So, after watching/reading all that clap-trap from Hughe's Agent..

[Admin]

Fulham's ambitions weren't as great as his - meaning that we weren't prepared to spend more than we'd offered for Osvaldo (they wanted 17-20 million), a bumper transfer kitty, another 4 squad players on rediculous wages to compete with Europe and the cup competitions, possibly Bentley and from what I've heard 1st hand 'Arry' wanted either Dempsey or Hangerland in exchange for him plus 2 million and 'WE' (as in Fulham) put a stop to it straight away. A touch of the old 'spitting the dummy out' has gone on here I think..

I'm sorry, but we are Fulham not 'Citeh' and we certainly won't jump to Hughes' demands and totally break 'EVERY' rule we have in place here that has kept Fulham run 'water tight' since we've been in the Premiership. Some people may think that we don't have any ambition but we as a club grow 'slowly' behind the scenes which many supporters don't realise.

Once again, I think the club have done well here not to be 'bullied' by a so called 'big shot' who honestly thinks that he's bigger than he really is!! Good luck Hughes and I hope you honestly find that 'big opportunity' you've been searching for because when you 'fail' you wouldn't have taken Fulham with you and we'll remain 20 years later doing the things we do best..         

[WhiteJC]

my thoughts exactly, we (Fulham/MAF) wouldn't spend excessive amounts to match sparkies ambitions, therefore we're not ambitious

I wonder what would have happened if Osvaldo had signed?

[Lighthouse]

I agree, and a better manager could see how we can improve without spending tens of millions. That is surely the sign of a good manager. We can improve with luck and a manager who knows what he is doing. Ambition is more than spending money and more than staying where we are. We can hope to achieve both.

[jarv]

Clearly, a self centred, greedy bar-steward. 096.gig

[Rambling_Syd_Rumpo]

when he took the job he knew he wasn't going to stay long or even medium term,he used us,and we sort of used him,he was never Fulham.You can tell this by the fans reaction,nobodies upset,nobodies angry,he never mattered to us and we never mattered to him.

His toe rag of an agent said we never matched his ambition,the thing is we never did,we just topped up his pension.

[Admin]

my thoughts exactly, we (Fulham/MAF) wouldn't spend excessive amounts to match sparkies ambitions, therefore we're not ambitious

I wonder what would have happened if Osvaldo had signed?

Quite simply, Osvaldo would have never signed for us. He will be sold for around 20 million with a wage packet of around 70k. Hughes dream not ours!!

[Blingo]

I agree, and a better manager could see how we can improve without spending tens of millions. That is surely the sign of a good manager. We can improve with luck and a manager who knows what he is doing. Ambition is more than spending money and more than staying where we are. We can hope to achieve both.

which is pretty much what RH did isnt it?

[HatterDon]

Was Kia Alphabet his agent before we signed him? If so, what did we expect?




Moving along to Burt-land and not commenting on the past anymore.

[BalDrick]

Suspect a very nice piece of work done on this one by MAF, forcing Hughes' hand to jump. He's got himself no admirers through this - particularly like the story Villa have lost interest after seeing how he acted; that club's gone up in my estimation.

Interesting above that Syd says nobody's upset, we're just not are we? Treated shabbily by someone with no respect (typical ex United player you might say).

F**k him, he's history now. He did improve our play, but on the plus side we've got Salcido (destined for the exit), Dembele and Sidwell contracted, so even if they want out (Dembele the only likely departee I reckon, and frankly you're good mate, but only about half as good as you think you are), it'll be for money. Gera hasn't left yet (as far as I'm aware) and Lardjohnsen hasn't signed yet.

It's all good. Well most of it.

Oh and we've signed an Everton lad who Frank Bacon on t'other board was raving about the day after the kids' match.

[clintclintdeuce]

when he took the job he knew he wasn't going to stay long or even medium term,he used us,and we sort of used him,he was never Fulham.You can tell this by the fans reaction,nobodies upset,nobodies angry,he never mattered to us and we never mattered to him.

His toe rag of an agent said we never matched his ambition,the thing is we never did,we just topped up his pension.

I never sung Mark Hughes blawiarmy when I went to the matches this year, and I certianly felt that alot of people around me didnt want to sing it either. Its like he forgot his fortunes up at City. He didnt finish 8th this year, Fulham did, and FULHAM will finish higher than Hughes will next year.

[lamby]

My respect for MAF and the club grows hearing that. It would be very easy to go down the Portsmouth/Arry route and buy, buy, buy, bye!

We have a policy of our outgoings being covered by our income - so if MAF steps away we stand on our own 2 feet. MAF chucks in a few pounds every year to buy a player or 2, but the club has to cover the wages. No cover, no buy. VERY sensible and sustainable.

[b+w geezer]

If Hughes has come to the conclusion rapidily and has acted decisively for that reason, *rather than having another club lined up* -- i.e. if the hypothesis behind this thread and its responses is true -- then admirable clarity has been shown by both parties.

It would have been more admirable still if both parties had looked ahead last summer to how this situation was bound to occur and had been realistic about whether it was sustainable. It was such a rush last summer that that lack of clarity was understandable, but this time honesty and realism needs to be applied on both sides. MAF mustn't attempt to kid anyone (himself included) about what resources will be available to a manager who fulfills his brief -- as Hughes did -- and wannabe managers must be sure they are OK with that. The next guy, unless a failure, needs to be here for as long as Hodgson and Hughes combined.

The hypothesis behind this thread may also be wrong for all I know, but those thoughts about the newcomer would still stand.

[TonyGilroy]

Actually there's an alternative view that I was mulling over although I'm not sure I endorse it.

Why not get the best manager we can on a season long deal and if he wants to leave at the end so what. We look again. A bit like taking good young players on loan. Sturridge did nothing but good for Bolton last season and Hughes gave us a good season so whoever takes over has a good inheritance.

We have surely learned that a manager who does well with us will move on. Why not accept that and use it to attract the best man currently available.

When it doesn't work we can get rid cheap. 

[Blingo]

The only problem with that Mr G is that if the incoming manager has a disastrous year, then the ship will need to be stabilised, which as we all know from many years of experience is not so easy. Consistency in management is very important in my personal opinion. How many top clubs change their manager on a regular basis? (Chelsea excluded of course lol).

[TonyGilroy]

The only problem with that Mr G is that if the incoming manager has a disastrous year, then the ship will need to be stabilised, which as we all know from many years of experience is not so easy. Consistency in management is very important in my personal opinion. How many top clubs change their manager on a regular basis? (Chelsea excluded of course lol).

Picking the best available manager on a short term basis offers some reasonable hope that he won't fail and you can't have consistency if successful managers won't stay.

[HatterDon]

The only problem with that Mr G is that if the incoming manager has a disastrous year, then the ship will need to be stabilised, which as we all know from many years of experience is not so easy. Consistency in management is very important in my personal opinion. How many top clubs change their manager on a regular basis? (Chelsea excluded of course lol).

Picking the best available manager on a short term basis offers some reasonable hope that he won't fail and you can't have consistency if successful managers won't stay.

Mr. TJ, this model works well in American baseball, where the manager's role in determining who joins and leaves the squad runs from influential to inconsequential. In modern football, however, the boss is involved in getting players in who he believes will be best able to translate his particular style of football into reality. Given this situation, changing a manager every year basically ensures that there'll be a squad full of players brought in to solve a hodge podge of perceived temporary problems. "Frozen out" players like Gera/Paintsil [if you believe they were frozen out as opposed to playing themselves out of contention] expand exponentially until there's chaos and we're in the second tier.