Mark Hughes Finally Speaks Out On Fulham & Villa

[White Noise]

Mark Hughes exclusive: Why I quit Fulham and didn't join Villa


Published 22:10 21/10/11

By Oliver Holt



Mark Hughes left Fulham because he felt the club lacked ambition, he has revealed.

Hughes guided the south-west London club to eighth in the Premier League last season, but then quit in the summer.

His exit after just one season in charge caused dismay and anger among Fulham fans, and it was widely assumed he had quit because he thought he was going to replace Gerard Houllier at Aston Villa.

"The assumption was that I was jumping ship because I had another job to jump into," said Hughes. "People assumed I was hoping to get the Villa job, but that was never the case. It was never there for me.

"It was a point in time where I felt my ambition for where I wanted to take the club was not matched.

"Historically, Fulham was a club that was happy to be in the Premier League and that was their ambition, but it was not my ambition for them.

"I felt Fulham were probably a little bit too honest with me. In conversations, they were saying, 'We know exactly what you're about Mark, but, really, we are just quite happy to stay in the Premier League.'

"The offer was there for me to stay and if I had seen the next two years were going to be steady progression and they wanted to establish themselves in the top 10, then I would have signed it. But I didn't really get that feeling.

"There were players that I wanted to sign for the club and those negotiations weren't going well. I had given them a couple of names and I saw a slowing down of the process.

"They were saying, 'We will do it' and 'We're speaking' and I read that as the fact that maybe they didn't want to do these deals.

"I read that as maybe they didn't want to take the club and keep them in the top half of the Premier League - which was my ambition."

There was a clause in Hughes' contract which permitted either him or or Fulham to terminate his deal without penalty on one day - June 1, 2011.

As the date grew nearer, the former Wales boss realised he did not want to commit himself to a longer contract and decided it would be best to "shake hands and walk away".

"Fulham have been a team that is traditionally middle to lower," Hughes said. "My view was that with a little bit of investment and little bit of longevity in terms of my tenure, they could be middle to top half.

"If you are middle to top half, then you are playing games of significance for all the right reasons not games of significance because you are in the s**t and you need to get out of it which is not an enjoyable experience.

"Yeah, it gets the emotions going but you don't want to be involved in all that. You want to be battling against the big boys but trying to establish yourselves and have a real go.

"Danny Murphy is a fantastic player and he was great for me last year but he is not getting any younger and his influence on the team is huge.

"He knows and everyone knows that at some time in the near future he will have to be replaced and to replace his input, that will have to be a quality player.

"That costs money and they haven't got that. If you haven't got that within the building, you are going to have to spend money.

"My worry was that maybe the team would go off the side of a cliff, which wasn't something I wanted to be involved in."



Read more: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Mark-Hughes-exclusive-Why-I-quit-Fulham-and-did-not-become-Aston-Villa-manager-article817644.html#ixzz1bSdZcuvp

[Lighthouse]

Hardly saying anything we hadn't already figured out for ourselves. I would have thought it would be better to fight for progression within a club that he says lacked ambition then just to walk away.

However I have shared his view about the club and indeed the ambition of some of our fans. The difference is as fans we can disagree and still support Fulham. I am not sure Hughes did himself any favours by hitching up his skirts and flouncing off into unemployment. I liked him as manager but fail to see the good of him going. Silly man.

[White Noise]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/clubs-reluctance-to-buy-players-is-why-i-walked-out-on-fulham-2374131.html




Club's reluctance to buy players is why I walked out on Fulham


Hughes believes his ambitions were not matched at the Cottage



By Sam Wallace


Saturday, 22 October 2011


Mark Hughes with Fulham owner Mohamed al-Fayed




When Mark Hughes walked away from Fulham on 1 June the assumption was that he had a new job lined up. But Hughes says that it was Fulham's reluctance to build on his eighth-place finish last season that convinced him he had to leave.


The 47-year-old looked a shoo-in to replace Gérard Houllier at Aston Villa but he says that was never on the cards. Instead he decided to take his chance on the job market with a record that includes a sixth-place finish with Blackburn in 2005-2006. At three clubs, Hughes has only once finished outside the top 10 and that was his first season at Blackburn, when he took over five games into the campaign.

