on Mar 19, 2018 8:57:29 GMT
This is just a total myth. Hughes chased berahino himself for 2 seasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Mar 19, 2018 8:57:52 GMT
Does it make less sense than Moyes being appointed at West Ham or Pardew at West Brom or Lambert here?
It's the merry-go-round. Imagination free, panicky owners deciding that Premier League experience is what matters in a scrap.
They'll have looked at his record overall and decided it was worth a punt in desperate times, given he could start immediately and there's no compo involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Mar 19, 2018 8:58:39 GMT
Hughes did a good job for 2/3 years when he first joined, they probably think that's more relevant in the short term. Anyway, I bet he won't be there longer than 1 season if they stay up, I'll guarantee you that.
|
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Mar 19, 2018 9:58:57 GMT
His problem seems to be recruitment, give him a good group of players and he's fine, but if he is there long enough , or gets promotion to a higher level, where there is a big turnover of players, and he recruits the majority of the players then you're in trouble, e.g. Stoke and QPR.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Mar 19, 2018 10:21:51 GMT
His problem seems to be recruitment, give him a good group of players and he's fine, but if he is there long enough , or gets promotion to a higher level, where there is a big turnover of players, and he recruits the majority of the players then you're in trouble, e.g. Stoke and QPR. Stoke - fucked up transfer committee containing Scholes and Cartwright... say no more QPR - basket case club, widely acknowledged that the chairman was buying players What was his recruitment like at Citeh and Blackburn? I'm not saying he hasn't been part of the cluster fuck but there are mitigating circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Mar 19, 2018 10:23:41 GMT
Alot of appointments dont make sense.
Nearly every manager has failed somewhere but they still get re-employed.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrred on Mar 19, 2018 10:29:09 GMT
He's a bit part of why we're in the situation we're in, but you're pretty naive if you think everything was down to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by upthefud on Mar 19, 2018 10:29:20 GMT
His problem seems to be recruitment, give him a good group of players and he's fine, but if he is there long enough , or gets promotion to a higher level, where there is a big turnover of players, and he recruits the majority of the players then you're in trouble, e.g. Stoke and QPR. Stoke - fucked up transfer committee containing Scholes and Cartwright... say no more QPR - basket case club, widely acknowledged that the chairman was buying players What was his recruitment like at Citeh and Blackburn? I'm not saying he hasn't been part of the cluster fuck but there are mitigating circumstances. So he had no say in the signings of Imbula, Berahino or Wimmer? Delusional |
|
|
|
Post by TrentValePotter96 on Mar 19, 2018 10:30:43 GMT
It's proof that Southampton have lost the plot too.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegift on Mar 19, 2018 10:31:15 GMT
Alot of appointments dont make sense. Nearly every manager has failed somewhere but they still get re-employed. In the current situation though mate it takes the piss |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 10:34:38 GMT
Hughes is a very good manager when he inherits a solid spine of players. His success here was based on inheriting Pulis' team and expanding on that formula. The first three seasons were great times. Before the injury to Butland and the mini goalkeeping crisis that ensued, we saw poetry in motion. The best football Stoke City have played in my lifetime by a mile.
When it comes to rebuilding a squad, I think there is enough evidence to suggest that Hughes is an especially poor manager in that regard. For a long time there was a suspicion that the QPR debacle was not of Hughes' doing. He did an amazing job in keeping them up and was sacked fairly early into the following year, something like 14 games in IIRC?
However, the argument that QPR wasn't his fault now carries much less weight seeing as he has created a similar scenario at our very own club. I believe that I've also heard Man City supporters talk similarly about some baffling signings of players who he had no idea how to play, and who they were lumbered with for many years after he had left. I know there's one or two Man City supporters who are members of this forum, I suppose they would be better people to ask on the matter.
