[Archived] More Crap From Hughes

[broadsword]

I should imagine Tal Ben Haim would be quite happy not to visit ...

[andrew92]

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11679_4143943,00.html

and a bit more crap!! he thinks they have a chance of staying in touch and putting in a title challange, when every world class player has said they dont wanna go to city. would you?

[Damage]

"One of the main reasons I came here was the anticipation of going into these games with top, top quality players," said Hughes, as he looked forward to Chelsea's visit in the League tomorrow. "I missed that, I had it as a player and to a certain extent with Wales but at club level [with Blackburn] I never really had that."

Whether he mentions our name is irrelevant. How many other club sides has he managed? The inference is clear. It's an unnecessary and snide remark made in a national newspaper and shows a lack of respect for the foundation of his so-far successful club managerial career. He didn't have to say it did he? He could have stopped after the first sentence.

And finally, you want to get some perspective mate. Apparently an interview in a national newspaper is "3 men and a dog" and 20 posts on a small provincial message-board is a witch-hunt! How's that work then?

Surely you dont think this comment is intended for our consumption? Managers and players at new clubs make comments for their current employers and supporters. I'm pretty sure he is bigging-up himself and his team with that statement as in We did fantastic with limited resources at Blackburn, just watch what we can do with pots of cash . Its really not hard to see. Its only "snide" when you see hidden meaning and barbed slights. He is looking forward and not backward with that statement. If you want to moan have a dig at JW, and the trustees for driving such a good management team out of the club and for appointing a woefully inadequate replacement team.

[yoda]

I should imagine Tal Ben Haim would be quite happy not to visit ...

and why would that be?

[gumboots]

Surely you dont think this comment is intended for our consumption? Managers and players at new clubs make comments for their current employers and supporters. I'm pretty sure he is bigging-up himself and his team with that statement as in We did fantastic with limited resources at Blackburn, just watch what we can do with pots of cash . Its really not hard to see. Its only "snide" when you see hidden meaning and barbed slights. He is looking forward and not backward with that statement. If you want to moan have a dig at JW, and the trustees for driving such a good management team out of the club and for appointing a woefully inadequate replacement team.

How did JW drive him out of rovers? He's a club employee just as Hughes was and it's not his fault if the money isn't there to spend.

[broadsword]

and why would that be?

How much of a welcome do you think an Israeli would get in an Arab country???

[RovertheHill]

Surely you dont think this comment is intended for our consumption? Managers and players at new clubs make comments for their current employers and supporters. I'm pretty sure he is bigging-up himself and his team with that statement as in We did fantastic with limited resources at Blackburn, just watch what we can do with pots of cash . Its really not hard to see. Its only "snide" when you see hidden meaning and barbed slights. He is looking forward and not backward with that statement. If you want to moan have a dig at JW, and the trustees for driving such a good management team out of the club and for appointing a woefully inadequate replacement team.

Irrelevant whether it is made for our consumption or not. He could have said anything about how great City is or whatever, but he had to drag us into it. I expected more of him. And the rest of your post simply proves exactly the point I made in my first post. You are happy to give Hughes the benefit of the doubt yet are already convinced we have a woefully inadequate replacement team.

[neekoy]

Irrelevant whether it is made for our consumption or not. He could have said anything about how great City is or whatever, but he had to drag us into it. I expected more of him. And the rest of your post simply proves exactly the point I made in my first post. You are happy to give Hughes the benefit of the doubt yet are already convinced we have a woefully inadequate replacement team.

THIS.

He could have left the comments out about us. The apologists are really giving me the ######. If he meant something else then ###### say it don't use words that are more likely to take a negative dig at Blackburn then doing anything for your new club or position.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Hughes needs to look at City not keep having memory relapses about his time at Rovers. Or is just trying to convince everybody he is a good manager with no money so he must be a good manager with money

[Billy Castell]

I always thought Hughes seemed above all the name caling the likes of Wenger, Ferguson et al do so often. I guess I was wrong, and his new found money has given him a Bentley head.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

The digs that Hughes keeps putting in is either frustation at the lack of funds he got compared to those supposedly given to Ince or as I believe the parting of the ways between Hughes and BRFC was far from amicable and he is still bitter.

