Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:01 pm  

MacBlondie wrote: aaaaand its back. The TV programme where the "special one" on here gets all his material from http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/special1/201 ... oming.html Quality. "Ziggy from the Wirral goes to all Liverpool fans you'll never walk alone. Ziggy then goes on to say Wolves and West Ham will walk with you!"

MacBlondie wrote: aaaaand its back. The TV programme where the "special one" on here gets all his material from http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/special1/201 ... oming.html Quality. "Ziggy from the Wirral goes to all Liverpool fans you'll never walk alone. Ziggy then goes on to say Wolves and West Ham will walk with you!"

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:24 pm  

D.D. wrote:

We were in 8th place when the decision was made in the midweek after the Spurs game, we were in 6th place after the Sunderland game when it was officially announced.

If that's the best comeback you have got, then you haven't got any decent comeback at all have you?

I was just pointing out the blatant lie from you that you were in 8th place when Hughes was sacked.

City were in 6th when Hughes was sacked. They were in 5th place at the end of the season. That's hardly a pigs ear of a job from Hughes.

I don't like Avram Grant. I think he's a **** whose presence at Chelsea contributed to Jose Mourinho's departure. I don't think he should have been given the job and don't think he should have even been at the club. But even with all these negative aspects of Grant, I still think he did a good job in his time at Chelsea.

Hughes was doing a pretty good job at Citeh. Not overwhelmingly great, especially considering the money spent, but there were clear improvements in the league position and Citeh were on track for a decent finish in the league. Generally you don't change a manager and expect just a 1 place difference.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:31 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I was just pointing out the blatant lie from you that you were in 8th place when Hughes was sacked.

City were in 6th when Hughes was sacked. They were in 5th place at the end of the season. That's hardly a pigs ear of a job from Hughes.

There is no blatant lie at all. If, as we are led to believe, he was sacked before the game against Sunderland (when clearly he was), then we were in 8th place in the league. When that decision was took, when Hughes was told, we were 8th. No ifs, no buts, no opinions. That's stone wall fact.

So there's your one pathetic answer shot down in flames, now get on with answering the rest of it.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:45 pm  

D.D. wrote: There is no blatant lie at all. If, as we are led to believe, he was sacked before the game against Sunderland (when clearly he was), then we were in 8th place in the league. When that decision was took, when Hughes was told, we were 8th. No ifs, no buts, no opinions. That's stone wall fact. So there's your one pathetic answer shot down in flames, now get on with answering the rest of it. Mark Hughes insists he did not find out he was going to be sacked as manager by Manchester City until after Saturday's thrilling 4-3 victory over Sunderland. Pre-match speculation suggested Hughes would be axed, while new boss Roberto Mancini was said to be in the crowd. "Notwithstanding media coverage to the contrary, I was given no forewarning as to the club's decision," said Hughes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/footbal ... 423054.stm So Mark Hughes was lying about being sacked before the Sunderland game? Even though he was sacked he went and stood on the sidelines and pretended to be the Citeh manager? What a stupid tvvat you are. He was clearly manager until after the Sunderland game. They sacked him afterwards. So they were in 6th position when he was sacked. Now, if you've got any evidence that they did sack him before the game, and Citeh and Hughes came up with the pretty much unprecedented decision to let a sacked manager take charge of a game after he'd been sacked, then do offer it.

