Stoke City Appoint Mark Hughes As Manager to Replace Tony Pulis

Stoke City have confirmed that Mark Hughes is the club’s new manager. Hughes replaces Tony Pulis on a three-year deal

“I am an ambitious manager and this is an ambitious Club. We want to become a consistent top ten Premier League Club, and I firmly believe that with an incredible amount of hard work we have a great chance of achieving that.”

According to Stoke City Chairman Peter Coates, “We have analysed everything he has done, and we feel that he has a remarkably fantastic record as a manager. We looked at what he did at Fulham, and Blackburn in particular. They are similar Club’s to us in many ways, and we feel that he is coming here into a similar environment.”

While Hughes will strive to not make the same mistakes he made at Queens Park Rangers, it’ll take a while for Stoke City managers to warm up to him especially after the catalog of errors he made in the summer of 2012 when he signed the following flops at Queens Park Rangers: Jose Bosingwa (free transfer), Stephane M’Bia (£5million), Esteban Granero (£7million), Park Ji-Sung (£2.6million), Robert Green (free transfer) and Andy Johnson (free transfer.

Soccer fans in the United States will get a chance to see Mark Hughes close-up in action when Stoke travels to America to play Houston and FC Dallas.

What’s your prediction about how well (or not) Stoke City will do under Mark Hughes? Does he have the ability to lift up this Stoke City side and to get them into the top 10 next season? Or are they now relegation candidates? Share your opinions in the comments section below.

31 thoughts on “Stoke City Appoint Mark Hughes As Manager to Replace Tony Pulis”

  1. Good appointment for Stoke.

    People have short memories. He did a good job everywhere he’d been previous to QPR. QPR managing to get him was a massive coup on their part at the time. I don’t think he should’ve been sacked by QPR and I think he would have done a better job than Harry did for the remainder of the season.

  2. Hilariously he admits to making transfer mistakes at QPR, so I expect he’ll tread cautiously this time around. However, new players is exactly what Stoke need to get them re-energised. He dumped Fulham with illusions of grandeur and when nobody wanted him ended up at QPR. Hughes has led a chequered career at every club he’s managed. I can’t imagine what Stoke are a famous old club. I can’t imagine what they’re thinking replacing Pullis with Hughes.

    1. He was great for Blackburn his last three years.

      2005-2006 6th Place with Blackburn Rovers (UEFA Cup qualification)
      2006-2007 10th Place with Blackburn Rovers (Intertoto qualification)
      2007-2008 7th Place with Blackburn Rovers

      As for his time at Man City, there was so much underachieving there. He was a bad fit from the start there.

      I still resent him for the way he left Fulham. Fulham was an 8th place team in a Europa League spot when he left. Both him and Fulham would be better off today if they stuck together. That said, I certainly enjoyed his failures at QPR… Nothing against QPR tho.

      A lot of good and a lot of bad for Hughes. Maybe Stoke saw what he did at Fulham and Blackburn and thought he could bring about the same level of success for them.

  3. I seriously doubt the management at Stoke will allow a shopping spree. I have no take on this. It may be quite reasonable to conclude no one knows how well this will (or won’t) work.

  4. I agree with Yespage. We’ll just wait and see. Hughes’s style may be exactly what Stoke need in order to evolve from hoofball. Stoke fans never had any problem with Pulis’s tenacious defensive style of play, only with there seeming to be absolutely no offensive plan other than hoof and hope.

    Hughes seems a perfect evolutionary step. Madness would have been bringing in someone who would have tried to turn the team on its head. Given the personnel we have that would have been a grave error.

    Properly playing those we have and adding a few modest transfers should be quite enough to see us through next season. After that, with continued improvement, I think top 10 would be a reasonable goal.

    It is worth noting that fans on The Oatcake are rallying behind Hughes, wild Rafalike dreams aside. 😉

  5. Pretty pathetic when a club like Stoke thinks they are too good for a manager like Hughes. Who do they think they are? That’s one of the biggest problems with football these days, every club feels they are entitled to a Mourinho. Stoke are perennial mid to lower table stock and always will be. Disgusting fans.

    1. Not sure which Stoke fans you’re talking about. While some dreamed of a “big” signing (and why not) the vast majority knew that surely wasn’t going to happen. The lists of possibilities posted on The Oatcake had very few big names on them. Some didn’t want Hughes. Some didn’t want Martinez, etc. There was no feeling of, “We’re too good for them.” Simply differing opinions about the best choice.

      If you go on The Oatcake you’ll see the fans are all in with Hughes and ready to move forward.

      Put your broad brush down. You were painting a lousy picture, anyway.

