Why Ian Wright is wrong and Shaun may miss out on ‘contract for life’

7th March 2010

In trying to turn up the heat on City in the contract talks for Shaun Wright-Phillips, Ian Wright might have inadvertently revealed a change in policy by the club’s paymasters.

Up to now City have been prepared to pay above the going rate to attract players who might be expected to play for teams competing in the Champions League. Players like Tevez and Adebayor wouldn’t otherwise be with us, and it’s naive to pretend otherwise.

In the meantime, players already at the club who are considered part of the future, have been given improved contracts. Examples are Stephen Ireland when he was playing well last year, and Vincent Kompany earlier this season.

However, if City land a Champions League place then transfer targets and contract offers are bound to be affected. It’s no secret that Sheikh Mansour has sought to make marquee signings and he may finally get his wish if the carrot of Champions League football is on offer alongside a generous contract.

City have long been linked with Ribery, and while he may prefer sunnier Spain, the likes of the highly rated Angel di Maria and David Silva could end up on our flanks. Popular as Shaun is, he could easily find himself a squad player rather than a member of our first-choice eleven. He’s already got a battle on his hands convincing Mancini he’s better than Adam Johnson.

With Champions League football on offer, City would no longer need to pay such significantly higher wages to attract the top talent. The negotiating hand of Cook and Marwood would be strengthened when dealing with players representatives.

Added to this is the knowledge that between 2012 and 2015 Uefa will be bringing in new rules to reign in excessive spending on wages. Having squad players on hugely excessive wages could then be problematic and limit the ability to sign fresh talent.

If City fail to make the Champions League this season, then Shaun and co will have failed in the primary mission, and a substantial pay rise would be unwarranted.

Garry Cook has never disguised the fact he looks at the bigger picture, and in doing so it doesn’t make a great deal of sense to give Wright-Phillips a contract hugely better than he would get elsewhere.

Ian Wright may have felt £70k a week for the next three years is an insult to Shaun, but it’s difficult to think of another club willing to pay more. Especially when you bear in mind the last contract Spurs gave Aaron Lennon reportedly took him closer to their top earner Jermaine Defoe (£65k per week). Is Shaun really having a better season than those two? And then there’s Fabregas on less than £70k per week.

Just because City payed over the odds to secure the likes of Bridge and Toure in the past, doesn’t mean they’ll continue to do so. It may currently make for huge disparities in the dressing room, but if Johnson keeps Shaun on the bench and Ian Wright can’t come up with another club to match the City offer, then Shaun’s advisers are likely to have a tough task convincing City to up their offer.

It’s doubtful that Wright going public with outspoken comments will have gone down well in Abu Dhabi. Cook and Marwood are sure to have had the full backing of Khaldoon al Mubarak and Sheikh Mansour in whatever offer was made.

If Marwood is bringing a more hard-headed approach to contract talks, then that’s a sign of the greater professionalism which the owners have always said they would introduce. “Every deal will be judged on it’s own merits” has always been their message, and Shaun’s advisers may need to recognise that the time of excessive spending on less than the world’s best may be passing.


Incidentally, a lot of people are saying Shaun was unlucky in signing for City just prior to the arrival of Sheikh Mansour and his millions. There’s two points to make in reply to this.

Firstly, Thaksin’s regime were hardly paying peanuts in the contracts to new signings, and it’s reasonable to assume the £60k a week was better than that on offer from Shaun’s other suiters, such as Randy Lerner backed Aston Villa.

Secondly, there’s no guarantee that Shaun would have reamained on the list of transfer targets had Sheikh Mansour arrived earlier. A smaller contract at Villa or Everton might then have been the best available to Shaun and his advisors.

One final point, for someone who works in the media, Ian Wright showed a startling lack of awareness of the general mood. With the recession still biting and numerous football clubs going into administration, the practice of over-paying footballers has never been less popular.

If he wants parity with Tevez, Shaun should try firing us to a Champions League place, then establish himself in England’s starting 11 and score the winning goal in the World Cup final. Then would be a good time to start talking about a new contract!

Why beating Liverpool still wouldn’t make City fourth place favourites

19th February 2010

This Sunday’s Eastlands clash between City and Liverpool has been billed as crucial in the race for a Champions League spot, and one which Rafa Benitez can’t afford to lose. If City do win, they would be four points ahead of Liverpool and have a game in hand.

On the face of it, this would be a commanding position for Roberto Mancini – but that assumes all remaining fixtures are of comparable difficulty. As we all know, the Premier League is anything but equal and fixtures vary considerably.

Aside from whether the opposition is Chelsea or Burnley, simply playing away often seems to much for City. Therefore I’ve had a quick run through the remaining fixtures for both clubs, and predicted the likely number of points to be gained.

This is highly subjective, as no football match is entirely predictable, yet I think it clearly shows City having the tougher run-in, even saying we beat Liverpool on Sunday. I’ve put the predicted number of points after each fixture.

Liverpool:

Man City v Liverpool – 0
Liverpool v Blackburn – 3
Wigan v Liverpool – 3
Liverpool v Portsmouth – 3
Man Utd v Liverpool – 0
Liverpool v Sunderland – 3
Birmingham v Liverpool – 1
Liverpool v Fulham – 3
Liverpool v West Ham – 3
Burnley v Liverpool – 3
Liverpool v Chelsea – 0
Hull v Liverpool – 3
Total: 25
Added to Liverpool’s existing 44 points gives 69.

City:

Man City v Liverpool – 3
Chelsea v Man City – 0
Man City v Tottenham – 1
Sunderland v Man City – 3
Fulham v Man City – 1
Man City v Wigan – 3
Burnley v Man City – 3
Man City v Birmingham – 3
Man City v Man Utd – 1
Arsenal v Man City – 0
Man City v Aston Villa – 1
West Ham v Man City – 3
Man City v Everton – 1
Total: 23
Added to our existing 45 points gives 68.

