What sort of reception will Sparky get?

[SP]

For me, it's time to call a halt to the Hughes baiting, so it'll be the silent treatment from me.  How will others welcome Sparky back at the Cottage?

[Berserker]

well even though he made a pigs ear of his time ar QPR, i kind of think he might have  had a point about Fulham's like of ambition, definitely our last season's spending seemed to be that way. Fingers crossed our ambition may kick start again next season

[..Kya.ffc..]

well even though he made a pigs ear of his time ar QPR, i kind of think he might have  had a point about Fulham's like of ambition, definitely our last season's spending seemed to be that way. Fingers crossed our ambition may kick start again next season

To be honest I'm not that keen on saying ambition is equally to how much you spend.

Ambition can come in many forms. I actually think our project (aka strategy, vision) is more ambitious than many other clubs.

Ofc, you have to spend some in order to stay competitive, and I do hope we are in it to be that - to be fair: It is a no brainer, we are in it to be that so spending some is needed.

However Sparkey definitely had a point, that we did not want to spend much as we pretty much just tried to patch up the holes and avoided a Titanic last season after some well needed cleaning. That would have made sense if we had seen a larger number of our younger players breaking the door to the first team last season than we did.
Without that, our transfer strategy from last season won't last, so we have to do better that doing loans and short term deals as they often is just keeping a club in a stalemate.

We lack investment on players that can come in to the first team, do a difference and if to be sold after a few years make a profit or recoup our expenses. With loans, players 30+ and short term deals that is highly unlikely.

So I agree with you Berserker, but I'm not keen on how the word ambition have been getting tossed around the last year.


More on topic, Hughes was an "ars" to say as he did and then join QPR, and I won't forget that. However I think he did ok for us. And in some sense I guess you can only laugh when people say we are not ambitious and the goes on as he did = look how well it went with his ambitious plan. No point in giving him that much heat.

[YankeeJim]

If he gets Stoke to play like we did in his last few months of his tenure the folks at the Britannia will love him. As selfish as he was with us, he is a decent coach. I'd say a mile better than 'o thump & long ball Pulis.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

Why should he get a bad reception at Fulham?

I don't think he brought anything good to Fulham. He overturned Hodgson's legacy and we played poorly through to the debacle against West Ham after which we returned to Hodgson's approach and recovered. Overall he fortunately did not stay long enough to do any long lasting damage.

His ambition comment and his record at QPR will opening him up to some banter but nothing much more than that.

[DiegoFulham]

Why should he get a bad reception at Fulham?

I don't think he brought anything good to Fulham. He overturned Hodgson's legacy and we played poorly through to the debacle against West Ham after which we returned to Hodgson's approach and recovered. Overall he fortunately did not stay long enough to do any long lasting damage.

His ambition comment and his record at QPR will opening him up to some banter but nothing much more than that.

I think Mark left a bigger impact then many give him credit for... i mean in my eyes he helped the development of the west london derby between ourselves and the haha's. By the end of his spell at the club we were actually attacking teams away from home for the first time in a long while and not only that we were actually bossing games away from the cottage, not forgetting he brought Moussa Dembele to the club which ironically had the same amount of loyalty to the club as Sparkless did... personally he didn't do too bad looking back, he also highlighted maybe unfairly our ambition with the amount of money which showed last season, which also highlights in my eyes how well of a job Martin did to cover the cracks...  but honestly at the end of the day i'm happy with Martin Jol instead of Hughes!!   

[RaySmith]

At the time it was thought he left Fulham  suddenly, after seeming about to sign a new contract , when thje Villa job came up - and he cited the club's lack of ambition as an excuse.

Then he presided over a QPR dressing room where  division was rife - with the new players he'd  bought in on fat contracts, being resented by the lessser paid  existing players who'd helped  the club gain promotion.
He semed to alienate people at Fulham , knocking down walls to have a bigger office than Hodgson, and bringing in his own coaching staff. Many fans also found him arrogant and not really seeming interested in Fulham, as if he thought he belonged elsewhere - at a bigger club.
There were shouts of Hughes out after a run of poor results, that left us  near the relegation zone at Christmas.

But, he finished the season on a high, after a good second half to the season, and a high finish, and fans seemed happy for him to  stay as manager. His leaving really put the club in a difficult position, having to get a new manager at short notice.

However, I don't think he is bad manager - players will respond well to success on the pitch - they will respect the manger who gets this. There are good players at stoke, and will be a budget to bring in more probably.

Well, let's see if he  really does have the managerial chops to back up his comments about Fulham not being ambitious enough. Ultimately, I suppose, it all depends on how much you spend -though spending money didn't work at QPR!-- and Stoke will probably spend enough, and have already spent a lot, to do well under a new style of play.

