Where would you be

Inky - I think people give Hughes (and Mancini for that matter) too much credit when they compare signings - the majority of them are made by Marwood.

Hence I think it's only fair to compare them with regards to players they definitely had a hand in:

Hughes - Bellamy and Santa Cruz
Mancini - Balotelli and Vieira

When considered as such, it's no contest really.

I also think that Mancini is more of a draw for world class players to with - such is Mancini's reputation, deserved or not x

deJong - know what you mean about that potential team!!

I agree with Ripley there.

Hughes is still getting slated on City boards but I think he left the club in a much better state than when he took over and definately did more good than harm.

When he left we were 4th in the league and in the Carling Cup semi's, some people seem to think we were in a similar situation to Arsenal.

1st team
Given
Baines Upson Lescott Nedum
Barry Parker
Ashley Young Ireland Tevez
Adebayor

2nd team
Taylor
Bridge Kolo Richards Zaba
NDJ Milner
AJ SWP Bellemy
RSC

I think 3 of Bobby's key moves was to make Hart our No.1, move Kompany to CB and to invest time in Richards and Zabaleta.
He didn't sign any of these players but he's certainly getting the best out of them which is the mark of a good manager.

Boris I think actually that you've hit the nail on the head. From day 1 Hughes made it clear he didnt like any of Svens signings and had no time for them.
Mancini on the other hand took a cold look at who we had, spent time developing the players and has taken 18 months to draft into the team players that he needed and develop players that he might not have wanted at first but realised their potential on the pitch and in training. Hughes came with a closed mind and if I'm honest was weak in dealing with marwood and Cook. Mancini however seems single minded enough to stand up for who he wants while enough of a pragmatist to realise some players actually could play for him who were in the Hughes team.

And Bluff it was Hughes , well probably Cook who sold Dunne, but Hughes wasnt strong enough to stop him. It was Mancini who saw that Kompany (a Hughes buy) was the logical replacement.

Hughes being weak is nonsense: he gave them an ultimatum over the signing of Santa Cruz, threatening to resign just before the season started - which would have left City in disarray.

From then it was just a matter of time until they could replace him with an internationally renowned manager, who has, above all else, a professional attitude x

Hughes also threatened to resign if Frank/Cook sold Ireland.

Wasn't it Mancini who also started using Kompany as a CB?

Hughes made some decent signings, but I don't think he would have been able to attract players like David Silva, Nasri and Sergio Aguero. The way he pursued more average players like RSC and Lescott also brought quite a lot of negative press to the club, and I get the impression that with only about 50% of his signings working out, he wouldn't really have been trusted in the transfer market with a higher budget.

His downfall really was a lack of a plan b. At the time his sacking seemed premature, but in hindsight, you really can see a big difference between the ability of the two managers.

Grated indeed it was Mancini re Kompany. It was also Hughes who insisted on playing Robinho , something Mancini nipped in the bud.
Re the Ireland sale, Hughes didnt say a word until the last moment when Ireland was at Sunderland for a medical and he found out he was short of midfielders due to injury.
Re the santa Cruz thing, if he threatened to resign over that why didnt he do so when we first went for him in the january transfer window?...Because RSC was injured, again.