D.D. wrote: There is no blatant lie at all. If, as we are led to believe, he was sacked before the game against Sunderland (when clearly he was), then we were in 8th place in the league. When that decision was took, when Hughes was told, we were 8th. No ifs, no buts, no opinions. That's stone wall fact. So there's your one pathetic answer shot down in flames, now get on with answering the rest of it. Mark Hughes insists he did not find out he was going to be sacked as manager by Manchester City until after Saturday's thrilling 4-3 victory over Sunderland. Pre-match speculation suggested Hughes would be axed, while new boss Roberto Mancini was said to be in the crowd. "Notwithstanding media coverage to the contrary, I was given no forewarning as to the club's decision," said Hughes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/footbal ... 423054.stm So Mark Hughes was lying about being sacked before the Sunderland game? Even though he was sacked he went and stood on the sidelines and pretended to be the Citeh manager? What a stupid tvvat you are. He was clearly manager until after the Sunderland game. They sacked him afterwards. So they were in 6th position when he was sacked. Now, if you've got any evidence that they did sack him before the game, and Citeh and Hughes came up with the pretty much unprecedented decision to let a sacked manager take charge of a game after he'd been sacked, then do offer it.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:59 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: Mark Hughes insists he did not find out he was going to be sacked as manager by Manchester City until after Saturday's thrilling 4-3 victory over Sunderland. Pre-match speculation suggested Hughes would be axed, while new boss Roberto Mancini was said to be in the crowd. "Notwithstanding media coverage to the contrary, I was given no forewarning as to the club's decision," said Hughes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/footbal ... 423054.stm So Mark Hughes was lying about being sacked before the Sunderland game? Even though he was sacked he went and stood on the sidelines and pretended to be the Citeh manager? What a stupid tvvat you are. He was clearly manager until after the Sunderland game. They sacked him afterwards. So they were in 6th position when he was sacked. Now, if you've got any evidence that they did sack him before the game, and Citeh and Hughes came up with the pretty much unprecedented decision to let a sacked manager take charge of a game after he'd been sacked, then do offer it. You are either gullible, a stubborn twat or just a cunt. Probably all three, to be fair, but anyway. You seem to forget (or not know) that I have quite a few contacts inside of the club. All the players and the manager knew before the game. In fact, it was Mark Bowen who had actually got wind and informed them. The club wanted to wait till after the game but the cat was out of the bag. I don't care what the official line was at the time. It was even written all over his face at the final whistle. People have even gone on record saying what a great man it made him that he carried on and took charge of the team that afternoon despite knowing his fate. I was at the ground and nearly everyone in the place knew that he had been sacked. Even if you don't believe any of that, and you are far too stubborn to do so, one thing even you cannot dispute is that the club made the decision before the game whether you believe he knew it or not. It is a cast iron fact that the final decision to sack Hughes was made when we were 8th in the league. Dispute it all you want, it doesn't change any of the real issues here. He took over a team that had finished 9th. When the decision was made to wield the axe, we had climbed one place for a grand sum of £175 million and managed 4 away wins out of 27. Oh, and it isn't unprecedented. Tony Book and Malcolm Allison were sacked in the Autumn of 1980. Peter Swales asked Tony Book to remain in charge though until a replacement was found, and he did.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: Mark Hughes insists he did not find out he was going to be sacked as manager by Manchester City until after Saturday's thrilling 4-3 victory over Sunderland. Pre-match speculation suggested Hughes would be axed, while new boss Roberto Mancini was said to be in the crowd. "Notwithstanding media coverage to the contrary, I was given no forewarning as to the club's decision," said Hughes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/footbal ... 423054.stm So Mark Hughes was lying about being sacked before the Sunderland game? Even though he was sacked he went and stood on the sidelines and pretended to be the Citeh manager? What a stupid tvvat you are. He was clearly manager until after the Sunderland game. They sacked him afterwards. So they were in 6th position when he was sacked. Now, if you've got any evidence that they did sack him before the game, and Citeh and Hughes came up with the pretty much unprecedented decision to let a sacked manager take charge of a game after he'd been sacked, then do offer it. You are either gullible, a stubborn twat or just a cunt. Probably all three, to be fair, but anyway. You seem to forget (or not know) that I have quite a few contacts inside of the club. All the players and the manager knew before the game. In fact, it was Mark Bowen who had actually got wind and informed them. The club wanted to wait till after the game but the cat was out of the bag. I don't care what the official line was at the time. It was even written all over his face at the final whistle. People have even gone on record saying what a great man it made him that he carried on and took charge of the team that afternoon despite knowing his fate. I was at the ground and nearly everyone in the place knew that he had been sacked. Even if you don't believe any of that, and you are far too stubborn to do so, one thing even you cannot dispute is that the club made the decision before the game whether you believe he knew it or not. It is a cast iron fact that the final decision to sack Hughes was made when we were 8th in the league. Dispute it all you want, it doesn't change any of the real issues here. He took over a team that had finished 9th. When the decision was made to wield the axe, we had climbed one place for a grand sum of £175 million and managed 4 away wins out of 27. Oh, and it isn't unprecedented. Tony Book and Malcolm Allison were sacked in the Autumn of 1980. Peter Swales asked Tony Book to remain in charge though until a replacement was found, and he did.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:15 pm  

D.D. wrote:

You are either gullible, a stubborn twat or just a cunt. Probably all three, to be fair, but anyway.