[mattyboy6000]

He may have his big club money etc, but he is also working for owners that will make City an openly racist club ie not recognising Isreal.

how are the PL going to justify that in their fit persons criteria ?

I don't recognise the illegal occupation of Palestine, that doesn't make me a racist. I have many Jewish friends. I don't have time for Zionists though.

As for Hughes, he's said he didn't have the chance to work with "top, top players" - which is correct. He bought some quality players, Bellamy, McCarthy, Santa Cruz, for example, all of whom had fallen out of favour at their previous clubs and needed some time and nurturing to come through for us. There was certainly no possibility of us signing any Galacticos. And yet the bitterness seems to colour a few people's opinions, which is a shame.

[Rover4ever]

I don't recognise the illegal occupation of Palestine, that doesn't make me a racist. I have many Jewish friends. I don't have time for Zionists though.

As for Hughes, he's said he didn't have the chance to work with "top, top players" - which is correct. He bought some quality players, Bellamy, McCarthy, Santa Cruz, for example, all of whom had fallen out of favour at their previous clubs and needed some time and nurturing to come through for us. There was certainly no possibility of us signing any Galacticos. And yet the bitterness seems to colour a few people's opinions, which is a shame.

If you read what Hughes said, he had "top, top players" even at Wales, but not at poor Blackburn...

[mattyboy6000]

If you read what Hughes said, he had "top, top players" even at Wales, but not at poor Blackburn...

i did, thanks for the tip all the same

Ryan Giggs?

[gumboots]

i did, thanks for the tip all the same

Ryan Giggs?

That's one top player. But where are the rest?

[BuckyRover]

i did, thanks for the tip all the same

Ryan Giggs?

Only for important qualifying matches!

[Anti Euro Smiths Fan]

After previously saying that he never talks in public about players who are contracted to other clubs, Mark Hughes has been spouting his mouth off again today about Santa Cruz as well as Craig Bellamy and Scott Parker.

With vast sums of money at his disposal at Man City, Hughes is like a kid in a candy shop and he's starting to sound like Veruca Salt in 'Charlie and The Chocolate Factory' - the young spoilt girl brat who keeps saying: "I want that one and I want it now. Why can't I have it Daddy?"

All of which does Mark Hughes no credit and the unseemly arrogance surrounding Man City appears to be growing all the time.

City's last owner, Frank the crook, was bad enough. Now these racists. Great.

Can you imagine the outcry and howls of outrage if Man City went on a pre-season tour of a foreign country which refused to allow black players to come and which banned the likes of Micah Richards, Robinho, Shaun Wright-Phillips and Darius Vassell from playing.

At the moment City's Israeli defender Ben Haim is unable to play in any exhibition matches, friendly matches or attend any training sessions organised in Abu Dhabi, because of their policy of not allowing Israelis to enter the country. Relatives of Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed, the owner of Man City, have sanctioned the publication of anti-semitic material and hosted anti-semitic speakers.

Can you imagine the outcry in the media if the family of John Williams was publishing racist material and making speeches against black people?

Why, when the FA makes such a fuss about "Kick Racism Out Of Football" are they seemingly happy to have club owners like Sheikh Mansour, who goes along with a policy of discrimination in his home country against Israelis?

Is it a case of the FA once again having double standards? They are happy to turn a blind eye to anti-semitism from a wealthy bunch of Arab owners, but God forbid anybody who makes the slightest criticism of black people.

In the United Arab Emirates the Government-controlled media continues to publish anti-semitic statements, including Holocaust denial.

Do the FA think that the anti-semitism of Abu Dhabi is acceptable?

[Tom]

Why do i find myself shocked that I actually agree with you?

Good read, I hope old sparky comes down to earth with a bump soon, he isn't exactly covering himself in grace as is.