Given how I view Mark Hughes as a manager, and coupled with my belief that Southampton do have a fairly solid squad on paper, I was absolutely gutted when they signed Hughes because the scenario of Southampton staying up relatively comfortably whilst we go down, and Mark Hughes being a successful premiership manager next year whilst we struggle to adjust to life in the championship, actually feels a likely scenario. Even more so now after the crushing defeat we suffered on Saturday. It's so bloody unfair, and wider perception will view it as the mistake that relegated us. Robbie Savage will be promoting that argument no doubt.
|
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Mar 19, 2018 10:41:32 GMT
When Southampton took on Hughes it made me wonder if this was proof that everything that's gone wrong at Stoke wasn't down to Hughes. Why would a club take on a manager that had slowly destroyed a stable mid-table club? What defence could Hughes use in his interview for the Southampton job? I'm beginning to wonder if the appalling player purchases were made with no influence or approval from Hughes and that he was left to simply manage them. I know there's a management merry-go-round but Southampton's recruitment of Hughes just doesn't make sense unless he's got a bloody good reason in his defence of what's happened at Stoke. Doesn't explain why our fittest players could barely play an our of football at the start of the year. |
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on Mar 19, 2018 11:11:20 GMT
He's a wank manager and he won't be part of Southampton for long.
|
|
|
|
Post by auntiegeorge on Mar 19, 2018 11:16:14 GMT
It's probably as simple as this: Hughes was unemployed and available to start immediately.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Mar 19, 2018 11:20:07 GMT
Stoke - fucked up transfer committee containing Scholes and Cartwright... say no more QPR - basket case club, widely acknowledged that the chairman was buying players What was his recruitment like at Citeh and Blackburn? I'm not saying he hasn't been part of the cluster fuck but there are mitigating circumstances. So he had no say in the signings of Imbula, Berahino or Wimmer? Delusional Where have I said that? |
|
MooG
Youth Player
Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change.
Posts: 493
|
Post by MooG on Mar 19, 2018 12:34:35 GMT
Southampton just need a new manager bounce and Hughes has provided that in the past.
His poor squad building skills are a problem for another day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Mar 19, 2018 12:57:30 GMT
In today's game where managers are being chucked off the cliff regularly after 6 months or so, it would have been a selling point for him that he was here for four and a half years. There's an obvious argument that the owners kept hold of him for too long, but even allowing for that, there wouldn't have been too many reasonable owners who'd have terminated his contract before the end of the fourth season.
And the three ninth place finishes playing some great football after taking on a team that wasn't really made for that sort of thing would also have been a more than decent selling point, particularly when you factor in a fairly heavy-duty injury list. Clubs are probably no longer after a manager to be in position for more than a couple of years or so, so even if the Southampton board think he ended up losing the players after the third season, that's not likely to be much of a concern for them when basically, they need someone to get them out of the shit now.