You seem to forget (or not know) that I have quite a few contacts inside of the club. All the players and the manager knew before the game. In fact, it was Mark Bowen who had actually got wind and informed them. The club wanted to wait till after the game but the cat was out of the bag. I don't care what the official line was at the time. It was even written all over his face at the final whistle.

There's a huge ****ing difference between knowing you're going to be sacked but still carrying on until the official announcement and being sacked before the game and going through a charade of pretending you're still manager when you're already sacked.

I remember exactly what happened that day from the BBC Live updates. There were huge rumours that Mancini was at the ground to watch the game but these were never confirmed that day. But Hughes still went through his duties that day and was sacked after the game. The Sunderland match was clearly his final match in charge, and after that game Citeh were 6th.

To try and claim that because Citeh made the decision the week before and they were in 8th position, that means when Hughes left they were in 8th is just ridiculously absurd. You're only doing that to paint Hughes's reign in the worst light.

You'd have to be as dumb as you to buy that dumb 5hit though.

People have even gone on record saying what a great man it made him that he carried on and took charge of the team that afternoon despite knowing his fate.

Because it was ****ing ridiculous the way Citeh had handled the situation.

And again, knowing your fate isn't the same as actually being sacked.

I was at the ground and nearly everyone in the place knew that he had been sacked.

WAS GOING TO BE SACKED

Even if you don't believe any of that, and you are far too stubborn to do so, one thing even you cannot dispute is that the club made the decision before the game whether you believe he knew it or not.

Of course they made the decision before the game. They may have made it the week before, they may have made it before they even bought the club. It doesn't matter when they decided, because up until that point they could have always changed their mind if Hughes had done enough to change their minds.

Does Benitez's reign end when the Liverpool board were tapping up Klinnsman in your mind? Because to everyone else he was in charge until he was finally fired. But obviously the DD world operates under different parameters.

It is a cast iron fact that the final decision to sack Hughes was made when we were 8th in the league.

It's a cast iron fact that when Hughes was sacked Citeh were in 6th place in the league. When the decision actually took place is a matter of conjecture as the MCFC board aren't likely to go public with the precise moment they decided that Hughes definitely had to go.

Dispute it all you want, it doesn't change any of the real issues here. He took over a team that had finished 9th. When the decision was made to wield the axe, we had climbed one place for a grand sum of £175 million and managed 4 away wins out of 27.

After 6 games you were probably in the top 2 as you'd won 5 and lost 1 game. Citeh then went on a disastrous drawing spree which probably cost Hughes his job. Obviously drawing so many games saw your league placing slide, so why do you arbitrarily decide that it's the lowest position that Hughes should be judged on? After this weeks games Citeh could be 2nd or 6th, if Citeh fall to 6th are you going to want Mancini to go as well as he's offered no improvement whatsoever to the side, even though he's got massively superior players in the side now?

Oh, and it isn't unprecedented. Tony Book and Malcolm Allison were sacked in the Autumn of 1980. Peter Swales asked Tony Book to remain in charge though until a replacement was found, and he did.

Book and Allison weren't joint managers though, were they? Allison was the manager, Book probably the assistant or a coach. Book was given a role as caretaker until a permanent manager could be found. That's normal. Sacking a guy and then having him take charge of a final game is normal only to complete and utter retards like you.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:22 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

SNIP

Agree with pretty much all of that. To suggest that Hughes would have managed the team that day having already being sacked is comedy. Why would he work for free? He's a highly paid football manager who gives mulit-millionaire owners free games? No chance. He knew the writing was on the wall but there is no way he was sacked before the game.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:41 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

There's a huge ****ing difference between knowing you're going to be sacked but still carrying on until the official announcement and being sacked before the game and going through a charade of pretending you're still manager when you're already sacked.

