Man City

[soggy biscuit]

Will make a club statement at 7:30 this evening.

The reliable ol' internet says Roberto Mancini has been spotted in the crowd.

[Row Z Royal]

I wonder if he fancies his chances in the Thames Valley...

[Mr Angry]

ESPN commentary during the Arsenal/Hull game; they "understand" that Mark Hughes has indeed left Man City.

[TBM]

The waving to the crowd, all 4 corners and the tears in his eyes surely say "goodbye"

What more could he have done.......semi final of carling cup, only lost 2 games all season and pushing for a top 4 place

[rg6royal]

sky sports sources believe he's been sacked.

[The Surgeon of Crowthorne]

Beeb reporting he's gone & been replaced by Mancini.

[Smoking Kills Dancing Doe]

Hughes can't argue with this.

The had Robinho, Tevez and Adebeyor and looked like a pub team.

Hughes has had long enough.

Lol at people trying to blames this on the owners.

[Royal Rother]

During Rodgers' time at RFC the net transfer dealings were £10m coming in - we were 21st and he got sacked after 6 months.

Hughes' dealings were a net outlay of £160m, and he gets sacked after 18 months and 6th position.

Which was the more understandable decision?

[Pseud O'Nym]

Isn't it funny how Redknapp's solicitor chose 5 minutes after the Hughes sacking to announce the HMRC V Redknapp tax case?

[cmonurz]

I'd say Hughes has done perfectly well. What a lot of fans don't take into account, including many on here, imho, is that whilst City may spend £160m, so too are (over many seasons) other clubs also spending a lot of money. I see it a lot with criticisms of Liverpool who, whilst they have under-achieved, are constantly playing catch-up with their rivals. It's the same situation - do City's owners think other clubs are standing still?

City haven't bought the best players in the world, they have bought some of the best players in the world not already at other clubs spending a pot load of cash. Do City's owners not comprehend the task that a coaching team faces in bringing in any player, Kaka or Paul Brayson, and fitting him into a team, coaching him, moulding him in to the player he needs to be for the club?

£160m has got them a team that on paper is not the superior of United, Chelsea, Arsenal, arguably even Liverpool - spending money gives no right to immmediate success. This is a disappointing decision. Why are they backing Mancini? What are they backing him to do? Spend another £100m but spend it a tiny bit better? Or spend it and achieve a couple of extra points over the next 10 games or so?

A complete joke.

[Royal Rother]

Part of the problem was that some of the expensive signings just didn't seem to want to play for him.

He might not have had a great deal of say in the signings of Adebayor and Robinho but they sure haven't produced much in the way of spirited performances. Maybe they believe someone with a bit more gravitas and experience of dealing with massive egos might get the best out of these expensive semi-failures.

[TBM]

Hughes can't argue with this.

The had Robinho, Tevez and Adebeyor and looked like a pub team.

Hughes has had long enough.

Lol at people trying to blames this on the owners.

long enough to do what?

They've only lost 2 games this season ffs, to Man utd and spurs, both away!!!

Semi final of 1 cup and still in another plus only a few pts off a champions league spot

[papereyes]

Compare and contrast with what Lerner's done at Villa.

Enough time and money to build a squad that works as a unit and fights for every point.

But given that they've currently got an ex-US Marine General as executive director, that's no surprise, is it?
Hughes has had a season and a bit and is still in the fight. Would 5th or 6th and a CC win be enough? For a team with City's recent history, it'd be an improvement on what they've had in the first half of the decade.

[Row Z Royal]

What happened to cause the departure of Eriksson?

[Victor Meldrew]

Hughes can't argue with this.

The had Robinho, Tevez and Adebeyor and looked like a pub team.

Hughes has had long enough.

Lol at people trying to blames this on the owners.

long enough to do what?

They've only lost 2 games this season ffs, to Man utd and spurs, both away!!!

Semi final of 1 cup and still in another plus only a few pts off a champions league spot

Thoroughly agree-2 losses and one of those in the 6th minute of added time when the scheduled amount was 4 minutes.
As I understand it Mancini got the push at Inter because although they won the league they didn't win the European Champs league and the same is likely to happen to Mourinho.
Along with Arsenal on their day I think City are one of the most attractive sides to watch and it may only be because of the time it has taken Lescott to settle in that they are not closer to the probable champions,Chelsea.

As with Rodgers you can't have loads of sympathy because we know that his severance pay will be a lot of money and in Hughes' case he is bound to get a decent job again.
With all the expectations for immediate success,the frantic sacking of managers,the diving and cheating,the cost for fans and the behaviour of quite a few players (including having a Christmas do when told not to)makes it easy for us to fall out of love with our national game.

[Starfish]

Along with Arsenal on their day I think City are one of the most attractive sides to watch and it may only be because of the time it has taken Lescott to settle in that they are not closer to the probable champions,Chelsea.

Considering how well Richard Dunne played for the four years before Hughes came and how well he has since played with Villa, I would give Hughes precious little benefit-of-the-doubt with regard to Lescott.

I agree with everything else you say though.

[PEARCEY]

I'd say Hughes has done perfectly well. What a lot of fans don't take into account, including many on here, imho, is that whilst City may spend £160m, so too are (over many seasons) other clubs also spending a lot of money. I see it a lot with criticisms of Liverpool who, whilst they have under-achieved, are constantly playing catch-up with their rivals. It's the same situation - do City's owners think other clubs are standing still?

City haven't bought the best players in the world, they have bought some of the best players in the world not already at other clubs spending a pot load of cash. Do City's owners not comprehend the task that a coaching team faces in bringing in any player, Kaka or Paul Brayson, and fitting him into a team, coaching him, moulding him in to the player he needs to be for the club?

£160m has got them a team that on paper is not the superior of United, Chelsea, Arsenal, arguably even Liverpool - spending money gives no right to immmediate success. This is a disappointing decision. Why are they backing Mancini? What are they backing him to do? Spend another £100m but spend it a tiny bit better? Or spend it and achieve a couple of extra points over the next 10 games or so?

A complete joke.

I agree with the above. Hughes has been harshly treated having done pretty well this season. He was probably always on borrowed time as soon as the new owners came in.

[Smoking Kills Dancing Doe]

Hughes can't argue with this.

The had Robinho, Tevez and Adebeyor and looked like a pub team.

Hughes has had long enough.

Lol at people trying to blames this on the owners.

long enough to do what?

They've only lost 2 games this season ffs, to Man utd and spurs, both away!!!

Semi final of 1 cup and still in another plus only a few pts off a champions league spot

With the money invested most owners would have sacked him last season.

He doesn't fit.

The players have the power. It ain't right but that's the way it is.

[weybridgewanderer]

They've only lost 2 games this season ffs

Maybe, but only 2 wins in 11. Not enough

We have won 3 of our last 11!

[Smoking Kills Dancing Doe]

The other important fact is that Liverpool, Arsenal and United are not great teams this season. They will only improve, this is a great season for someone new to crack to crack the top 4. City haven't looked like the side to do it under Hughes.