At this stage of the season where the best managers will be off-limits through being involved in promotion and cup campaigns of their own, Hughes will have looked like a quite attractive 'best of the rest' option. I'd have given him the gig.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 13:08:10 GMT
In today's game where managers are being chucked off the cliff regularly after 6 months or so, it would have been a selling point for him that he was here for four and a half years. There's an obvious argument that the owners kept hold of him for too long, but even allowing for that, there wouldn't have been too many reasonable owners who'd have terminated his contract before the end of the fourth season. And the three ninth place finishes playing some great football after taking on a team that wasn't really made for that sort of thing would also have been a more than decent selling point, particularly when you factor in a fairly heavy-duty injury list. Clubs are probably no longer after a manager to be in position for more than a couple of years or so, so even if the Southampton board think he ended up losing the players after the third season, that's not likely to be much of a concern for them when basically, they need someone to get them out of the shit now. At this stage of the season where the best managers will be off-limits through being involved in promotion and cup campaigns of their own, Hughes will have looked like a quite attractive 'best of the rest' option. I'd have given him the gig. I'm looking forward most to seeing him: a) leading out Southampton at the FACSF at Wembley, having got us knocked out of the same competition at Coventry. b) managing at Premier League level when we're dossing in the Championship. Neither of these two things will annoy me, one bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Mar 19, 2018 13:23:46 GMT
In today's game where managers are being chucked off the cliff regularly after 6 months or so, it would have been a selling point for him that he was here for four and a half years. There's an obvious argument that the owners kept hold of him for too long, but even allowing for that, there wouldn't have been too many reasonable owners who'd have terminated his contract before the end of the fourth season. And the three ninth place finishes playing some great football after taking on a team that wasn't really made for that sort of thing would also have been a more than decent selling point, particularly when you factor in a fairly heavy-duty injury list. Clubs are probably no longer after a manager to be in position for more than a couple of years or so, so even if the Southampton board think he ended up losing the players after the third season, that's not likely to be much of a concern for them when basically, they need someone to get them out of the shit now. At this stage of the season where the best managers will be off-limits through being involved in promotion and cup campaigns of their own, Hughes will have looked like a quite attractive 'best of the rest' option. I'd have given him the gig. I'm looking forward most to seeing him: a) leading out Southampton at the FACSF at Wembley, having got us knocked out of the same competition at Coventry. b) managing at Premier League level when we're dossing in the Championship. Neither of these two things will annoy me, one bit. You can see why Southampton have appointed him then.  |
|
|
|
Post by knyperstokie on Mar 19, 2018 16:17:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by chamberlain on Mar 19, 2018 16:35:59 GMT
I hate the arrogant twat
|
|
|
|
Post by colinroberts1 on Mar 19, 2018 16:50:45 GMT
His problem seems to be recruitment, give him a good group of players and he's fine, but if he is there long enough , or gets promotion to a higher level, where there is a big turnover of players, and he recruits the majority of the players then you're in trouble, e.g. Stoke and QPR. Well he's got 5 players he wanted at stoke in Southamptons team. He'll keep them up pretty easy in my opinion. If stoke had bought them 5 players I don't think we'd be near the bottom of table. |
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Mar 19, 2018 17:12:39 GMT
To be fair there's no way on God's earth Robinho was his signing. His transfer record was actually generally really good until QPR. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 17:24:03 GMT
This is just a total myth. Hughes chased berahino himself for 2 seasons. No, the myth is that Hughes, while managing a football club that was doing reasonably well at the time and had other transfer targets, had enough time to personally scout and chase Berahino non stop for 2 seasons. Anyone can see this is not possible. There are old school managers that actually run up and down the country round the clock to look at potential players, but this was never Hughes' style. When he left the office each day he did not think about football until he turned up the next morning. What we had/have is a transfer committee. John Coates is the money man, Scholes the gofer, Cartwright the DOF, the chief scout (not sure who at the moment), and the manager who contributes with his own contacts and ideas and allegedly has the final word on whether or not a player is signed. The manager is the spokesperson for trransfer activities (most other spokesduties are handled by PC). Each of those will have a list of players they want to sign. Then when the transfer window rolls around lists go out the window when they realise that other clubs want them too and will pay more money, bigger wages, offer more perks , pay the agent bigger percentages etc, they are suddenly stuck with the Wimmers of this world, or risk not signing anyone at all. That's where the alleged 'manager has the final word' goes out the window. It's either we sign this Austrian or we don't get anyone at all, is the more likely scenario. So because Hughes is the spokesman for transfer