I remember exactly what happened that day from the BBC Live updates. There were huge rumours that Mancini was at the ground to watch the game but these were never confirmed that day. But Hughes still went through his duties that day and was sacked after the game. The Sunderland match was clearly his final match in charge, and after that game Citeh were 6th.

To try and claim that because Citeh made the decision the week before and they were in 8th position, that means when Hughes left they were in 8th is just ridiculously absurd. You're only doing that to paint Hughes's reign in the worst light.

You'd have to be as dumb as you to buy that dumb 5hit though.

Because it was ****ing ridiculous the way Citeh had handled the situation.

And again, knowing your fate isn't the same as actually being sacked.

WAS GOING TO BE SACKED

Of course they made the decision before the game. They may have made it the week before, they may have made it before they even bought the club. It doesn't matter when they decided, because up until that point they could have always changed their mind if Hughes had done enough to change their minds.

Does Benitez's reign end when the Liverpool board were tapping up Klinnsman in your mind? Because to everyone else he was in charge until he was finally fired. But obviously the DD world operates under different parameters.

It's a cast iron fact that when Hughes was sacked Citeh were in 6th place in the league. When the decision actually took place is a matter of conjecture as the MCFC board aren't likely to go public with the precise moment they decided that Hughes definitely had to go.

After 6 games you were probably in the top 2 as you'd won 5 and lost 1 game. Citeh then went on a disastrous drawing spree which probably cost Hughes his job. Obviously drawing so many games saw your league placing slide, so why do you arbitrarily decide that it's the lowest position that Hughes should be judged on? After this weeks games Citeh could be 2nd or 6th, if Citeh fall to 6th are you going to want Mancini to go as well as he's offered no improvement whatsoever to the side, even though he's got massively superior players in the side now?

Book and Allison weren't joint managers though, were they? Allison was the manager, Book probably the assistant or a coach. Book was given a role as caretaker until a permanent manager could be found. That's normal. Sacking a guy and then having him take charge of a final game is normal only to complete and utter retards like you.

We can argue till we are blue in the face. The decision to sack him was taken when we were 8th in the league. Fact! I'm not wrong here and I can't be arsed arguing the point any further.

This has all deflected away from the real argument though and that was that he was not good enough and that we made the right decision. He wasted £175 million on players who were clearly not good enough, his tactics were strange to say the least, his individual man-management skills were poor, we were defensively hopeless and we couldn't win away for toffee, all thing that you are now completely overlooking, just for the sake of pedanticism.

Hughes DID know the decision had been made to dispense with his services, but carried on out of his respect for his players. Sounds ridiculous to me too, to be fair, but people I know who work/play for the club assure me this is true.

As for Book and Allison, Book was the General Manager and Allison, the Team Manager. Book was sacked along with Allison but was asked to look after team affairs until a successor was found. Look on You Tube, City Documentary 1981 Part 2 of 6 and it's all in there.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:08 pm  

D.D. wrote:

We can argue till we are blue in the face. The decision to sack him was taken when we were 8th in the league. Fact! I'm not wrong here and I can't be arsed arguing the point any further.

Who gives a ****ing toss about when the decision is made?

Jose Mourinho had clearly made the decision to leave Porto and Inter before the Champions League finals. Does that mean that he hasn't actually won the CL, as he knew he was going elsewhere afterwards?

Of course not. It's absurd to suggest that the real final placing for Hughes's reign is 8th. No one apart from you is going to suggest that. Everyone else knows that Citeh were 6th when he was fired.

This has all deflected away from the real argument though and that was that he was not good enough and that we made the right decision. He wasted £175 million on players who were clearly not good enough, his tactics were strange to say the least, his individual man-management skills were poor, we were defensively hopeless and we couldn't win away for toffee, all thing that you are now completely overlooking, just for the sake of pedanticism.

This is what I wrote in my first post on this matter:

Mancini is a better, more experienced manager than Hughes. Citeh have probably been justified in replacing Hughes with Mancini. But to say Hughes was making a pigs ear of the job is just ridiculous.

Citeh have definitely wasted money, and they will continue to waste money simply because of the position they are in.

