Accepting Mark Hughes

I am struck by the ease with which I have re-connected with Mark Hughes' Manchester City.

In the weeks leading up to Eriksson's departure, I was distraught. I had emotionally invested more in the 2007/08 team than any other in my time supporting City. Each goal was engraved on my memory - I could conjure them up at will, not just Elano's masterpieces but Bianchi's tap-ins and Vassell's miss-kicks. I felt a real affinity for almost the entire first team squad. For the first time in years, I didn't get a shirt adorned with name and number: I loved Ireland, Fernandes, Corluka and Petrov too much - to get any one of them would be to betray the rest.

This allegiance, not just to Manchester City the club, but to that particular team, formed very quickly. It had been growing from the Boleyn Ground onwards (I was also present at Ashton Gate and Craven Cottage in September, both meaningful in different ways) and by the rout of Newcastle (the best performance since my first game at Maine Road, 5-2 against Spurs in 1994?) it was fully formed. As with many such emotional attachments, once formed it was difficult to dislodge. Even through the dismal second half of the season (I will this week try to write an objective analysis of the Eriksson era), I stuck to my belief that this was a seriously good City team, and the start of something special. So strong was my faith in Sven, that when I learnt he wasn't going to be here for 2008/09 I was devastated.

This all changed, however, with the 8-1. In one humiliating afternoon, the nature of managerial authority was revealed. Having been so undermined by Thaksin, SGE could no longer command the respect of the players. Eriksson had to go. So when he left, my anger was not so much with the act in itself - a very necessary next step - but with the events that preceded and necessitated it. Either way, many of us felt betrayed by the club.

But, just a few weeks later, I have fully re-engaged with Manchester City. Having told myself I wouldn't be able to heavily invest in a City team for some time, I've done exactly that. I was thrilled today to find out that the Hamburg and Milan friendlies are to be shown live on five, and the EB/Streymur game at Oakwell on ITV. I'm hanging desperately to all transfer rumours, no matter how likely their realisation or how underwhelming their target.

Why this change? How have my feelings of anger and betrayal dissipated so quickly?

I suppose it's to some degree a reaction to reality. The fact is the Mark Hughes is our manager, and Sven-Goran Eriksson is not. An argument frequently used against Thaksin is that the club is bigger than any owner. But surely this applies to managers too? Eriksson was not bigger than the club, and our attachment to MCFC extends far back beyond his tenure. To suggest that our support was contingent upon one individual denies our loyalty to MCFC as an institution. So when Hughes took over our loyalty merely transferred to him. But this ignores the real grievance many felt toward the owner himself. A disaffected minority could not be bought off with new management or players, despite what Thaksin might have thought.

I certainly think that the way Garry Cook (the human, or, to be blunt, English face of Thaksin) and Mark Hughes have conducted themselves has impressed people. The signing of Jo, the retaining of Dunne, the attempt for Ronaldinho, and the 'professional attitude' stuff in the press from the German training camp have all made people think that this is a well run club, despite the appearances to the contrary. The possibility of descending into a Hearts style farce has rescinded, although the fact that Thaksin is on trial thousands of miles away rather limits his room for manouevre. In seeing our worst fears not realised, and an effective management structure in place, I feel I can safely re-engage with City without fear of an imminent collapse.

The final reason, maybe, is that time has altered my opinions of Eriksson. As that magical Autumn gets further away, it becomes easier to take the season as a whole. And in those terms, it can only be judged a very qualified success. I will be writing about SGE's record this week, but I think a closer look will reveal a more mixed picture than first expected. And the Hughes emphasis on discipline and fitness reminds us of the failings of the Eriksson era, and presents one very obvious area where the new regime will be better than the old one.

As time has passed, my position has changed. From romanticising Eriksson and claiming genuine discontent, I have moved towards an acceptance that our position is comfortably stronger than I had feared it would be, and even that 2008/09 could prove more successful than 2007/08. Has distance given me a more reasonable viewpoint, or have I been bribed by Jo? Or, ultimately, does Manchester City Football Club transcend all of this: not just players and managers but owners too? Is there anything the club could do to lose our support?