activities some people have come to believe that Hughes is personally responsible for signing players. After all that is the way things have been since signing players became possible, until DOFs arrived and had the chairman's trust. And while things looked good and Imbula et al looked like players who could do great things for us, Hughes was happy to take credit for signing those players. He was responsible for bringing Muni and Bojan on board through his personal contacts, and many subsequent transfers might not have happened if those two had not arrived first. But the quickness with which he dropped players suggests they were not really his favourite people to begin with. Berahino, rather than being his favourite son, becane the first nail in Hughes' coffin. Although he stated at the time of the signing that it would be six months before Saido was up for it, he played him from the beginning anyway, which simply did not work, and so we got in the habit of losing matches last year, in the second half of the season. Berahino looked a bad fit for us from the beginning and despite offering him many chances, he never fit in for Hughes/us. We've never really recovered, and Saturday Berahino came on once again for no good purpose at all. |
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Mar 19, 2018 17:29:09 GMT
This is just a total myth. Hughes chased berahino himself for 2 seasons. No, the myth is that Hughes, while managing a football club that was doing reasonably well at the time and had other transfer targets, had enough time to personally scout and chase Berahino non stop for 2 seasons. Anyone can see this is not possible. There are old school managers that actually run up and down the country round the clock to look at potential players, but this was never Hughes' style. When he left the office each day he did not think about football until he turned up the next morning. What we had/have is a transfer committee. John Coates is the money man, Scholes the gofer, Cartwright the DOF, the chief scout (not sure who at the moment), and the manager who contributes with his own contacts and ideas and allegedly has the final word on whether or not a player is signed. The manager is the spokesperson for trransfer activities (most other spokesduties are handled by PC). Each of those will have a list of players they want to sign. Then when the transfer window rolls around lists go out the window when they realise that other clubs want them too and will pay more money, bigger wages, offer more perks , pay the agent bigger percentages etc, they are suddenly stuck with the Wimmers of this world, or risk not signing anyone at all. That's where the alleged 'manager has the final word' goes out the window. It's either we sign this Austrian or we don't get anyone at all, is the more likely scenario. So because Hughes is the spokesman for transfer activities some people have come to believe that Hughes is personally responsible for signing players. After all that is the way things have been since signing players became possible, until DOFs arrived and had the chairman's trust. And while things looked good and Imbula et al looked like players who could do great things for us, Hughes was happy to take credit for signing those players. He was responsible for bringing Muni and Bojan on board through his personal contacts, and many subsequent transfers might not have happened if those two had not arrived first. But the quickness with which he dropped players suggests they were not really his favourite people to begin with. Berahino, rather than being his favourite son, becane the first nail in Hughes' coffin. Although he stated at the time of the signing that it would be six months before Saido was up for it, he played him from the beginning anyway, which simply did not work, and so we got in the habit of losing matches last year, in the second half of the season. Berahino looked a bad fit for us from the beginning and despite offering him many chances, he never fit in for Hughes/us. We've never really recovered, and Saturday Berahino came on once again for no good purpose at all. We wouldn't have signed anyone Hughes didn't want. That's not the way these set-ups generally work. He'd at least have had a power of veto with players he didn't personally identify and the determination with which we pursued Berahino suggests strongly it was spearheaded by the manager. We're not going to expend that amount of time and be willing to spend that amount of money on someone who isn't going to play because the manager doesn't want him. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 17:51:50 GMT
I don't disagree above. By the time the transfer window was ending Hughes was in position to turn down a "proven" goalscorer. But taking the player (among other things) ended up costing him his job.
|
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Mar 19, 2018 17:54:39 GMT
They got him precisely because the transfer window is closed and put him on a contract until the end of the season.
Its a masterstroke.
He's perfect for what they need and will keep them up.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Mar 19, 2018 17:56:37 GMT
They got him precisely because the transfer window is closed and put him on a contract until the end of the season. Its a masterstroke. He's perfect for what they need and will keep them up. Apart from the whole 'slow starter' thing... |
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Mar 19, 2018 17:57:55 GMT
I don't disagree above. By the time the transfer window was ending Hughes was in position to turn down a "proven" goalscorer. But taking the player (among other things) ended up costing him his job. It's not just 'taking' the player, Hughes surely wanted him and was at the forefront of driving the signing? You don't have a top target your manager isn't fussed about. He'd hardly have taken much 'scouting' either would he? Everyone had heard of him. |
|