Strange tactics - that's possibly true. I definitely haven't watched enough of Citeh to comment. But even with the Citeh games you watch, even with the benefit of "club insiders" patting you on the head with bull5hit stories, you still don't know whether Hughes's tactics were at fault or whether it was the dreadful performance of the players which made good tactics look bad. Even the very best managers occasionally look clueless because of the mickey poor play of their players.

Man-management skills. Maybe he was poor in that regard. Or maybe he was good, but let down by some whining tvvats who didn't like being left out of the side? Is Mancini a poor man manager because Tevez is whining about quitting? It is clearly a difficult job to be a manager of Citeh in a time when they've switched from being a mid-table team to the biggest spending club in the world. It's difficult for a manager to cope when everyone knows you're possibly for the chop because you weren't who the new owners appointed. The position that Hughes was in is different to the one Mancini has, because he is clearly their man and he also has the benefit of 3 (?) Serie A titles behind him. A tvvat of a player could take the pi55 out of Hughes, he simply can't do the same with Mancini.

Hughes DID know the decision had been made to dispense with his services, but carried on out of his respect for his players. Sounds ridiculous to me too, to be fair, but people I know who work/play for the club assure me this is true.

A N Other telling you that you're going to get fired very soon is completely different from a couple of board members sitting down with you and saying they're dispensing with your services.

If Hughes walked out on Citeh before the Sunderland game Citeh could have turned round, said that it was just a media fabrication that Mancini was due to take over, sacked Hughes with cause and probably refused to pay him out. Hughes stayed because it put him in the best position for ££££££ when they did turf him out.

As for Book and Allison, Book was the General Manager and Allison, the Team Manager. Book was sacked along with Allison but was asked to look after team affairs until a successor was found. Look on You Tube, City Documentary 1981 Part 2 of 6 and it's all in there.

Everyone in football knows that the team manager position is the one that matters. General Manager, Director of Football, even assistant managers are pretty much irrelevant compared to a team manager. Fair enough that Book was GM, fired, and accepted the role of caretaker until a full time replacement was found. That's a world away from sacking a manager and then having him stay on while you found someone else.

Re: The Football Chat Thread : Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:46 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Of course not. It's absurd to suggest that the real final placing for Hughes's reign is 8th. No one apart from you is going to suggest that. Everyone else knows that Citeh were 6th when he was fired.

I said right from the first query that the actual technical, official axe fell when we were 6th. It's just that the decision was made when we were 8th, so that was what the sacking was based on. That's the issue here. The whole discussion about the reasons he went. If the reasoning was based purely on league positioning, then it was when we were 8th that the decision was made. You might not think it's significant when the decision was made. That's your look out.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Citeh have definitely wasted money, and they will continue to waste money simply because of the position they are in.

There is wasting money and there is squandering £175 million

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

even with the benefit of "club insiders" patting you on the head with bull5hit stories,

And what qualifies you to know whether they are bullshit or real? From all those miles away, you know best about people you have never met. Do me a favour and fuck off will you? You haven't got a clue what you are talking about here, so don't profess to.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Is Mancini a poor man manager because Tevez is whining about quitting?

He's whined about being homesick. Any talk about quitting seems to have come from the press' spin on things rather than anything else.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

A tvvat of a player could take the pi55 out of Hughes, he simply can't do the same with Mancini.

Clearly, and that was part of the problem.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

A N Other telling you that you're going to get fired very soon is completely different from a couple of board members sitting down with you and saying they're dispensing with your services.

Depends on who AN Other is and who told AN Other.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

If Hughes walked out on Citeh before the Sunderland game Citeh could have turned round, said that it was just a media fabrication that Mancini was due to take over, sacked Hughes with cause and probably refused to pay him out. Hughes stayed because it put him in the best position for ££££££ when they did turf him out.

So we accept that he knew then?

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Everyone in football knows that the team manager position is the one that matters. General Manager, Director of Football, even assistant managers are pretty much irrelevant compared to a team manager. Fair enough that Book was GM, fired, and accepted the role of caretaker until a full time replacement was found. That's a world away from sacking a manager and then having him stay on while you found someone else.

So sacking a general manager and then having him stay on while you find someone else, is totally different than sacking someone of a slightly different position then having him stay on while you find someone else? Er. Eh? Either way, he's been sacked and he won't be there after the new man is coming in, so it ain't exactly that different is it?