How long should it be?

[JH]

Just a thought I've been having.

 

Sparker by many saying Hughes wasn't given enough time despite being there for about 15 months or so.

 

So when is the right amount of judgement time?

 

Fans keep mentioning the likes of Ferguson and Wenger - "They were given time and look what happened" but is that a valid argument? Surely if you're good enough, you see signs quite early that you're good enough? What's the point of giving Hughes 5 years if in the 1st year and a bit there is no real sign that City were going to hit the top?

[Ronaldo]

1 year.

[Neil]

Totally depends on what objectives the club has. There is no, and should be no official cut-off point where a manager is suddenly judged. You just hope the powers-that-be make sensible decisions at the right times, i.e. not sacking someone who hasn't done an awful lot wrong, when the club is in a fairly healthy league position still with a good chance of a top 4 place.

[Dokko]

Different scales to different clubs at different points in time.

 

Unanswerable tbh.

[Guest fraser]

Until progress stops.

[cp40]

5 years.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Depends on a lot of things, but given the level of backing Hughes has had, if they think he's not going to get them where it appears he said he would, then he's had enough time.

 

I know money is no object for them as a club, but listening to him a few weeks back saying something along the lines of "if we need to spend a lot more money in January then we will" would piss me off as their owner given how much he's had already.

[JH]

I reckon a year is enough in most cases. You should realistically be able to tell within a year how a club is going to be run, how likely the manager is to maintain his form and whether the team is headed in the right direction or not.

[Guest firetotheworks]

1 year. Not to be where you want to be, but to be on the track to it.

[cp40]

http://www.readytogo.net/smb/showthread.php?t=461276

[johnnypd]

i reckon Hughes can count himself lucky tbh, they gave him more time than they should've. it sounds harsh but they should've gone for their own manager as soon as they arrived. like ranieri or allardyce, it was only a matter of time until a new owner wanted their own man. These people aren't in football to finish 3rd or 4th, they want to win things, and the most important position at a club is the manager. doesn't matter if you spend loads of players, if the right manager isn't in place then you'll be lucky to achieve what you want to.

 

mind you, Mancini doesn't strike me as a top calibre manager. a better investment than spending £30m on a player would be spending the same on a top class coach.

[Ronaldo]

On paper, Man City comfortably have a better squad than Man U. It's all about the bloke on the touchline.

[Frazzle]

[Liam Liam Liam O]

On paper, Man City comfortably have a better squad than Man U. It's all about the bloke on the touchline.

 

FYP

[Keefaz]

Don't think there's a huge difference between Man Utd and City at the minute, tbh.

[Ronaldo]

Man U have better defenders, I'd take Man City's midfield and strikers everyday of the week.

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

I think within 1 year you should have seen some improvment, at least form thats been and gone and theres definite potential to be taken advantage of. But if a manager hasn't impacted 1 jot in a year then he's not the man for the job.

[Guest BooBoo]

I'd agree with a year but when it's obvious, even at an early stage, that things aren't right then it's best to ditch asap. See Fat Sam as a classic example, after only ten games it was clear that him and us were not meant to be.

[jdckelly]

Man U have better defenders, I'd take Man City's midfield and strikers everyday of the week.

defences win leagues though without a good one a club will go nowhere

[Ronaldo]

Man U have better defenders, I'd take Man City's midfield and strikers everyday of the week.

defences win leagues though without a good one a club will go nowhere

 

I agree, did you my initial post?