[Jan]

After previously saying that he never talks in public about players who are contracted to other clubs, Mark Hughes has been spouting his mouth off again today about Santa Cruz as well as Craig Bellamy and Scott Parker.

With vast sums of money at his disposal at Man City, Hughes is like a kid in a candy shop and he's starting to sound like Veruca Salt in 'Charlie and The Chocolate Factory' - the young spoilt girl brat who keeps saying: "I want that one and I want it now. Why can't I have it Daddy?"

All of which does Mark Hughes no credit and the unseemly arrogance surrounding Man City appears to be growing all the time.

Can you imagine the outcry and howls of outrage if Man City went on a pre-season tour of a foreign country which refused to allow black players to come and which banned the likes of Micah Richards, Robinho, Shaun Wright-Phillips and Darius Vassell from playing.

At the moment City's Israeli defender Ben Haim is unable to play in any exhibition matches, friendly matches or attend any training sessions organised in Abu Dhabi, because of their policy of not allowing Israelis to enter the country. Relatives of Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed, the owner of Man City, have sanctioned the publication of anti-semitic material and hosted anti-semitic speakers.

Can you imagine the outcry in the media if the family of John Williams was publishing racist material and making speeches against black people?

Why, when the FA makes such a fuss about "Kick Racism Out Of Football" are they seemingly happy to have club owners like Sheikh Mansour, who goes along with a policy of discrimination in his home country against Israelis?

Is it a case of the FA once again having double standards? They are happy to turn a blind eye to anti-semitism from a wealthy bunch of Arab owners, but God forbid anybody who makes the slightest criticism of black people.

In the United Arab Emirates the Government-controlled media continues to publish anti-semitic statements, including Holocaust denial.

Do the FA think that the anti-semitism of Abu Dhabi is acceptable?

Wrong terminology. The term you're looking for is anti-Zionist, and there is a WORLD of difference. Jewish people can enter Abu Dhabi with no problem, it's Israelis that can't. Abu Dhabi, along with many others, doesn't recognise that Israel- a country invented in 1945- should exist. That doesn't make them anti-Jewish (what anti-Semitic means) it makes them anti-Zionist.

Name me one other religion which has a homeland. (Jew not being a nationality but a religion). The "invention" of Israel was a guilt-sop by the Brits and Americans who could have stopped the genocide in Nazi Germany years before, but didn't. Notice the homeland was not put in Europe, but taken from an already poor country, Palestine. And that one act is the reason for all of the unrest in the world today. If Israel didn't exisit, the Palestinians would not be opressed, the rest of the Islamic world wouldn't be up in arms, and there wouldn't be a war.

I'm with Abu Dhabi on this. And a lot of my friends are Jewish- I'm not in the slightest anti-Semitic, just fervently anti-Zionist.

[simcla]

I find it quite funny that he didn't get the chance to work with top, top players at Blackburn - yet when he gets a chance to buy whoever he wants - money supposedly no object - he tries to buy Bellamy and Santa Cruz!

[yoda]

Wrong terminology. The term you're looking for is anti-Zionist, and there is a WORLD of difference. Jewish people can enter Abu Dhabi with no problem, it's Israelis that can't. Abu Dhabi, along with many others, doesn't recognise that Israel- a country invented in 1945- should exist. That doesn't make them anti-Jewish (what anti-Semitic means) it makes them anti-Zionist.

Name me one other religion which has a homeland. (Jew not being a nationality but a religion). The "invention" of Israel was a guilt-sop by the Brits and Americans who could have stopped the genocide in Nazi Germany years before, but didn't. Notice the homeland was not put in Europe, but taken from an already poor country, Palestine. And that one act is the reason for all of the unrest in the world today. If Israel didn't exisit, the Palestinians would not be opressed, the rest of the Islamic world wouldn't be up in arms, and there wouldn't be a war.

I'm with Abu Dhabi on this. And a lot of my friends are Jewish- I'm not in the slightest anti-Semitic, just fervently anti-Zionist.

