'We are starting from the ground level'

Hughes has launched a vigorous defence of his management of the club to date, via a big Mark Ogden article in the Telegraph. He underlines the importance of the changes he's introduced in the background at City, bringing much of the club's infrastructure up to speed with top level Premier League clubs:

Hughes said: "One of the things I realised when I came here was that there were not enough things in place to enable this club to be successful in the future. I'm honest enough to admit that it has taken longer than I expected to change that. We are trying to get the message out that, unlike other clubs, we are starting from the ground level. Maybe people don't want to hear that, though, because it's easier to put pressure on our situation if those things aren't highlighted."

This is absolutely crucial. One of the best insight's I've heard on City's recent history is that the changes of the Shinawatra/Eriksson regime were essentially cosmetic. There was no investment in infrastructure or facilities, no overhaul of backroom staff, no fundamental change in club ethos. It was at heart the Warlde/Makin/MacKintosh/Pearce football club, but with a better coach and a handful of better players. And as Eriksson was undermined by Shinawatra in early 2008, we reverted to the Pearce era but the added element of international criminality.

It is only this season that we've had the financial means and the dynamic personnel to drive the club forward: the Khaldoon/Cook/Hughes team are clearly determined to bring all backroom aspects of the club up to the right level. This has led to improvements to the medical and training facilities, a new coaching team, and a series of senior appointments - including but not limited to Football Administrator Brian Marwood. It is frustrating that on the pitch we're no better than we were last year, but the changes made should see a real improvement in the long term. And Hughes is confident that he'll be here to reap the advantages in 2009/10:

"I have had no indication that I won't be here next season, but why shouldn't I be?" Hughes said. "I'll be really disappointed if I am not, simply because of what we have gone through and the things we have had to face before coming through the other side.

"We have done the pain this season, now we want to see the fruits of our labour. We have come a hell of a long way in a short period of time and that stimulates us because we have done a decent job here and it is nowhere near finished. The turnover of managers here hasn't helped continuity, because they have never had any. Basically, change is expected here. Change for the sake of change."

Opponents of Hughes often characterise the arguments in favour of the manager as 'stability for the sake of stability.' It's an easy point to make, but I do genuinely think that there is an inherent value in managerial stability, particularly in cases such like this. When Hughes has spent all year imposing his methods and understandings on all aspects of the club ('Sparkyisation', if you will), there is a benefit from allowing those plans to take root. Should he be disposed of, not only would all the money invested this year be written off (would Frank Rijkaard really want Craig Bellamy?), but we'd have to undergo the whole process again from scratch, with a whole new set of overhauls and teething problems.

This isn't to give carte blanche for the failures of this season. 0-2 at Middlesbrough, 1-2 at West Brom, 0-2 at Portsmouth - 0-3 against Nottingham Forest at home - there have been some terrible results and performances this year. But the club's whole foundations are being rebuilt. Let's not tear them down and start again.