By the time our fixture with Everton gets rearranged it could be a dead rubber for Everton, while West Ham could be a lot trickier if they need points to guarantee their Premier League survival. I’d still go for four points from these two fixtures combined.

This shows that while our destiny is in our own hands, we are still going to need to put in some big performances and win some of our tough home games against Spurs, United, Villa and Everton. At the same time, there’s no room for results like the defeat to Hull.

Doing the same thing for Villa produced 67 points, so they’re still big players in the race. Tottenham on the other hand look least likely with a triple header against Arsenal, Chelsea and United likely to do for them.

One final point, doing the same predictions for the top three gave Chelsea 84 points with United and Arsenal both on 82. No wonder Arsene Wenger was so upset about losing to United and Chelsea the other week. The Gunners have by far the easiest run-in and could be worth a flutter if you’re that way inclined.

  • What do you think of the predicted totals? (I’m prepared for a great deal of disagreement on something so subjective)

Are play-offs for a Champions League place a good idea?

16th February 2010

News has emerged that the Premier League is considering a play-off system for the fourth Champions League place. This is a fascinating idea for those who want to see a break up of a ‘top four’ which has been formed on the back of Champions League participation.

The idea is to have the 4th to 7th placed teams in the league play off for the final Champions League place. This is the one that currently requires playing a qualifier to gain entry to the group stages.

There are a number of issues raised by the idea and it’s worth spelling them out:

How would it work?

This is yet to be decided, but the sensible method would be that employed by the Football League. The 4th and 5th placed teams could play the 7th and 6th respectively over two legs, with the higher placed teams having home advantage for the second leg. The final could then be played at Wembley.

Would Wembley want another play-off final?

You bet they would. With the cost of building the stadium to be paid off, they’re desperate for revenue generating fixtures. That’s why the FA Cup semi-finals are played there.

What about the Europa League places?

At present few in the Premier League really care about the Europa League. Personally I’d rather have good runs in the domestic cups which have the extra excitement of single legs and less seedings. However that’s a separate issue. It would make sense to give the losing finalist the Europa League place. If there’s two Europa League places up for grabs then there could be a Wembley play-off between the other two teams (a third place play off in effect). The only problem with that would be maintaining supporter enthusiasm. Who knows, maybe the Europa League will be turned into something attractive in the next few years.

When would it happen?

It could only come into place after the new TV deal has run it’s course in three years time. By this time, Platini’s plans to limit club spending would be in place. These rules will greatly reduce the chance of clubs outside the top four breaking in, as they would likely be banned from spending the same amount as those already in the Champions League. In this respect the play-offs could arrive just in time to save the competitive nature of the Premier League.

Are the benefits of Champions League football that great?

Yes, Uefa have just tried to play down the financial divide that is created by the Champions League in claiming it’s revenue “represents a small part, 8–13%, of Manchester United’s, Chelsea’s, Arsenal’s and Liverpool’s total turnover“. This is misleading as clubs participating in the Champions League are able to raise their global profile, thereby attracting more fans and higher paying sponsors. As City have found out, top players won’t join a club they don’t believe can get into the Champions League. Opening up access to the Champions League, may make better players more attainable for a wider number of teams. The benefits of Champions League football are huge.

Would clubs cope with the extra fixtures?

These games would be guaranteed sell-outs with large TV interest. With that amount of bonus revenue, clubs will find a way of coping with the extra fixtures. It need only be a maximum of three games each, however it could cause a headache for a team also involved in other cup finals.

Shouldn’t the Champions League be just for the Champions, rather than the 7th placed team?

Get real, the Champions League has long since stopped being just for Champions, and is never going to go back. Champions League is just a brand name – it’s not for Champions and it’s not a league. Liverpool have won it without ever being Premier League champions and also qualified after having finished 5th. The 7th placed team are unlikely to win the competition, but the point is giving other teams the chance of competing in what is in effect a European super league.

Will it inject some competition into the Premier League?

This is the biggest advantage for supporters. Liverpool are only being challenged this season thanks, in part, to the spending of Sheikh Mansour and Randy Lerner. If Platini bans this kind of spending while increasing the popularity of the Champions League, then it could become nigh on impossible to break into the top four. Richard Scudamore knows this and that’s why he’s against Platini’s proposals. It can be argued that making the Premier League less competitive would be a good thing for Platini – it would make the Champions League more attractive by comparison, and lessen the wealth of English clubs as the Premier League’s global following diminished.

Will English clubs be less successful as a result?

Some have suggested that having a lower placed team in the Champions League would reduce the quality of the English entry. Well maybe a little, but there’s still the top three in there, and it would surely be better than having the same four entrants year after year.

What if English clubs lose a Champions League place?

England only has four Champions League places on account of the success it’s teams have enjoyed in recent years. If this diminishes, then a Champions League place could disappear. The Premier League would then have to decide whether to scrap the play-offs or offer them for the 3rd to 6th placed teams.

What about the 39th game?

That idea may have to be sacrificed, but given it’s controversy, that’s hardly a drawback.

What are the chances of it happening?

Apparently the ‘big four’ are against it – maybe they don’t like the idea of a threat to their quadopoly – but the rest of the Premier League seem in favour. Changes to the Premier League require a majority vote of 14 out of the 20 clubs, therefore it could be a goer! In addition, Uefa don’t play a role in how European places are allocated within a country. They simply allocate the number of European places available based on their co-efficients.

Will play-offs be popular with traditionalists?