    2. Utter, utter bellend. On the strength of one tart with a van after a bit of publicity. Now the void is filled the fans will rally around him.

      If Pulis had stayed and and we’d started next season the way we finished this then you’d have seem some disquiet. As it was I’ve never heard a cacophony of Pulis out chants etc during his tenures.

      As it was the board’s mind was made up to release Pulis when they realised how close to relegation they came. But for poor QPR, Reading and Norwich sides we’d have probably been down there.

      I’m sure you appear the font of all knowledge when it comes to Stoke so I’ll bow down to your superior position.

    3. that is why i cheer for Stoke to piss people like you off.lets hear who you cheer for now that the season is over.GO POTTERS KICK A$$!

  6. This is a mystery to me. There are so many better candidates and Hughes has zero credibility at this point. When they appointed Pulis he was not a big name and at some point others need to be given a chance instead of recycling the same old people.

    Stoke are too good for Hughes, not because they are a big club but because he’s a failure.

    1. “….. he’s a failure.”

      A relative term if there ever was one. One losing side in the Prem. All the rest were winners.

      Given our personnel and the job at hand, who among the “so many better candidates” do you think we should have signed?

      1. Isn’t this the truth. The problem with firing a coach is “who will you replace them with”. There is misunderstanding that firing a coach means you automatically improve as a squad. I support Pulis, but the second half to this season was very scary, especially offensively, as they didn’t even seem to have a long-ball offensive plan.

        To be honest, if Stoke could have scored just 5 more goals, they’d been well into the top ten. So Stoke need some tweaking and minor remodeling, not a demolition and rebuild.

        1. Look at Pulis’ record before taking on Stoke. He was considered a failure after bombing out at Bristol City and Portsmouth.

      2. I think they should have gone a different route not a manager who was a TOTAL disaster in his last role. Stoke are the perfect team for bringing up a manager from a lower division.

        1. “Winners”, Scrumper, means they won more matches than they lost. If Sparky can do that with Stoke the fans will be more than happy.

  7. The problem with this appointment is that no one knows for sure if this will work out. Hughes’ results as manager at other clubs has been mixed. Hughes is just another one of those retreads. This is not an exciting appointment.

    1. Every word the truth, David. I think the club’s problem was looking at who might be able to take over the existing club and move it forward without trying to chuck everything and start over…a financial impossibility in any case.

      I was not a Hughes fan, but on reflection I think his style of play is such that he can take the team that exists, with a couple of modest signings, and certainly improve our standing in the league. No revolution. Just evolution.

      I expect continued tenacious defensive play with the almost revolutionary concept (for us) of keeping the ball on the ground at least some of the time, moving up the pitch with the intent to score…not merely the hope to do so. I think most fans also expect us to do more than try to steal a 0-0 draw every time we’re away. Modest goals to be sure, but baby steps first. :-)

  8. In the vernacular of Manchester City supporters, certain people can only be known by their insulting pseudonyms (i.e. Slurgie, Tranaldo, Shrek/Grannyshagger, etc.) For Hughes the name is “Clueless.”

    That aside, I guess the giant red flag for me would be the number he did on QPR. That club could conceivably enter a Pompey-like financial death spiral as a result of Clueless’ recent spending spree.

    1. I’m not an expert on this, but it’s a state-by-state issue right now. I believe Nevada is testing a new online gambling site that, if passed, could open up online gambling in Nevada. And could cause ripple effects across the US.

      I can’t believe the US laws are so antiquated about this practice, but that’s a whole other debate.

      One of the readers perhaps can better shine light on this topic than I can.

      The Gaffer

      1. Cheers Gaffer. The vibe I get is that our owners are waiting to exploit any change in this. Opening up a US division taking advantage of their global status. It’d be interesting to see if this were succesful how there profits could be channelled. Stoke’s fortunes are intrinsicly linked.

    2. Gambling laws are strictly state-by-state decisions, although there two prohibitive national laws: The Interstate Wire Act of 1961 and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

      There is a better chance of Stoke winning the PL and CL in the same year than there is of there ever being nationwide internet gambling in the U.S. :-)

  9. My view of Hughes has dropped over the last few years. He got results at Blackburn with modest resources but since then his performance has been very mediocre. Three clubs and he didn’t exceed expectations at any of them. The quotes I’ve seen since he got the Stoke job suggest someone who is extremely sensitive/defensive about his position in the football world.

    He still has a huge reservoir of football knowledge and experience, and Stoke aren’t asking for trophies every season so maybe it works out but I think it would have been cool to see them take a bit of a risk instead of recycling a guy like Hughes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *