To be fair to the bloke Steve Bruce has proved himself to be a half decent manager, certainly not bad enough to be mentioned in the same breath as Paul Ince!northbank123 wrote:Unfortunately it seems it doesn't matter to most chairman whether or not you're a good manager, it's more important whether you were a good footballer. Despite showing themselves to be poor managers (and pricks to boot), Steve Bruce and Paul Ince have held an astonishing 14 managerial jobs between them, and how Roy Keane's career lasted 5 years is a mystery.goonertux wrote:Stoke now linked with Mark Hughes. When will these clubs learn that he is shite! But if he takes Stoke down, after bankrupting them, then good luck to him and good riddance to the knuckle draggers!
Anyway, Hughes is a strange appointment for me, seems to have been very hit and miss and I didn't like the way he bailed out on Fulham having had an encouraging start there, comes across as a self centred prick tbh. The one thing going for him is that he seems to have done better when he hasn't had money to spend - splashed the cash at City and QPR and was pretty dreadful, did okay with Blackburn and Fulham (and even Wales). Stoke have spent quite heavily in recent years (their net spend is one of the highest in the league over the last few seasons) so if they're tightening the purse strings he might be okay I suppose, a sort of dull stop gap between the hoof ball of Pulis and someone else who might try and get them to play football. Doubt the Stoke fans will be delighted with him mind, uninspiring appointment to say the least.
and demanded to be allowed to go elsewhere.