Not a chance, a play-off is clearly unfair on a fourth placed side finishing with much higher points than the team finishing 7th. Yet no-one can deny the excitement that play-offs generate. No City fan who was there will ever forget Gillingham ‘99. Club owners will have pound signs in their eyes, but there is also a bonus for supporters in having less dead rubber games at the end of a season.

Would it be good for City?

There’s no doubt that Sheikh Mansour is intending City to be in the Champions League regardless. However if Platini’s new spending limits adversely affect City, then it could be useful. It’s still to early to say that Sheikh Mansour is sure to turn us into a routine top three side. Funnily enough, if it were in place this season we would currently be a lot more relaxed and gearing up for the play-offs to come.

Conclusion

Play-offs for a Champions League place may not have the all or nothing excitement of the Football League play-offs, but they could liven up the end of the season. It would be another nail in football’s coffin for the traditionalists, and mean more razzmatazz for the Premier League that loves itself.

The real issue is keeping the Premier League competitive if Platini gets his way and limits the spending of clubs wanting to play in Uefa competitions. In such a scenario, the play-offs may be essential otherwise it could be a procession for the same top four clubs year after year. Even if City were one of them, that would make Premier League fixtures a lot less exciting.

  • What’s your view on introducing play-offs to the Premier League?

Media watch: Guardian’s Daniel Taylor targets Garry Cook again

3rd February 2010

Following City’s failure to sign Fernando Gago, Madrid’s Jorge Valdano and the player’s agent have sought to point the finger of blame in City’s direction. At no point do they mention Garry Cook directly, yet it’s interesting to note how Daniel Taylor has ran another piece targetting the City chief executive.

Readers of The Guardian may well remember the “Robinho to quit City for Chelsea” articles penned by Taylor in the months following the Brazilian’s signing. Regardless of a lack of named sources these tedious articles continued to appear unremittingly through early 2009.

With Robinho having gone, the new target appears to be Garry Cook. Last week saw Taylor publish a piece saying Cook’s future was in doubt, while The Independent had an article stating how he had the backing of Sheikh Mansour and Khaldoon al Mubarak.

Cook has his critics, but he remains central to driving City forward, regardless of the odd slip of the tongue (and any journalist who takes notice of a bravura comment made at a supporters club meeting has clearly never attended such events). Ditching Cook at this time would be playing into the hands of those who want to see City fail in our ambitions.

With regard to the comments from Madrid, it makes sense for them to put some blame on City as they seek to build
bridges with an upset player. City were looking to sign Gago, who was unhappy at his lack of first team action,
earlier in January but were put off by Madrid’s astronomical valuation. It’s no secret that they’re looking to recoup some money following last summer’s transfer splash and their eyes appear to have lit up when City enquired about the Argentine.

If they hadn’t have been so greedy in the first place, the deal would have gone through, but Valdano naturally fails to mention this. It was only after failing to obtain Mariga’s work permit that City went back to Gago prepared to pay serious money, but time ran out with the 5pm deadline, even for a loan deal (which wouldn’t have satisfied Madrid’s desire for cash).

Gago’s agent doesn’t seem happy about missing out on a payday, having turned from blaming Madrid’s intransigence to City “using us”. Again, this blaming of City sounds like an attempt to appease his client.

Deadline day may not have been Football Administrator, Brian Marwood’s finest hour. Yet Taylor failed to give context, instead choosing to twist a few frustrated comments from Madrid into a piece seeking to criticise Cook. This perhaps tells us more about Daniel Taylor and who the next attempts to denigrate City are being aimed at.

Why City shouldn’t be in a hurry to loan out Robinho

26th January 2010

While many people in the media and elsewhere are busy ushering Robinho out of the country, there are legitimate questions over whether his departure is the right thing for City in this crucial season.

As a response to those wanting rid of him, here’s just a few reasons for keeping him:

  • Following his injury, he’s just starting to come back into form. While he can do nothing right in the eyes of his critics, three of his last four appearances have been good ones. In those games there’s been three assists and one goal, despite him never playing a full match.
  • He bombed at Everton, but so did Tevez, Petrov and Bellamy. It was Mancini’s biggest mistake so far to bring on Robinho instead of Benjani as a replacement for the target man Santa Cruz. Everton were exceptional that evening and it wasn’t the right moment to introduce the Brazilian, but plenty of other moments are.
  • His wayward shooting betrays a lack of confidence rather than a lack of ability. Against Scunthorpe we saw shots reminiscent of those by Tevez at the start of the season when he was coming back from injury. With his confidence back, Carlos is now cracking them in. Robinho could do the same as his poor spell in the middle of last season was sandwiched by great goals at the beginning and end of the campaign.
  • Maybe it’s the weather, maybe it’s the pitches, but as indicated above, the Brazilian played his best football last season outside of the winter months. If we’re bidding for a Champions League place and the FA Cup, then his moments of quality could be invaluable during the run-in.
  • So far this season, we’ve been lucky with the fitness of dodgy knees duo, Bellamy and Petrov. There’s no guarantee that will last. Also Bellamy can’t play two games a week, yet we’re going to need to as we work through the fixture backlog from the cup runs.
  • Our squad is starting to look weaker in attack. With Weiss loaned out, we now lack cover on the right flank. In attack Santa Cruz looks like he’ll never be fully fit, while Adebayor was in poor form before the tragedy in Angola – Mancini was able to organise the defence, but there’s no guarantee he can sort out Adebayor’s head. Petrov has never been consistent, so we could be placing an awful lot of faith in Tevez and Bellamy carrying us through a busy fixture list.
  • Mindful of our diminishing options, The Guardian report that Mancini is against Robinho going unless he gets a replacement. It’s hard to see who of similar quality is available in the last week of the January window. The Mail link us with 36-year-old Filippo Inzaghi, Juvuntus flop Amauri and Sampdoria’s Antonio Cassano (who might be ok but it’s doubtful if a deal can be done). The chances of these being an instant hit are less than that of Robinho coming good. If we do replace Robinho with Inzaghi, don’t expect me to be running down to Eastlands to chant “We’ve got Inzaghi.” in front of the Sky Sports News cameras.
  • The Guardian also add that City are conscious of how Robinho’s form could improve in the coming months as he looks to get himself into form for the upcoming World Cup. They further say that talk of his disenchantment in England is greatly exaggerated.
  • The Daily Mail report that if Robinho goes, we may keep Benjani (who is wanted by West Ham) instead. If this happens, then our transfer policy is truly madness.
  • Robinho’s desire to play for Barca or Santos has been considered disruptive, but is it? The rest of the squad are all professionals who get on with their jobs. I don’t see any let-up in the efforts of Bellamy or Tevez. Cristiano Ronaldo and Tevez both wanted to leave United, but it didn’t stop them winning the league.
  • Similarly, it’s not necessarily the case that we’d be better off without a prima donna. Are United a better team now Ronaldo has gone? I remember people saying City would be better off without Anelka and his lack of passion. We weren’t, and we missed his quality for years.
  • Even before the Robinho deal is done, the supposed first option on Santos duo Neymar and Paulo Henrique is already being dismissed by their chairman, “City want priority to buy the boys. That doesn’t bother us, since we sell to the highest bidders. If Manchester have the ability to match the offer, it is then down to the players.”

Ever since we signed him, Robinho has been continually rubbished by those want to see both him and City fail. That’s how the media works as bad news and big names make good articles in their minds. (Look at how many “demise of Liverpool” stories there were after they got knocked out of the FA Cup, and how few there were in praise of Reading).

We’re already seeing the glee with which these critics are writing Robinho’s obituary. I don’t want to give them the satisfaction and would love him to stay, see us through to a Champions League place, and pick up a trophy on the way.

One final question to ask ourselves, is how news of Robinho’s departure would be greeted by our rivals for a Champions League place. I think fans of Liverpool, Spurs and Villa would all be delighted.

  • Do you see a case for keeping Robinho? If he does go would you want a replacement, and if so, who can we realistically get?
Ever since we signed him, Robinho has been continually rubbished by those want to see both him and City fail. That’s how the media works as bad news and big names make good articles in their minds. (Look at how many “demise of Liverpool” stories there were after they got knocked out of the FA Cup, and how few there were in praise of Reading).Ever since we signed him, Robinho has been continually rubbished by those want to see both him and City fail. That’s how the media works as bad news and big names make good articles in their minds. (Look at how many “demise of Liverpool” stories there were after they got knocked out of the FA Cup, and how few there were in praise of Reading).

Why Michel Platini and not a £92.6m loss is the cause for concern at City

7th January 2010

The release of the official accounts for the year to 31 May 2009 showed Sheikh Mansour has invested £395m in the club with £305m of loans now turned into shares. The £92.6m loss was the talk of the papers, but the real concern for the City project lies in UEFA’s upcoming financial rules.

Ploughing money into City in the early years was always part of the plan for Garry Cook’s “project”. The end result should be a leading football club on the global stage, and the cost should not be greater than that of buying an already established club.

Sheikh Mansour was rumoured to have looked at Arsenal and the shares bought by Alisher Usmanov this week values the Gunners at a whopping £900m. Buying Liverpool would be a little cheaper. A Real Madrid is said to be worth around £1 billion, but can’t be sold unless the club’s members vote for a change to the constition – which is highly unlikely.

The project which Garry Cook sold to Sheikh Mansour was to buy City, who were readily available, for a relatively cheap price, then invest in players and infrastructure in a similar way to Chelsea under the early years of Abramovich.

As a result, City are constantly compared to Chelsea, though the ultimate aim of Sheikh Mansour is likely to be closer to the model of Arsenal.

On the back of sustained on-field success Arsenal saw a 38,000 capacity Highbury become oversubscribed and have been able to move to the 60,000 capacity Emirates which they now fill. The huge match day revenues combine with Champions League money, Premier League money, and associated global commercial activities to make the club self-financing. This is also maintained by the emphasis on bringing through young players.

Abramovich is trying a similar policy with young players through the work of Frank Arnesen. It’s yet to bear fruit as the players haven’t been good enough, and he also has the problem of not being able to increase the capacity of Stamford Bridge.

Given time and the continued investment from Sheikh Mansour, City’s project could be a winner. The Independent claimed that Sheikh Mansour had earmarked up to £771m for our project, though goodness knows where they got that figure from.

City are in the process of buying a successful team in the short term, and are then looking to switch the emphasis to bringing through young players without need for the huge transfer spending. The fabulous track record of our Academy was a key attraction at City and it’s significance could return once the current spending spree is over.

On-field success will see Champions League income, increased commercial revenues from a global brand and increased match-day attendances. A new or expanded stadium could come into play once we have a waiting list for season tickets. This has been the case at Old Trafford and Highbury. City can’t charge London prices for tickets, so an increase in crowds would be necessary for the club to be self-financing in the long term.

Michel Platini and his new proposals for “financial fair play” are now looking like the biggest threat to City. These proposals have yet to be finalised and made public, but the talk is of clubs only being allowed to spend a percentage of their income from football related turnover. The Guardian gives details here. The 2013-14 season has been earmarked as the date for the new rules to come into play, though their has previously been talk of an additional three years before any clubs would face punishment by being excluded from the Champions League.

In the accounts just published City had turnover of £87m and operating expenses of over £120m. Turnover is set to increase, but will need to do so at incredible rate if we’re to break even in time for 2013.

For City to get their turnover up to the likes of Arsenal and Chelsea, never mind United and Real Madrid in three years would be a big ask. Maybe with the additional three years it would be possible with continued success. The pressure to get into the Champions League sooner rather than later is clearly on.

Quite possibly this was a factor in the dismissal of Mark Hughes. City may well have been on course for 6th place this season, but with a Champions League spot up for grabs and Platini’s proposals on the horizon, we need to go flat out for success now. Mancini says he can deliver it, and that’s what Sheikh Mansour wanted to hear.

As has been documented elsewhere, Platini’s ideas are full of flaws as they look to favour clubs with the highest turnovers. Rather than survival of the fittest, it looks more like a consolidation of the fattest.

As a consequence there could be a mad scramble get in the Champions League by 2013-14. The irony is that with no constraints in the meantime, a club like City would do well to spend what they can, while they can. Making big long-term signings prior to 2013 would be a priority for clubs without huge turnovers.

If we pip Liverpool to a Champions League spot this season, then a monster bid to get Torres makes even more sense.

Is Mark Hughes the man to make City a top four team and win trophies? (part three)

17th November 2009

Conclusions

Where has Mark Hughes and the best part of a couple of hundred million in transfers got us? Currently we have 20 points after 11 matches. At the same stage two seasons ago under Sven we had 22 points. Ouch!

Mark Hughes has assembled a squad of richly talented individuals. The concern is that we’re now well into his second season and there’s still little sign of the team as a whole being the sum of it’s parts.

With the quality squad we now possess, the team is resembling the Chelsea of Avram Grant more than that of Guus Hiddink, in the way it fails to shine and doesn’t quite achieve it’s goals.

It would be great if Hughes could turn things round and finally come up with a solid defence, but the amount of time it’s taking make that look increasingly doubtful. The midfield and attack is closer to where they need to be, though even there we look a long way behind Chelsea or Arsenal.

There appears to be a need for a top quality coach to take advantage of the slip by Liverpool and lead us into the top four. Hughes is very loyal to his trusted coaching team, and it’s doubtful he’s prepared to make changes.

We’ve bought quality players and they compare with those at the ‘top four’ sides. Can the same be said of the manager?

Having utilised his professionalism in the transfer market to assemble a strong squad of talented individuals has Mark Hughes served his purpose in taking us as far as he can? Would we now be better served by a better coach?

If change is needed, when is the likely time?

A number of things ought to determine the time to make a change. Obviously results are the main factor – if the team go on a bad losing run then any manager is likely to get fired.

For as long as City are in contention for fourth place, Hughes should be fine. If the team finish the season below sixth, he will be on his way. If the team finish fifth or sixth, then the situation is unclear. If future performances are like those witnessed recently then that shouldn’t be good enough.

Sheikh Mansour and Khaldoon al Mubarak appear far less trigger-happy over the firing of a manager than the likes of Peter Swales or Thaksin, so it would be a surprise if Hughes was to go during the season. However, it would be a shame if an opportunity to claim a top four spot at the expense of a struggling Liverpool was missed.

One final indication that Hughes has still to prove himself is that his contract is due to expire at the end of the season and there have yet to be any discussions over a new one.

Quality of potential replacements

Club owners are often castigated for enquiring after other managers when they already have one. After years of witnessing Peter Swales’ stewardship I was left feeling the opposite. The owner should always check out possible replacements and ensure a better manager is ready to come in before disposing of the present incumbent.

If Hughes goes mid season, the obvious candidate is Guus Hiddink. The way he galvanised Chelsea last season was hugely impressive, and he won the FA Cup to go alongside a top four finish. What City fan wouldn’t settle for that this season?

Of course the task with City is harder, even if the expectations wouldn’t initially be quite so high. Chelsea had a proven squad that needed to return to former ways, whereas this City team still needs blending for the first time.

Hiddink may be an excellent quick-fix coach, but his ability to work the transfer market is a bigger unknown.

He has spoke of his desire to return to the Premier League, and there was widespread talk that if Ancelotti crashed and burned, then Hiddink could go back to Chelsea following the current World Cup play-off fixtures. The man himself may prefer a return to Stamford Bridge but we could offer a big cheque and terrific prospects.

If results don’t improve, the spectre of Hiddink could start to loom over Mark Hughes.

An  interview with Jose Mourinho appeared in The Times this weekend saying he would like to join a Premier League club to build something special. He may have quickly backtracked on those comments before his current chairman saw them, but I’m sure his name will continue to be linked with City. Mourinho himself could have eyes on Ferguson’s retirement, but City may be able to persuade him of our qualities.

In terms of results, Mourinho is excellent. In terms of attractive football, his teams appear under instruction not to do anything that could divert attention away from the manager. The major concern could be his outspoken comments and courting of controversy. Given that one of Sheikh Mansour’s stated aims for City is to promote the good name of Abu Dhabi, then Mourinho’s ability to offend could make him to much of a risk.

If Rafa Benitez were to lose his job at Anfield, then he would inevitably be linked with any vacancy at Eastlands. His stock may be low at the moment, but his CV is still mightily impressive. Concerns about his transfer deals and the beautiful game may abound, but at least he can send out an organised, disciplined side when he’s up against it.

Given the desire for success at City, it’s doubtful whether Sheikh Mansour would look to a manager who doesn’t already have trophies on his CV. Mark Hughes was a promising young manager. If he fails, then the replacement is likely to be a proven one.

Next up in the Premier League is the battle of the under-performers when we travel to Anfield. Normally a draw would be a good result, but given how we’ve slipped down the table, a victory is required to stop the rot. Maybe the losers of that match should get on the phone to Guus Hiddink if they want to be playing in the Champions League next year.

