Hughes not asked to resign.

[knocker]

according to Ian taylor on Twitter .

[jmelanie]

I don't think this is true, but they did not want it appearing in the newspapers. Notice although it was rumoured last night it took until this afternoon to appear in the newspapers. If it wasn't to ask him to resign why did Beard meet with him. I'm afraid that despite everything TF still wants to keep him on.

[Greg1882]

Tf is not in the country . We're not gonna get anything at old Trafford other than a bloody good hiding so why rush back ? He may genuinely respect mark and feels he needs to be a man and sack him personally

[jmelanie]

I think TF is due back tomorrow or Thursday.

[oldskoolturk]

What Ian Taylor tweeted:

'@IJTaylor81: I can confirm that stories suggesting that Mark Hughes was asked to resign and refused to are inaccurate. #QPR'

Notice he says inaccurate and not incorrect. To me that suggests that part of this is true. Wishful thinking but maybe it's the 'refused' bit which is inaccurate??!

[Bluehoop]

Wow, some people will try and read anything into things - the choice of the word inaccurate over incorrect being seen as something to grab hold of? I see you say maybe wishful thinking but honestly, it seems the Board are seeing this whole thing differently to us and the press - who, let's face it, will always hype to sell their press.

Apparently no, sorry, allegedly, yesterday the players were "given a day off" - must be true because I read it on here and people were slating the Club/players for the audacity of having a day off (and rightly so if it had been true). Then it changed to it being a disgrace that the training session was not being attended by the manager because he was in a dressing down meeting with Phil Beard whereas it seems this is a weekly routine - Hughes doesn't do the Monday session and always has a meeting with beard on Mondays. That's not a lot different to when I worked in senior management - we always had meetings on a Monday morning while the junior managers oversaw the day to day work stuff. To answer the question why did Beard meet with him if it wasn't to ask for him to resign - well that's already covered. Then of course Hughes has been sacked which must be true because I read it on here and all over the internet.

Actually, the one thing TF has been is consistent. He said he wasn't sacking him after (insert game after game) and even when the press, TV and twitter users told the world he would be sacked Tony repeated that he was safe - and also said that before Saturday's game as well as after it.

So why are we all shocked and/or trying to read something into events other than the obvious reality. I guess it all smacks of desperation and a hope for change - but you have to admire the Board/TF for sticking to their guns. Just so long as they stick so rigidly to the plan if we go down as a result of their decisions.

[jmelanie]

I haven't see anywhere where he said anything after Saturday's game (about Hughes being sacked). Where did you see this?

[Felt]

Actually, the one thing TF has been is consistent. He said he wasn't sacking him after (insert game after game) and even when the press, TV and twitter users told the world he would be sacked Tony repeated that he was safe - and also said that before Saturday's game as well as after it.

Fernandes hasn't tweeted anything about Hughes since the game though, and he knows the speculation that's about and that he could kill it off by tweeting that they're not getting rid of him. There's the other shareholders to take into account too... I think Hughes is a goner either this week or next.

[oldskoolturk]

Wow, some people will try and read anything into things - the choice of the word inaccurate over incorrect being seen as something to grab hold of? I see you say maybe wishful thinking but honestly, it seems the Board are seeing this whole thing differently to us and the press - who, let's face it, will always hype to sell their press.

Apparently no, sorry, allegedly, yesterday the players were "given a day off" - must be true because I read it on here and people were slating the Club/players for the audacity of having a day off (and rightly so if it had been true). Then it changed to it being a disgrace that the training session was not being attended by the manager because he was in a dressing down meeting with Phil Beard whereas it seems this is a weekly routine - Hughes doesn't do the Monday session and always has a meeting with beard on Mondays. That's not a lot different to when I worked in senior management - we always had meetings on a Monday morning while the junior managers oversaw the day to day work stuff. To answer the question why did Beard meet with him if it wasn't to ask for him to resign - well that's already covered. Then of course Hughes has been sacked which must be true because I read it on here and all over the internet.

Actually, the one thing TF has been is consistent. He said he wasn't sacking him after (insert game after game) and even when the press, TV and twitter users told the world he would be sacked Tony repeated that he was safe - and also said that before Saturday's game as well as after it.

So why are we all shocked and/or trying to read something into events other than the obvious reality. I guess it all smacks of desperation and a hope for change - but you have to admire the Board/TF for sticking to their guns. Just so long as they stick so rigidly to the plan if we go down as a result of their decisions.

Difference here is that it is coming directly from the QPR press office and not the papers.

The reason I picked up on the 'inaccurate' word is that Ian Taylor could quite easily have said Not true/incorrect/false etc as he did yesterday to categorically deny that Hughes had been sacked. Instead he uses inaccurate which suggests there is an element if truth but not 100% correct.

Sorry if that seems like clutching at straws but I just find the wording quite watered down for a denial statement.

[superhoop67]

maybe MH has negotiated an even bigger bonus to keep us up this season , quite a clever plan

[twranger]

maybe he should have been TOLD to resign rather than ASKED to resign - that might have put a different complection on things.

[stanistheman]

I read that he is entitled to a £5m pay off which needs TF to sign off. Hughes may have been asked to resign but they wouldn't want this public knowledge because this would effect the players preparation for the Utd game. Either way it is very messy and doesn't bode well for the next week or so.

[QPRDave]

What Ian Taylor tweeted:

'@IJTaylor81: I can confirm that stories suggesting that Mark Hughes was asked to resign and refused to are inaccurate. #QPR'

Notice he says inaccurate and not incorrect. To me that suggests that part of this is true. Wishful thinking but maybe it's the 'refused' bit which is inaccurate??!

Could this also not suggest that its inaccurate that he refused to resign?...Not just as the thread title says that he was not asked to resign....sorry oldskool just realised you said that..yeah i agree with you strange wording

[Kirill]

...but they wouldn't want this public knowledge because this would effect the players preparation for the Utd game.

Why not? I think it would affect the players very well. And the fans, too