You and Hughes' army?

In the next few weeks, we will know whether or not Mark Hughes's decision to ditch Fulham after less than a year of wedded bliss was a brilliant career move or an agent-driven act of attention-seeking.

You should always give someone the benefit of any doubt - well, maybe not always - so most bloggers, tweeters and Cottagers assumed Hughes must have had another job lined up to jump ship and risk the wrath of Mohamed Al-Fayed (or perhaps that Michael Jackson statue was just a step too far for Sparky...). Certainly Hughes's assertion that "as a young, ambitious manager I wish to move on to further my experiences" suggested he was simply switching dugouts rather than taking a break.

SPARKY'S DREAM: Is Hughes Villa-bound...or
might Chelsea be a more likely destination?

When the news broke early on Thursday evening, with Hughes reportedly a target for managerless Aston Villa, it seemed merely a formality that the former Manchester United and Chelsea striker would be on his way to Villa Park. But then journalists in the know, like the BBC's peerless Pat Murphy and the Birmingham Mail's Mat Kendrick (who first broke the exclusive earlier in the week that Houllier would be leaving) began hearing that Villa weren't actually interested in Hughes.

The Welshman's claim that his resignation had "not been influenced by any outside party" seemed unlikely, given the timing. But once it emerged Villa had another man as their top target (Carlo Ancelotti, Martin Jol or Steve McClaren would seem the most likely), it seemed that either Hughes had his eye on another vacant post, or was taking a massive gamble in leaving behind a secure job and Europa League football for a period in the wilderness until a bigger club came a-calling.

Perhaps his agent Kia Joorabchian (yes, him of the Tevez/West Ham affair) felt Hughes's Chelsea connections might land him the job at Stamford Bridge. Maybe that's more likely than it might seem - Chelsea skipper John Terry stated today Hughes was "someone that hopefully the club will be talking to". Now, he may be away on England duty, but it seems unlikely that Terry would not be kept in the loop as to the possible identity of the club's new boss. Was everyone's favourite Dad of the Year dropping a hint? It might explain Hughes's hasty exit, and actually wouldn't be a crazy move by Roman Abramovich (particularly if Guus Hiddink makes himself unavailable).

But what of Villa? Speaking as a long-suffering supporter myself, I'd be wary of the club appointing someone like McClaren, who will immediately split fan opinion in spite of his achievements at club level. What Villa needs, after the divise Gerard Houllier reign, is unity and a sense of collective purpose. It's what Martin O'Neill brought after the shambles of the David O'Leary era - someone like Hughes, Ancelotti or the cuddly Jol would certain provide it.