(If you haven’t seen them already please check out ‘Part One: The good side of Mark Hughes‘, and ‘Part Two: Concerns about Mark Hughes‘)

  • What do you think?

Footnote: For those who don’t recall the managerial merry-go-round of Peter Swales, here’s a cracking example of the interview process.

Is Mark Hughes the man to make City a top four team and win trophies? (part two)

17th November 2009

Concerns about Mark Hughes

  • Man management – One thing we quickly learnt last year was Hughes didn’t have the samba style to win over our Brazilian contingent. A pre-season boot camp (which was noticably less rigorously enforced this year) is his preferred method for bonding. In fairness, he does inspire loyalty from some, notably Ireland and Bellamy, and respect from others. Bellamy in particular has always played his best football under his fellow Welshman.There’s definitely a coolness to the way Hughes goes about his job, and there’s no apparent closeness with the players. Even Ferguson is known for his arm around the shoulder moments. Harry Redknapp would surely have coaxed more out of Elano last season.There are of course different ways of managing people successfully, and no-one would dispute the effectiveness of Capello’s toughness. Generally, the tougher managers are more disciplined tactically and results focussed.If the results don’t come, then Hughes may have problems with players who don’t feel especially fond of him and his methods.
  • Defensive coaching and tactics – The big concern!Q: How do you make an average defender look good?
    A: Put him in a well drilled defensive unit.

    Q: How do you make a good defender look bad?
    A: Put him under a bad manager.

    More than any other players on the pitch, defenders are reliant on tactics and coaching to do their job effectively.

    One outstanding question is why defenders who look good under other managers, suddenly look bad under the tactics of Mark Hughes and his coaching staff. It’s not as if it’s just one player:

    Richard Dunne – Dunne and Micah Richards were an effective centre-back pairing under Sven. As soon as Hughes came in, both looked a liability. Dunne was often played out of position on the left-side, asked to play a high line, and to win one-on-ones with little cover. He was soon floundering and never recovered.

    Playing in a well drilled defensive unit under Giovanni Trappatoni, he remained a solid and reliable defender. Since moving to Martin O’Neill’s Villa, and being asked to play alongside fellow new recruits James Collins and Stephen Warnock, the Irishman has immediately returned to his best form. There’s been no need for ‘time to gel’ excuses there.

    Micah Richards looked good under both Stuart Pearce and Sven, where both managers sent him out with clear instructions and utilised his attributes. He continues to play well under Pearce and was captain of the England under-21’s at the weekend.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/international/article6917252.ece

    Under Hughes his form has collapsed to such an extent he might soon be struggling to get a place on the bench. Where once he was linked with champions Chelsea, now there’s talk of a move to Villa or Everton to rejuvenate his career. I hope he stays and fulfills his early potential, but it would be interesting to see how he performed under the tutelage of Moyes or O’Neill. Would there be a Dunne-like renaissance?

    Wayne Bridge was slaughtered for his performance against Burnley and has often been criticised for being out of position, yet surely it was the manager who told him to get forward whenever possible against Owen Coyle’s side. It was clear that Coyle was targetting the space behind him, but there appeared to be nothing coming from our bench to combat it.

    Zabaleta and Richards can both be found out of position on the opposing flank. It betrays a lack of organisation where our full-backs aren’t attacking at the right times or aren’t receiving sufficient cover when they go forward.

    It’s also worth remembering that Bridge was left-back for Chelsea during much of their 2004-05 title winning season under Mourinho.

    Joleon Lescott – A solid and reliable central defender under David Moyes who didn’t put a foot wrong against Brazil on Saturday. For City I don’t believe he’s been as bad as some people make out, though there have been mistakes. Like Richard Dunne before him, he’s now being asked to play higher up the pitch, defend a lot more of the pitch and win one-on-ones with precious little cover behind him. It’s a tall order that looks a long way from the well-drilled unit he enjoyed being part of under Moyes.

    With Fabio Capello in charge, Bridge and Lescott were England’s two best defenders against Brazil on Saturday. It begs the question of why they can keep Brazil at bay under Capello, but not Burnley under Hughes?

    Even Tal Ben Haim is a better defender than he showed in his time with City.

    Stacked up in this way, the case against our coaching team looks damning. Only Onuoha can be said to have blossomed under Hughes. Toure has done ok, but his comments as captain show he is far from happy with the overall situation.

    As soon as Hughes took over, the defence lost the organisation previously instilled by Pearce and maintained on the good days of Sven’s reign. One only has to think back to the gameplan employed by Sven in the derby at Old Trafford, stifling our opponents and taking the sting out of the game. Compare that to the desperation of the four goals conceded this season.

    Defensively, we don’t look like a team being coached by a top class manager. The situation was never properly resolved last season and, despite all the new signings, is continuing this term. Missing out on John Terry isn’t a satisfactory excuse. Martin O’Neill doesn’t have John Terry, and David Moyes didn’t have him last season.

    Going to Sheikh Mansour and asking him to buy more defenders in the next transfer window smacks of desperation. Roy Hodgson does a better job with less quality than we currently possess.

