|
|
Post by Big_Al on Jan 10, 2011 13:38:38 GMT 1
Local rag at Aldershot reckon Kevin Dillon has got the chop
|
|
|
|
Post by dickwroe on Jan 10, 2011 14:29:50 GMT 1
at this rate stimmo will get back into a league job- the league is running out of managers
i would like to see new rules preventing clubs from sacking managers until the end of the season- or perhaps only during the transfer windows and a MINIMUM tenure of office
after all - if they are crap its down to the people that employed them
sacking managers after a few months in charge is ludicrous
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2011 15:58:00 GMT 1
A very sensible suggestion, dick. A lot of chairmen sack managers to cover up their own mistakes and I even heard one pundit to suggest that some chairman sack managers to avoid spending money in the transfer window as it takes attention away from the window onto appointing the new manager.
I'd like to say management changes only being allowed at the end of the season and managers having to have a minimum 2 years in office. Would make clubs think a lot harder about who they appoint and focus on less short-termism.
Would also stop the ludicrous situation like has happened at Liverpool where Hodgson is reported to be getting £7.5million pay off for 6 months work
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisgills on Jan 10, 2011 16:01:05 GMT 1
It's been confirmed by the club now.
|
|
|
|
Post by kennygrimace on Jan 10, 2011 20:54:15 GMT 1
And remember that 2 months ago Andy Hessenthaler was on the brink of dismissal here at Gfc! I recall how certain people demanded his resignation while others urged caution. Hopefully, recent form will continue and we'll be proved right.
Dickwroe makes an excellent point. Surely it's ridiculous the way Allardyde, Hodgson( excellent coach but Egos at LFC thought him to ordinary for them), and Hughton have been treated. I would add Paul Simpson and Mark Stimson to that list,as both have no budget and simply haven't been given the neccessary time.
These events are not in the spirirt of football regardless of it being a "results business". The moneymen and Sky have caused this and it's up to ordinary fans like us to make our views known. I'd urge Dickwroe to write to the FA with his ideas.
UTG!!
|
|
|
|
Post by johnknee on Jan 11, 2011 0:41:36 GMT 1
A very sensible suggestion, dick. A lot of chairmen sack managers to cover up their own mistakes and I even heard one pundit to suggest that some chairman sack managers to avoid spending money in the transfer window as it takes attention away from the window onto appointing the new manager. I'd like to say management changes only being allowed at the end of the season and managers having to have a minimum 2 years in office. Would make clubs think a lot harder about who they appoint and focus on less short-termism. Would also stop the ludicrous situation like has happened at Liverpool where Hodgson is reported to be getting £7.5million pay off for 6 months work Of course, if the FA did bring in the rule that you can only fire managers at the end of the season then we'd all be complaining that the rules lead to us to be relegated as we wouldn't have been able to sack Stimson and it is all the league's fault. Ok, Scally stuck with him until the end, but we wouldn't have known that. Scally could have claimed he wanted to but couldn't and so would come out of last season smelling of roses - or at least not so much the smell of manure. Liverpool's 'cost' for picking the wrong manager is the reported £7.5m compensation. You have to remember Hodgson was hired by the previous owners as saw him as a safe pair of hands who wouldn't rock the boat. The new owners want a more ambitious manager. It is nonsense to suggest the average chairman is looking at things in the short term. All chairman try to look at the selection of the manager for the long term, caretaker managers aside. It is nonsense to suggest that a manager cannot be sacked for failing (for a given definition based upon the team's ambition) and that they cannot be replaced with someone more capable. The difficulty for the chairman is knowing whether or not to stick or twist concerning the manager. Sometimes a failing manager is Sir Alex Fergusion who was reported a match away from being sacked, and sometimes the manager is a Mark Stimson who with hindsight should have left sooner? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2011 11:15:38 GMT 1
The trouble is that everyone knows that for a club to be successful, the manager needs to be given time. We're used to managers being sacked who's clubs are bottom of the league, but this season we've seen some spectacularly bad decisions. In the top flight if anyone can justify the sackings of Hughton & Allardyce, I'd be amazed. Peterborough sacking Gary Johnson tops the lot. Add to that managers given no time like Paul Simpson and its daft.
There are other cases where the board have used the manager as an excuse. Darren Ferguson at Preston was bottom of the league, but has had to sell players and use the loan market to try and survive. Its well known that the playing budget has been sharply cut, yet Ferguson is the fall guy for the board.