In the run-up to 1 June, Hughes became aware that attempts to sign new players at Fulham were not progressing well. "I had given them a couple of names and I saw a slowing down of the process," he says. "They were saying 'We will do it' and 'We're speaking' and I read that as the fact that maybe they didn't want to do these deals. I read that that maybe they didn't want to keep the club in the top half of the Premier League which was my ambition. There was the date of 1 June and the closer it got, the less inclined I was to sign it [the contract] because it would have meant me committing further than the one year I had left. I was feeling real concerns in terms of age and the guys that would have to be replaced to keep the level the same. In the end I came to the conclusion it would be better just to shake hands and walk away."

The 1 June clause in Hughes' agreement with Fulham allowed both parties a 24-hour window in which to part company without any terms. Hughes admits he was fortunate to be sufficiently financially secure to take it. Having "compromised" at Manchester City, he was not prepared to do so again. "Fulham have been a team that is middle to lower. My view was that with a little bit of investment ... they could be middle to top half. Then you are playing games of significance for all the right reasons, not because you are in the poo and you need to get out, which is not an enjoyable experience. Yeah, it gets the emotions going but you don't want to be involved in all that. You want to be battling against the big boys.

"When I left Blackburn, my reputation was high. When I left City, I took a few knocks but in the end I think people realise I did a decent job there. I took a chance going to Fulham and I had to replicate what Roy [Hodgson] had done and he had done remarkably well. We turned it round after Christmas because of how I work and how my team works. So I restored my reputation by getting back up to eighth. But I just felt there was a danger that you go to the other end and you are perceived as another British manager. "British manager" seems to have a certain label to it that you are OK to keep teams in the Premier League and you are middle to average but nothing better than that."

Hughes has been taking intensive lessons to improve his Spanish. "Are you going to get the right job in Portugal or Spain?" he says. "No, you're not. But if you do have a go, there is not so much of a glass ceiling and you might get an opportunity to pick up a top club, which is more difficult here."

[Mr Fulham]

Ok, it's official now: Our club lacks ambition.


But where's the news? Get Coat gif

[White Noise]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/fulham/8842320/Fulham-did-not-match-my-ambitions-reveals-Craven-Cottage-clubs-former-manager-Mark-Hughes.html


Fulham did not match my ambitions, reveals Craven Cottage club's former manager Mark Hughes


Mark Hughes has revealed that he left Fulham this summer because the club's ambition was limited to Premier League survival.


Parting of the ways: Fulham owner Mohamed Fayed and his former manager Mark Hughes Photo: GETTY IMAGES

By Jason Burt


11:59PM BST 21 Oct 2011


Speaking for the first time about his decision to activate a break clause in his contract on June 1, Hughes insisted that he did not do so because he was planning a move to another job.

"I had the means to take the decision at Fulham based on my principles," he said. "I said when I left Manchester City that I didn't want to compromise myself in terms of decisions that I made. If I had re-signed [at Fulham] I felt I would have compromised myself.

"The assumption was that I was jumping ship because I had another job to jump into.

"People assumed I was hoping to get the Aston Villa job but that was never the case."

Instead he left for other reasons.

"I felt my ambition for where I wanted to take the club was not matched," Hughes explained. "Historically, Fulham was a club that was happy to be in the Premier League and that was their ambition but it was not my ambition for them.

"In conversations, they were saying, 'We know exactly what you're about Mark but really we are just quite happy to stay in the Premier League'."

[RidgeRider]

or another way to say we lack ambition is we won't spend big dollars on players or pay them big wages.  Our way to success is probably either the Hodgson way or the Jol way. Journeyman players who are good enough with a few good finds in Europe or rebuilt with younger/cheaper European based players to grow into a team that will likely see some of them taken away and some not pan out.....by the way I do realize Ruiz wasn't cheap in terms of transfer fee or a third theory is perhaps MAF didn't trust Hughes' instincts on building a team and our lack of ambition was about the manager in charge.

Agreed with the other posts....even you Beamer!  :54:

[ImperialWhite]

Lacking ambition = not spending money you don't have.

When we're selling out every week (and not discounting tickets), with increased capacity, then we can try and push on. As it is though, we're barely breaking even. 'Showing ambition' isn't good for us and isn't good for football.

Would be good to see Hughes get a job in Spain (why does he mention Portugal when asked about his Spanish lessons, when they speak Portuguese?). As we've seen with Roy, it's no bad thing for a British manager to work abroad.

[Logicalman]

Just cos Sparky had a massive war chest at Citeh (and STILL managed to spend loads with little result), he thinks success is ONLY bought with wads of it.