  • Offensive coaching and tactics – The number of goals scored, both this season and last, is respectable, so any criticism is made with that in mind. There is an old-fashioned English style to Hughes’ offensive tactics with the emphasis on wide players utilising the flanks, and the option of a big man up front.Elano clearly didn’t fit, and it remains to be seen whether Robinho does this season. The presence of Tevez in making two up front has forced Ireland either into a midfield pair or out of the side altogether.Tevez and Adebayor have yet to click as a pair, with both known as unreliable finishers at their previous clubs. Carlos lacks pace, while Adebayor drifts offside when asked to play as furthest man forward. However they still have enough qualities, along with Bellamy and Santa Cruz to make a powerful attack, and it is now up to Hughes to perm then in a way that works.When things aren’t going well, there has been to much emphasis on long balls, and getting the ball forward to quickly. Doing this brings us down to the level of others and has negated our technical superiority in recent matches.Ireland, Barry, Petrov, Wright-Phillips, Tevez, Adebayor, Bellamy and Robinho all do their best work with the ball at their feet. There’s no point in spending hundreds of millions to bypass this.In recent fixtures against Wigan, Burnley and even Birmingham it was noticeable that the opposition were playing the better pass and move football. Roy Hodgson’s Fulham also displayed a better understanding of one another’s movement.When he arrived, Kolo Toure was bringing the ball out of defence and instigating attacks with good short passes. Micah Richards spoke of being impressed by this aspect of Toure’s play. It was therefore demoralising to see Kolo resort to belting the ball forward against Burnley. Let’s hope good habits aren’t being coached out of him.

    It’s unfair to expect Hughes to turn City’s attacking movements into those of Arsenal overnight, but some of the tactical nous being displayed by Ancelotti would be welcome in someone who seeks to be a top class coach.

    As for Arsenal’s style of play, one might wonder how Elano would have fared under Wenger, and whether Arshavin would enjoy his current success if he were playing under Hughes – the Russian tracks back even less than the Brazilian.

  • In-game decision making – The ability to spot where things aren’t working and change them effectively during a game is a key quality for the sharpest coaches. It’s often most apparent in tournament football, where everything can be lost in a single match. The sharp eyed Venables could do it in Euro 96, while Scolari demonstrated it against England on several occasions.As mentioned previously, the failure to stop Burnley finding space down the left flank was costly in our last match. Watching Capello organise the team throughout the game against Brazil was a revelation and certainly seemed to help Wayne Bridge.Hughes isn’t afraid to make bold substitutions as the regular introduction of Petrov has shown, but game changing tactical switches are seen less often.
  • Match by match assessment – The run of draws against teams whom we look stronger than on paper has led to the start of the season being described as ‘blistering’. Sure, the victories and clean sheets were excellent, but the warning signs were also there.On the opening day, after taking the lead through Adebayor, we were indebted to Shay Given and some wayward Blackburn finishing before sealing the victory in the closing minutes.Against Wolves, we were again under pressure in the second half and wayward finishing ensured a victory. Crystal Palace also missed chances while the Carling Cup game was goalless. David Nugent missed a sitter for a Portsmouth equaliser.The team were then chasing shadows for large parts of the game against Arsenal. Next it was the derby where the controversy surrounding Michael Owen’s goal shouldn’t mask a poor performance. If it wasn’t for the individual brilliance of Craig Bellamy we wouldn’t have been level after 90 mins.All the victories had their plus points as well, they were just far from complete performances. Subsequent games have seen other teams take their chances.Recently the draw against Wigan featured the home side playing the better football, even when it was 11 against 11.From then on there’s been a steady decline with the draws against Fulham, Birmingham and Burnley. It’s difficult to imagine a team managed by the likes of Ancelotti, Wenger or Mourinho producing that sequence of performances.
  • Relationship with the Academy – The desire of Hughes to bring in his own people has proved most controversial with the Academy, which was most clearly demonstrated by Jim Cassell moving to Abu Dhabi.Nobody wants the previous success of the Academy undermined, and one would think that Cassell would be central to that. At least he is still with the club.Where it is possible to have sympathy with Hughes is in giving opportunities to younger players. While there is much talk from the owners about bringing through youngsters, there is clearly pressure on Hughes to produce results in the short term.At the top end of the Premier League, you need top quality players throughout the side, and opportunities to blood youngsters who inevitably make mistakes are few. Even in the Carling Cup, most would agree with Hughes that it’s a competition we should be trying our best to win.Hopefully if we pick up an initial trophy and get into Europe, the Carling Cup will be open to young players in future seasons.

(‘Part Three: Conclusion‘ and ‘Part One: The good side of Mark Hughes‘)

  • Do you have any other concerns with Mark Hughes?

Is Mark Hughes the man to make City a top four team and win trophies? (part one)

17th November 2009

With no Premier League games last weekend, it’s a good time to examine the qualities Mark Hughes brings to City and consider whether it looks like being enough to take City into the Champions League and win some silverware.

Firstly, we can consider the positive contributions the Welshman and his management team have made, then we can look at the areas of concern.