[General]

well even though he made a pigs ear of his time ar QPR, i kind of think he might have  had a point about Fulham's like of ambition, definitely our last season's spending seemed to be that way. Fingers crossed our ambition may kick start again next season

The question is has he done us some good by publicly stating we don't like spending money or was he being unnecessarily loud and unclassified by stating it so publicly... The reality is that he was allowed to spend and brought in players like moussa dembele and if I'm right in thinking Ruiz (who cost ten mill)... Jol has got onto that and the pressure may force the club to fork out if they hadn't planned to in the first place.

The alternative is the club has a plan and is aiming to stick to it and that mark Hughes wanted to spend an unnecessary amount of money to compete, which for me, and with Roy as proof and his time at QPR just go to show is more than just a bad excuse. It's not called " 'man'age"ment for no reason...

[JBH]

Mark who???????????

[Herbie]

It's easy to be successful as a manager if you can splash loads of cash and send out class players on to the pitch because players of above a certain quality can be game changers on their own, e.g. Berbatov.  The difficulty comes when you have to work with the squad that you have available and work out a system to get the best from that unit. Sparky seemed to do that well at Blackburn but has since failed to consistently show his ability to build a team through natural development.  Perhaps his time at Citeh tainted his view on management and he got a taste for being able to buy his way out?

I take his point that we don't seem to want to splash the cash, which may be viewed as a lack of ambition by some. However, I think the club is taking a sensible, long term approach to building a sustainable club. We are focussing on the grass roots of the club to build a solid foundation for the future. Yes, that may mean we have to endure a season like 2012/13, but football in general needs to stop being so short-termist and look to the future.

As for Sparky's reception, I'm sure he will get the reception he deserves.  From me it will be nothing.

[malcbridger]

Total indifference.

[Burt]

[Something I posted on the other Hughes thread]

Lets be clear about Sparky and his ambition.

He chose to leave because he felt the club lacked ambition.

The club's ambition is actually clear. It is to retain its premier league status whilst being self-sustaining (i.e. living within our means). So we need to be realistic about what we can do given our size and resources. In effect, this  translates to hitting 40 points as soon as, pushing on from then if there is enough time left in the season, and having a decent cup run. 

Sparky's ambition was to compete with the big boys. This meant having a club that was willing to spend big. Fulham's board were not willing to do that. And rightly so, in my view, as living beyond your means is a road to being the next Leeds, Pompey, etc. The Man City board were willing, and had the resources. The QPR board were willing, but will live to regret it from a financial perspective.

So the reality is that the club and Sparky had different, irreconcilable ambitions. And I would contend that the club's ambitions are more realistic.

[Burt]

For me, half the abuse he got lumped his way after he left us was also because the bigger, more ambitious club that he joined was...erm...QPR. Now that part of the equation no longer applies, I suspect most people will feel more indifference to him than hostility.

[fulham traveller]

we were playing better away from home. but he is not as good as he thinks he is

[RaySmith]

Exactly Burt!

There's ambition and ambition. Anyone can say I want to win this , and win that - and the fans will love it. But then there is the question of how? - where is the money going to come from to compete with the big boys?

Owners will sometimes get carried away with their own and their manager's rhetoric - like QPR - and spend big, and may even get a bit of success - like Pompey winning a  Cup- but if they are not actually a 'big' club , with the stadia, crowds, wordwide fan base, and , these days, foreign owners with  huge wealth - they usually come a cropper, and end up in deep doo-doo for years to come - if they even survive.

Fulham are ambitious - ambitious to retain their Prem status, and hopefully  build on this, and  compete in Cup competitions successfully, as we did recently in the Europa Cup.

[The Equalizer]

I think I'll just continue to laugh.

By the way, have you read this:

"His record speaks for itself. He has done excellently by anyone's standards. He's also a thoughtful, intelligent man with an intense desire to win." - Stoke's chairman on Mark Hughes.

[Basil]

[Something I posted on the other Hughes thread]

Lets be clear about Sparky and his ambition.

He chose to leave because he felt the club lacked ambition.

The club’s ambition is actually clear. It is to retain its premier league status whilst being self-sustaining (i.e. living within our means). So we need to be realistic about what we can do given our size and resources. In effect, this  translates to hitting 40 points as soon as, pushing on from then if there is enough time left in the season, and having a decent cup run. 

Sparky’s ambition was to compete with the big boys. This meant having a club that was willing to spend big. Fulham’s board were not willing to do that. And rightly so, in my view, as living beyond your means is a road to being the next Leeds, Pompey, etc. The Man City board were willing, and had the resources. The QPR board were willing, but will live to regret it from a financial perspective.

So the reality is that the club and Sparky had different, irreconcilable ambitions. And I would contend that the club’s ambitions are more realistic.

Great summary of the situation.

[filham]

Our reaction to Sparky next season will depend a lot on how both teams are performing at the time we meet.

If we are bottom of the table and Stoke are in the top six we will not utter a word against him but if the positions are reversed you can bet some of us will give him some stick.

[grandad]

 :plus one: Burt & Ray

[FFC1987]

Interesting hearing Hughes state that not accepting a contract extensionwith us was a mistake using hindsight.