Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

IGNORED

Hughton appointment down to wages and contract length?


Recommended Posts

That’s what this article claims:

https://the72.co.uk/222291/bristol-city-shouldve-appointed-this-current-championship-manager-when-they-had-the-chance/

But that could’ve been Bristol City. Hughton wanted the job but for the move falling through, seemingly over wages and length of contract and now Bristol City are in the exact same position as they were over summer, only with less managerial options to choose from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nuno Gomes said:

That’s what this article claims:

https://the72.co.uk/222291/bristol-city-shouldve-appointed-this-current-championship-manager-when-they-had-the-chance/

But that could’ve been Bristol City. Hughton wanted the job but for the move falling through, seemingly over wages and length of contract and now Bristol City are in the exact same position as they were over summer, only with less managerial options to choose from.

If that truly is the reason that we ended up appointing Holden instead of Hughton then Ashton is even more of a ****er than I thought, and no wonder Jon Lansdown looked as underwhelmed as the rest of us when Ashton was talking up Holden’s appointment back in August.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TonyTonyTony said:

That's a rubbish article. Full of speculation, and contradicts itself. Takes quotes from the Sun etc - the very definition of lazy journalism.

 

Shouldn’t it state “fewer managerial options...”?

  • Robin 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bristolisredd said:

And on today’s episode on why our club is a shambles 

And on today's episode on someone believing something someones made up and using it as a stick to beat the club.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all cobblers in my opinion, who can possibly say that Hughton would have done a better job with this group of players, I too would have preferred his appointment over Holden but TODAY I'm more interested in what the hell we do going forward to make things better, not how we got into this crap in the first place. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Nuno Gomes said:

That’s what this article claims:

https://the72.co.uk/222291/bristol-city-shouldve-appointed-this-current-championship-manager-when-they-had-the-chance/

But that could’ve been Bristol City. Hughton wanted the job but for the move falling through, seemingly over wages and length of contract and now Bristol City are in the exact same position as they were over summer, only with less managerial options to choose from.

No we're not. Like it or not we have a manager in charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Wiltshire robin said:

Think it’s bollocks , I thought at the time hughton had already told people he thought he had the job

top journalists saying he agreed and thought it was a great project but then I guess lansdown and Ashton wanted a cheaper yes man 

Well they didn't want to spend £60 million odd on new players and wages in the middle of a pandemic with their only role being to write the cheques. You can call that going for a cheaper yes man option, or you can call it a sensible decison for the preservation of the club.

I suppose it depends on whether you are paying the bills or not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever this article may or may not claim, the club missed an open goal on this one. 

Of course there's no way of knowing for sure that Hughton would have built a promotion side here. But he was the stand out candidate and if the sticking point was his salary I'd be disappointed.

I rather think it may have been more about differing opinions on how far away we actually are from having a squad good enough for promotion. 

Then again, that's my opinion and nothing more.

The League table doesn't lie though and it will be very interesting to see what it looks like at the end of the season......

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Well they didn't want to spend £60 million odd on new players and wages in the middle of a pandemic with their only role being to write the cheques. You can call that going for a cheaper yes man option, or you can call it a sensible decison for the preservation of the club.

I suppose it depends on whether you are paying the bills or not.

At the time I thought this might well be the reason. Yesterday a post asked why Hughton was prepared to take on someone else's players when he took the Forest job. The difference is that by then(last October) the full impact of the pandemic, in particular on football's finances, was much clearer and CH would have had to accept the reality knowing he wouldn't get better anywhere else. 

Hypothetical I know, but given all of this, I wonder if there would be a different outcome if Hughton was being interviewed for the job now? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hxj said:

£60 million

Just where did you pluck this figure from ? 
Daft plucker , no way near 60 million quid.

Give Hughton a contract at let’s be very generous 5 million a year for three years = 15 million.

Let’s assume he wants his own coaching staff = 15 million 

Two players he bought into Forest 

Knockeart and Murray = 6 million 

= 36 million being very , very generous.

Of course Holden and the two England U 9 coaches will cost , 3 million a year , at a guess that’s 9 million in three years plus all the bullshit they can handle .

= a much cheaper option.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hxj said:

Well they didn't want to spend £60 million odd on new players and wages in the middle of a pandemic with their only role being to write the cheques. You can call that going for a cheaper yes man option, or you can call it a sensible decison for the preservation of the club.

I suppose it depends on whether you are paying the bills or not.

Where did 60 million come from 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Wiltshire robin said:

Where did 60 million come from 

Houghton.

38 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

Knockeart and Murray = 6 million 

You need to bear in mind that the football world is a completely different world than it was in July last year.

Oh I can imagine the uproar on here if Houghton arrived and only spent a couple of million!  He'd be labelled a cheapstake yes man in seconds.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hxj said:

Houghton.

You need to bear in mind that the football world is a completely different world than it was in July last year.

Oh I can imagine the uproar on here if Houghton arrived and only spent a couple of million!  He'd be labelled a cheapstake yes man in seconds.

 

Please elaborate on the 60 million?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nuno Gomes said:

That’s what this article claims:

https://the72.co.uk/222291/bristol-city-shouldve-appointed-this-current-championship-manager-when-they-had-the-chance/

But that could’ve been Bristol City. Hughton wanted the job but for the move falling through, seemingly over wages and length of contract and now Bristol City are in the exact same position as they were over summer, only with less managerial options to choose from.

How depressing. 
 

Personally I was up for Hughton thought he’d of been a good fit for us. If not, then McCarthy. Hugely underrated at Ipswich underneath a tight owner. That now leaves just Paul Cook. Let us pray. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This article says couldn't agree wages, the one I saw not long after we appointed Holden said, Hughton wanted to rebuild completely. 
It's doubtful we will ever know the whole truth, maybe a biography down the line? Whatever really happened only about a dozen people will know, I'd guess none of them are Journo's. 

The only thing we know for fact is, we ended up with Holden, Hughton went to Forest. Currently that may not look great , and in a funny way that may be good. I hope the owner & his Board take a hard look at themselves and ask what they want.

I would hope to see an experienced appointment next time around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think that when Steve says Rugby isn’t the same as football, he’s only correct in respect of players not mangers.

I doubt very much that Hughton or Cook would have cost more than Wells or Kalas or anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it says wages, I've read the article.

Does it mean his personal wage or the wage budget for the playing side?

The first (within reason) seems like it might have been passable. Second bit would have been an issue, FFP was amended in fairly late August 2020. As @downendcity said, Hughton himself might have had to adjust expectations by the time Nottingham Forest job came about.

Football was planning to reopen to fans by 1st October I think, probably gradually increasing crowds if the Covid situation had remained reasonable. Well that went out the window!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Hughton did suggest a reality check was taken regarding the current quality of the squad - given the target presented was promotion to the Premier League?

Perhaps the idea that players brought in thus far are simply not good enough was too much for some egos?

A need to rebuild the squad in order to progress would surely add insult to injury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...