I think you are missing the point on why it was located where it is, not that it bothers me,

They could have turned Germany into the homeland for all I care, that would have been a nice touch of pay back,

I think the birth place of Jesus had something to do with it

[CrazyIvan]

I think you are missing the point on why it was located where it is, not that it bothers me,

They could have turned Germany into the homeland for all I care, that would have been a nice touch of pay back,

I think the birth place of Jesus had something to do with it

To correct something, the birthplace of Jesus has nothing to do with it as Judaism doesn't recognise him as anything of significance. The birthplace of Jesus is actually in the West Bank, part of Palestine. (Qualifier, according to the Bible/some historians/Christianity). It has a lot more to do with where Israel was a lot further back in history. I'm not getting into this 'anti-Zionist/Zionist' argument and think it shouldn't be here at all...

As for whether the FA should be looking into the owners of Man City per their 'right and proper' rules, it depends on whether they have committed a crime they are convicted of or not. I very much doubt the FA would like to be involved in an argument over Israel, the Israelies and Zionism v Palestine and the Arab world.

[DeadlyDirk]

After previously saying that he never talks in public about players who are contracted to other clubs, Mark Hughes has been spouting his mouth off again today about Santa Cruz as well as Craig Bellamy and Scott Parker.

With vast sums of money at his disposal at Man City, Hughes is like a kid in a candy shop and he's starting to sound like Veruca Salt in 'Charlie and The Chocolate Factory' - the young spoilt girl brat who keeps saying: "I want that one and I want it now. Why can't I have it Daddy?"

All of which does Mark Hughes no credit and the unseemly arrogance surrounding Man City appears to be growing all the time.

Can you imagine the outcry and howls of outrage if Man City went on a pre-season tour of a foreign country which refused to allow black players to come and which banned the likes of Micah Richards, Robinho, Shaun Wright-Phillips and Darius Vassell from playing.

At the moment City's Israeli defender Ben Haim is unable to play in any exhibition matches, friendly matches or attend any training sessions organised in Abu Dhabi, because of their policy of not allowing Israelis to enter the country. Relatives of Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed, the owner of Man City, have sanctioned the publication of anti-semitic material and hosted anti-semitic speakers.

Can you imagine the outcry in the media if the family of John Williams was publishing racist material and making speeches against black people?

Why, when the FA makes such a fuss about "Kick Racism Out Of Football" are they seemingly happy to have club owners like Sheikh Mansour, who goes along with a policy of discrimination in his home country against Israelis?

Is it a case of the FA once again having double standards? They are happy to turn a blind eye to anti-semitism from a wealthy bunch of Arab owners, but God forbid anybody who makes the slightest criticism of black people.

In the United Arab Emirates the Government-controlled media continues to publish anti-semitic statements, including Holocaust denial.

Do the FA think that the anti-semitism of Abu Dhabi is acceptable?

I don't know enough about all of this to say if its a racist or anti zion matter, not too familiar with all the history, but it does seem ridiculous and wrong that a player cannot play in a country because he happens to come from somewhere that was 'invented' before he was born. Ben Haim is being punished for his nationality, simple as that.

Why should he suffer for what has nothing to do with him and something beyond his control. I don't see the massive difference for having different rules for someone of a different race compared to someone born in a different country anyway. They both just seem completley wrong to me, but as I said I don't know enough about all of this to be an expert on the matter.

Wonder how Israel would do if they qualified for a World Cup hosted in Abu Dhabi?

I find it quite funny that he didn't get the chance to work with top, top players at Blackburn - yet when he gets a chance to buy whoever he wants - money supposedly no object - he tries to buy Bellamy and Santa Cruz!

Joking or not that's an excellent point. Along with the previous one of him not talking about players from other clubs, he seems to change the lyrics to fit the tune whenever he wants these days.