Sorry Sparky, a Good manager finds the best players to sign, a GREAT manager actually blends players into a winning side. You failed the latter test, even given unlimited funds. Hopefully the door didn't hit you on the way out, I wouldn't want to damage the door!!   :59:

[AlFayedsChequebook]

If Hughes thought he was 'compromising his values' then I am even more glad he is gone.

He must know how the premier league works - the winner is sorted from the teams that spend the most money, which only a few clubs can afford to do. He had a crack at that and failed miserably.

I am happy with the way the club is run. 'Pushing on' or expressing 'ambition' would be the demise of Fulham, we would have to spend so much just to compete with what is now an entrenched top 6 that it really is not worth it. We are a small club, something we should revel in, not be embarrassed about

[sunburywhite]

Or maybe seeing that Kia Joorabchian is also Hughes agent perhaps the club thought every player Hughes bought would be a player that Joorabchian had an interest in, therefore any deal would be as straight as a nine bob note

[MJG]

We are a club which loses money almost every season, we have a budget, its not football manager where you edit the budget and spend what you like.
I always said he felt being with us was a short gap or beneith him, I think he's just proved that. The ambition of the club is to stay in business in the prem. Anyone who thinks we can challenge for top six without fecking the finances and club up, lives in a dream world.

[ffcwickford]

Hughes doesn't understand that football is a business and if you want to stay in business you need to be financially viable! A lot of clubs are going to be in financial doo-doo if the Premier League TV rights can't be sold at an ever spiralling upward price. If the recession continues and indeed gets worse household budgets will be squeezed further and Sky's subscriber base may fall significantly unless it reduces the cost. This may lead to the next round of negotiations being at a lower overall bid, meaning club income from TV rights will be reduced - bankers may then be no longer happy to extend overdraft facilities and therefore bankroll transfers and salaries on perceived future income. I think clubs in the leagues below the Premier League are already at this point and some in the Premier League will feel the cold steel of this blade very shortly. Our Club is increasingly looking to buy young British/European talent - it's cheaper and weekly salaries are much lower - because we know the writing is on the wall! Those that buy beyond their means with high relative transfer fees and salaries are falling into the trap that Leeds United did all those years ago and have taken an age to recover from - Stoke City be warned, as I feel you are the next Leeds United!

[White Noise]

I can't believe that wasn't what Fulham also said to him when he joined - hence the clause.

He makes it seem like Fulham changed their position and went back on things they had promised.

Should have kept your gob shut rather than confirming your idiocy.

[ScalleysDad]

Rather than quosh the whole conspiracy theory or accept the parting of the ways as inevitable I would have to say that this is more perplexing business from the top office. The 'actual' contract was rather naff with an easy out thus implying Hughes was never considered a long term option. However the Club allowed him to deconstruct the back room and flood the ranks with coaches with limited cv's. I'm not a Jol apologist but he did inherit a royal mess.

see how I actively avoided bringing a cock into the equation .................... 

[sipwell]

Probably why Jol managed to get experienced players (Riise, Grygera), almost established players (Ruiz) and talented youngsters (Gecov, Kasami) in the team.

He was a good manager though and he gave us many entertaining afternoons (2-2 against Man U anyone?). He should however not try to publicly solicit for a (top) job on the back of Fulham.

[Berserker]

I'm abit sadden by Hughes comments. I think he must have known when he came to Fulham that we would never have the big bucks that are need to stay at the top of the Prem nowadays. I think Fulham was a stepping stone for him and it was more his agent that pushed for that clause in his contract and maybe Fulham management felt that by letting bring his own taffmafia with him he might decide to stay longer than just the year. Sparky's latest comments have put me off him even more, i really hope Jol can turn it all around and make us a good team again so we can say stuff you Mark

[mannyfrommarden]

Hughes did turn things round but the 8th position was a bit fortuitous.  What he could have done is stay and build on the improving youth situation whilst bringing in a few more talented/ experienced players.  He did make a good signing in Dembele but needed to instil a more shoot on sight policy.

[White Noise]

http://cravencottagenewsround.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/hughes-jol-etc/


Hughes, Jol, etc


October 22, 2011


rich


"Danny Murphy is a fantastic player and he was great for me last year but he is not getting any younger and his influence on the team is huge.

"He knows and everyone knows that at some time in the near future he will have to be replaced and to replace his input, that will have to be a quality player.

"That costs money and they haven't got that. If you haven't got that within the building, you are going to have to spend money.

"My worry was that maybe the team would go off the side of a cliff, which wasn't something I wanted to be involved in."

