Hiddink talks of MCFC interest

It's no secret that last December, when considering sacking Mark Hughes, we approached Guus Hiddink to discuss taking over. The story was run in the Daily Telegraph at the time, and made some waves. Yesterday Guus Hiddink spoke publicly about our interest in him for the first time:

"We didn't have talks but I knew there was some interest," said Hiddink.

"It's a big club, a club with history, also a club with money," said Hiddink, who has also worked at PSV Eindhoven, Real Madrid and Fenerbahce.

"It was a difficult decision because I had the experience of (working) more (with) clubs and I had the experience, of course, last year with Chelsea, which I enjoyed very much."

Interesting stuff. All it does is confirm something that existed as rumour before. But it does underline that the decision to sack Hughes was taken independently of that to pick Roberto Mancini, and that Mancini was not necessarily first choice. Which itself demonstrates just how important the board saw finishing fourth this season as in terms of the club's long term progress.

Telegraph: Cook tried for Hiddink first

A Jason Burt article in the Telegraph today claims that Garry Cook offered the job to Guus Hiddink before the deal was done with Roberto Mancini:

At the start of this month, Cook met Hiddink’s agent, Cees Van Nieuwenhuizen, at Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport armed with an offer for the Dutchman to succeed Hughes immediately. Furthermore Cook had arranged for a private jet to be put on standby so that Van Nieuwenhuizen and Hiddink could fly directly to Abu Dhabi to meet City owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan and seal the deal.

Cook’s behaviour shows he went much further than attempting to sound out Hiddink and made a concerted attempt to hire the Russia coach. The Daily Telegraph revealed that City planned to remove Hughes last week and had approached Hiddink before then offering the job to Mancini.

If true, this at least shows that the club considered other options before Roberto Mancini. And, to be honest, I would be much less disappointed with their conduct if they had replaced Hughes with Hiddink. But the question remains: having been rejected by Hiddink, did the club not consider the policy of abandoning their plans to replace Hughes? Sacking Hughes in December was only ever going to be devious and unfair, but if you replace him with Hiddink at least it's a probable improvement. If you're going to be callous at least be calculating too.

Telegraph: Cook in Hiddink enquiry

Quite big news in the Daily Telegraph this morning: it carries a claim from Cees Van Nieuwenhuizen (Guus Hiddink's agent), claiming that Garry Cook has enquired about Guus Hiddink joining MCFC at the end of the season:

“Yes, I did [speak to Cook]. But Guus is happy with Russia. Definitely,” Van Nieuwenhuizen said. “I had a call because I have been working with Garry for 12 years since we worked together at Nike. But I have received calls from all over the world about Guus. There has also been an approach from Juventus.

“He (Cook) asked me if it would be worthwhile having a meeting to discuss the future and what might happen next summer. But I told him that Guus was contracted to Russia."

Interesting stuff. It's come out today that Hiddink is likely to stay with the Russian national side but that isn't really the point here. The simple fact that Garry Cook - and this is presuming that van Nieuwenhuizen is telling the truth - is sounding out potential managers for 2010/11 is fascinating. But then if we are to sack Hughes this May then Hiddink will naturally be near the top of any wishlist, and it only makes sense to lay the preparation now.

This is being reported as a 'pressure mounts on Hughes' story and while it is clearly embarrassing for the club (again, presuming that this Cook/van Nieuwenhuizen conversation took place) I don't think that it has any material difference on Hughes' position. We have heard many times before that Hughes is under pressure and that the board were thinking of sacking him - in September 2008 after the takeover itself, in December 2008 when we were in the relegation zone, and in May 2009 when we only finished tenth. At every instance the board have been more patient than people have expected, and more willing to give Hughes time. He doesn't have carte blanche, and may well not be the manager in 2010/11 but I would be shocked and stunned if the board broke their promise to give Hughes the entirety of this season to prove himself. It's not like we need European qualification to stay afloat.