The good side of Mark Hughes

  • Professionalism off the pitch – One thing we repeatedly hear is how Hughes was shocked at the state of City’s training and medical facilities when he arrived from Blackburn. He pushed through an overhaul to give us top-level facilities which any galactico would be happy with. This fitted in nicely with the work of Khaldoon al Mubarak and Garry Cook in upgrading the infrastructure of the club.With his experiences of Bayern Munich, Barcelona and Old Trafford, Hughes knows what’s expected at a ‘big’ club and conducts himself accordingly. He’s similarly demanding of others and, as an example, sought to deal in-house with any waywardness from our Brazilian contingency last season.
  • Training sessions – Vincent Kompany and others described how the training is more intense and demanding under the Hughes regime than any they had previously known. Sven took a more relaxed, hands-off approach which players like Stephen Ireland have been critical of. The players certainly look fitter than they did under the latter days of the Swede.
  • Preparation – Hughes and his staff pride themselves on their organisation, and the players have spoken of the high levels of preparation in analysing opponents prior to matches. The benefit of having his trusted team around him has helped here.
  • Dealing with the media – From his time as a player, Hughes has clearly done his media training and rarely speaks out of turn. He may not be Mr Charisma but he is professional, and follows the modern path of always sticking up for his players regardless of any atrocities they may commit.As someone who was considered an up and coming British manager, it is noticeable that Hughes does curry some favour with certain elements of the press. In major interviews and features (often during pre-season and on training camps), Hughes is portrayed positively by the likes of Ian Herbert (Independent), Henry Winter (The Telegraph), Ian Ladyman and Martin Samuel (both Daily Mail).Even with the recent performances, the view of more considered journalists is that Hughes should be given time to develop ‘his team’. Whether an imported foreign coach would be shown similar goodwill after spending the money Hughes has, and being no closer to producing a solid defence or a coherent passing game, is very much debatable.
  • Transfers and squad building – It’s easy to question the value for money aspect of our transfers, but it’s difficult to see what else could be done to develop the side in a short space of time. Clubs who know we want their players quickly inflate fees. Hughes showed at Blackburn he could do well on a budget if required.Most top level players will only join big Champions League clubs, so they’ve been unobtainable for Hughes. Generally I think he’s bought the best quality available to him, even if it has meant paying over the odds.He’s been right to go for proven Premier League quality in an attempt to fast-track us into the Champions League. We now have a balanced squad with cover in most positions.There are question marks over some, such as Roque Santa Cruz, but no manager is ever perfect in the transfer market – even Arsene Wenger had his Francis Jeffers. If we discount Jo, the only truly bad one thus far has been Tal Ben Haim.Hughes is known for his thorough research of transfer targets, weighing up attitude and suitability to the Premier League, as well as ability. The squad looks tougher and more determined as a result, though a few less references to a ‘winning mentality’ would be welcome.Having established the core squad there is likely to be only a couple of signings in future windows as we seek to add quality when it becomes available. Hughes recently said how as soon as one window closes, he starts planning for the next one. This is one area where I would trust Hughes above his ‘top four’ rivals.
  • Relationship with the board – Whilst many were speculating that Hughes was a man living on borrowed time following the takeover by Sheikh Mansour, the opposite was true. Hughes’ appointment was under Garry Cook, and he has retained favour with the CEO. Even more importantly, the two of them went on to establish a positive relationship with Khaldoon al Mubarak . (al Mubarak interview here)The measured professionalism of Hughes appears to have found a kindred spirit in al Mubarak, and there has been a welcome trait of the owners to show patience with those they believe in. Sheikh Mansour clearly has an appetite for deal-making, and Hughes’ structured transfer strategy appears to have fitted in well with this.The big question now is what happens to that relationship if things don’t go according to plan on the pitch.

(‘Part Two: Concerns about Mark Hughes‘ and ‘Part Three: Conclusion‘)

  • Can you come up with additional qualities displayed by Hughes?

Can City put the pressure on Liverpool for a top four spot?

16th October 2009

City have edged ahead of Liverpool in the Premier League, and have a game in hand. With some difficult fixtures coming up for Rafa’s men, could this be the time for Mark Hughes’ side to pile the pressure on?

On current form City are looking good for a Champions League place with 16 points from 7 games. No team has ever finished outside the top four when averaging two points per game. City could lose their next fixture and still be on track.

However the top teams this season have started at a blistering pace, with Arsenal in fifth place also doing better than two points per game. Liverpool and Aston Villa are only a point off the pace, so it promises to be a terrific battle this season.

The growing wealth and talent gap between the top and bottom of the Premier League is clearly having an effect as fewer and fewer points are being dropped by the big teams. As a result consistency will be the key for City – not normally our forte.

When asked, every player and manager will trot out the familiar line about focussing on their own results and not worrying about anybody else. As every supporter can verify, looking at the results of others and their respective points total does matter.

Before the start of the season, the considered view was that Arsenal would be the most vulnerable of the ‘top four’, but their form has rebuked that argument even if they are currently fifth. Losing at Old Trafford and Eastlands is hardly a disgrace. Indeed, most neutrals thought they were the better side against United, and they were far from rubbish against City.

Instead could it be Liverpool who are looking the most vulnerable? On Merseyside they are still talking of challenging for the title, but that is their obsession. With three defeats already, they know they can’t afford any more. Yet the rest of October looks difficult.

On Saturday they go to an in-form Sunderland without Gerrard and Torres. Mascherano, Lucas and Insua are having to fly straight to the game after international matches in South America. Meanwhile Steve Bruce’s side will be full of confidence after nearly beating United at Old Trafford, and banging in five during their last home game.

On Tuesday there’s the first half of a tricky Champions League double-header against Lyon. After losing to Fiorentina, Rafa needs results and can’t afford to rest or rotate his squad.

Next weekend they host United, and after doing the double over them last season, it’s doubtful Fergie will be letting them have such an easy time of it again. October ends with a trip to Fulham, who are tricky opponents at the Cottage.

It’s possible that the title could be looking a rather distant prospect by the end of the month, and there would then be the question of how the players would react. Not everyone at Liverpool would have the same motivation for simply claiming a Champions League spot. To take one example, Javier Mascherano has openly spoken of being flattered by interest from Barcelona, and probably has distractions aplenty as captain of Diego Maradona’s Argentina.

There’s also the well-documented question of how Liverpool would cope with injuries to Torres and/or Gerrard.

In the same period City have Wigan away followed by Fulham at home and Birmingham away. Nine points insn’t beyond us, and our only other League fixture is Burnley at home before we travel to Anfield on 21 November.

The chance could be there for Mark Hughes to put some distance between ourselves and Liverpool in the coming weeks. The prospect is thrilling as the ‘big four’ are still the favourites for the Champions League places.

If Liverpool continue to slip-up and we maintain our consistency, then maybe the idea of looking only at our own results will be true afterall. I’ll probably still be keeping one eye on our rivals mind.