So says Mark Hughes.

Also:

"I felt Fulham were probably a little bit too honest with me. In conversations, they were saying, 'We know exactly what you're about Mark, but, really, we are just quite happy to stay in the Premier League.'

And:

"There were players that I wanted to sign for the club and those negotiations weren't going well. I had given them a couple of names and I saw a slowing down of the process.

"They were saying, 'We will do it' and 'We're speaking' and I read that as the fact that maybe they didn't want to do these deals.

"I read that as maybe they didn't want to take the club and keep them in the top half of the Premier League – which was my ambition."

This actually confirms what has been suspected (and indeed suggested by a couple of people): that Martin Jol's job is to keep Fulham in the division while getting younger and saving money.

The scope of the task can be seen by looking at the squad we have now:

Past peak (we know what the player was, we know what he is, and there's a difference)
Schwarzer
Riise
Hughes
Grygera
Murphy
Duff
Davies
Johnson

At peak (what we're seeing now is the best the player is going to be)
Kelly
Hangeland
Baird
Senderos
Sidwell
Etuhu
Dempsey
Zamora

Not yet peaked (we don't yet know what the player might become)
Briggs
Gecov
Fri
Kasami
Sa
Ruiz
Dembele

There is a growing realisation in the game that you have to bring through your players if you're to get value, if you're to keep costs down.  I don't know what Matthew Briggs earns but you can bet your life it's less than John-Arne Riise, and the performance gap isn't huge; a club that can bring more Briggs' through rather than paying for more Riise's will be in a better position than one that must consistently pay big transfer fees, signing bonuses and wages.

The other element, one which Fulham have been awful at for a while now, is resale value.  The marketable players are in the bottom two groups, but these are the players we want to keep hold of.   If the club wants to raise any money from transfer sales, there isn't a great deal of time left to do so.  In fact you could argue that there is no time left: the only players who might command a half-decent fee after this season are in the bottom group (with Dempsey and Zamora thrown in, although the former's contract doesn't have forever to run, and Zamora's form means his value will never be higher.  If the club can get money for Johnson they probably should).

Further to this, beyond the need to balance the books and bring in money while it's still possible, is Jol's own preference for a different type of player.  I sense that he's frustrated with his options and longs for a team that can play a different way.  It has been noted that the team is one of the few that doesn't operate an aggressive pressing defence, and while I don't know what other teams do, it's true that we tend to sit back in our positions and let teams play in front of us.  This can lead to us being pushed back, but without pace to transition, can lead to frustrating matches as we attempt to putt-putt our way up the field and through an already massed defence.  I suspect Jol would much prefer to play further up the pitch but our midfield isn't built for pressing all game (Sidwell could do it, but not sure about the others) and the back line isn't quick enough to play higher up the pitch anyway (pressing is almost always accompanied by a high defensive line).    So we're stuck in this neither fish nor fowl situation where the team is trying to attack from deepish positions but lacks the pace to do this really effectively.

Ambition? Well we'd all love to 'kick on' and it perhaps seems as if this is within grasp, but there's real pressure to sort things out financially and now is not the time for a death or glory spending spree.  Hughes was right to suggest that Murphy is important and needs replacing with quality, but I suspect Jol's realised that another Murphy isn't within reach and therefore will strengthen in other ways.  He wants a genuinely creative player, he wants pace; whether he gets them might depend on what he can raise in sales, which could lead to even more raised eyebrows amongst fans as relatively established players are moved on.

Or not, we'll have to see how things shake out, but this is a team in transition and it could make for an uncomfortable season. The rewards of getting this right could be exciting though.

[Senior Supporter]

When he speaks of replacing Murphy he says "That costs money, and they haven't got that". Hughes has a spend-big mentality, and it could be pointed out to him that the acquisition of Murphy did not cost big money at the time. The same can be said of Schwarzer, Brede, Hughes, Duff and Zamora, and we have managed a top ten finish twice and a Europa final in the last three years with those players. Even if Maf had given Hughes £30m I doubt it would have got us into the top six. The pity is that the regular change of managers does not help our progression at all .... so thanks a lot Mark Hughes.  :038:

[aconnecticutyankee]

God what a tool. Go learn Spanish, and when you arrive there you'll find clubs with plenty ambition and no money after their economy craters in a few years. Maybe he think he's the next manager for Barca? hahahaha. The difference between Roy and Hughes is that Roy actually built his resume over decades in many situations that would probably be "beneath" Hughes.