[RovertheHill]

Wrong terminology. The term you're looking for is anti-Zionist, and there is a WORLD of difference. Jewish people can enter Abu Dhabi with no problem, it's Israelis that can't. Abu Dhabi, along with many others, doesn't recognise that Israel- a country invented in 1945- should exist. That doesn't make them anti-Jewish (what anti-Semitic means) it makes them anti-Zionist.

Name me one other religion which has a homeland. (Jew not being a nationality but a religion). The "invention" of Israel was a guilt-sop by the Brits and Americans who could have stopped the genocide in Nazi Germany years before, but didn't. Notice the homeland was not put in Europe, but taken from an already poor country. And that one act is the reason for all of the unrest in the world today. If Israel didn't exisit, the Palestinians would not be opressed, the rest of the Islamic world wouldn't be up in arms, and there wouldn't be a war.

I'm with Abu Dhabi on this. And a lot of my friends are Jewish- I'm not in the slightest anti-Semitic, just fervently anti-Zionist.

Jeez, I'm thinking there's some good comments on Hughes and City's scandalous under-valuation of RSC and I find this instead. A couple of points. You have skirted past thousands of years of historical fact to "fit" the facts to your agenda. Palestine was not just plucked out of the air (as opposed to say, Scotland ) - it is the site of the ancient Judah and Canaan, the kingdom of the Israelites and so on and so forth. It has been subsequently conquered by the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, and the area eventually referred to as something approaching Palestine during the Byzantine period. It was then overrun by various Caliphates and the Ottoman Empire resulting in the largely Muslim religion in the region ever since. Jewish migration to the area started during the Ottoman empire and accelerated throughout. As an example, Napolean floated the idea of a Jewish state in 1799. The Zionist agenda and the issues around it started in earnest in the 19th century culminating in the creation of Israel as you say. So it's a little bit more complicated than you say. As for the only religion that has a homeland - I don't suppose the Vatican City can be described as a homeland but it's a religious country. And if as you say you are simply anti-zionist then why even mention that it is the only religion that has a homeland? Do you get this wound up about the similar Western creation of Iraq, the partition of the Indian sub-continent and all the other colonial cock-ups we made in the early part of last century?

Anyway, what's Hughes playing at offering less for RSC than Wayne Bridge

[BRFC4EVA]

Wrong terminology. The term you're looking for is anti-Zionist, and there is a WORLD of difference. Jewish people can enter Abu Dhabi with no problem, it's Israelis that can't. Abu Dhabi, along with many others, doesn't recognise that Israel- a country invented in 1945- should exist. That doesn't make them anti-Jewish (what anti-Semitic means) it makes them anti-Zionist.

Name me one other religion which has a homeland. (Jew not being a nationality but a religion). The "invention" of Israel was a guilt-sop by the Brits and Americans who could have stopped the genocide in Nazi Germany years before, but didn't. Notice the homeland was not put in Europe, but taken from an already poor country, Palestine. And that one act is the reason for all of the unrest in the world today. If Israel didn't exisit, the Palestinians would not be opressed, the rest of the Islamic world wouldn't be up in arms, and there wouldn't be a war.

I'm with Abu Dhabi on this. And a lot of my friends are Jewish- I'm not in the slightest anti-Semitic, just fervently anti-Zionist.

Did you miss the part about publishing anti-semitic material and holocaust denial? With regards to religions, Mecca is the religious homeland of Muslim's and Rome the homeland of Roman Catholics-thats the two most major religions on earth with a combined fellowship of 2.5billion. Now I dont really want to get into a debate on a football message board but what you've written is not factually correct. Furthermore, when there are only around 15million Jews in the entire world-compared with over a billion Muslims its no wonder they do not feel safe outside of having their own state (which I must remind you, is the most advanced and progressive state in the whole middle east with regards to homosexuality, women, secularization etc)

It will be interesting to see how far City are willing to go with Santa Cruz. A weakness of Hughes seems to be that when he likes a particular player, often who he 'knows'-he will go in strongly and repetitively to try and sign him. Santa cruz certainly falls into this category and hopefully, he we hold out long enough we could see some bids north of £18m.