Take Middlesborough last season - sacked Southgate and where are they now? Sheff Utd made a change and are worse off.
So no, Scally couldn't have sacked Stimson when he should, but to be fair to Scally, he's good at giving his managers time and tries to bring stability to the club. I'd rather that than Peterborough's barmy chairman or the idiot at Ipswich
|
|
|
|
Post by dickwroe on Jan 11, 2011 23:44:41 GMT 1
A very sensible suggestion, dick. A lot of chairmen sack managers to cover up their own mistakes and I even heard one pundit to suggest that some chairman sack managers to avoid spending money in the transfer window as it takes attention away from the window onto appointing the new manager. I'd like to say management changes only being allowed at the end of the season and managers having to have a minimum 2 years in office. Would make clubs think a lot harder about who they appoint and focus on less short-termism. Would also stop the ludicrous situation like has happened at Liverpool where Hodgson is reported to be getting £7.5million pay off for 6 months work Of course, if the FA did bring in the rule that you can only fire managers at the end of the season then we'd all be complaining that the rules lead to us to be relegated as we wouldn't have been able to sack Stimson and it is all the league's fault. Ok, Scally stuck with him until the end, but we wouldn't have known that. Scally could have claimed he wanted to but couldn't and so would come out of last season smelling of roses - or at least not so much the smell of manure. Liverpool's 'cost' for picking the wrong manager is the reported £7.5m compensation. You have to remember Hodgson was hired by the previous owners as saw him as a safe pair of hands who wouldn't rock the boat. The new owners want a more ambitious manager. It is nonsense to suggest the average chairman is looking at things in the short term. All chairman try to look at the selection of the manager for the long term, caretaker managers aside. It is nonsense to suggest that a manager cannot be sacked for failing (for a given definition based upon the team's ambition) and that they cannot be replaced with someone more capable. The difficulty for the chairman is knowing whether or not to stick or twist concerning the manager. Sometimes a failing manager is Sir Alex Fergusion who was reported a match away from being sacked, and sometimes the manager is a Mark Stimson who with hindsight should have left sooner? and on the opposite side of the coin- promising managers or those doing well could not be poached away swings and roundabouts |
|
|
|
Post by swingfieldgill on Jan 12, 2011 16:20:13 GMT 1
I posted on an earlier topic regarding the sacking by Barnet of Stimson that people shouldn't crow when a man loses his job and that it is frequently the directors who appointed a manager who panic and sack him when results go wrong and some dickhead replied by asking me what substances I had been sniffing. Having r ead all the posts on this topic I find that quite a few posters agree with me so I feel justified.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnknee on Jan 12, 2011 19:49:11 GMT 1
I posted on an earlier topic regarding the sacking by Barnet of Stimson that people shouldn't crow when a man loses his job and that it is frequently the directors who appointed a manager who panic and sack him when results go wrong and some dickhead replied by asking me what substances I had been sniffing. Having r ead all the posts on this topic I find that quite a few posters agree with me so I feel justified. There are always execption to the rule. Stimson will always be the sporn of Satan to the Priestfield masses.... As an another example, consider the fact that most fans of smaller clubs have strong sympathy with the supporters of other clubs if they go into administration because all small clubs always have that hanging over them. On the other hand, had Portsmouth gone under, many of the fans who hates seening teams fold would think "Serves themselves right, you reap what you sow".... |
|
|
|
Post by Bexley Gills on Jan 12, 2011 21:34:48 GMT 1
The fact remains that chairmen in the lower leagues are now copying more and more premier division chairmen and sacking too easily. Manager's life expectancy in a job is becoming shorter and shorter because we now have a footballing culture of blame the manager, sack him. It has become too easy. I don't believe, however this is a fixable problem. The idea of forcing a club to keep a manager until the end of the season is ridiculous, you can't stop clubs from changing managers and the same with this ideas managers can't be sacked for 2 years. It's illogical and unable to work.
We can't stop this new culture spreading because there is ever increasingly more money in football making it possible to pay off managers easier and easier.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnknee on Jan 12, 2011 23:02:44 GMT 1
The other problem is that chairman are just recycling managers who haven't done much and have repeatedly failed.
|
|
|
|
Post by essexgill on Jan 12, 2011 23:45:38 GMT 1
I blame money and the structure of money for this. As the game becomes more about money and less about fair competition, this is going to happen and it's not just at the top of the game.
These foot of the table league 2 sackings, I can understand. If next year a league two club gets £500k from the football league, compared with just £60k from the conference, you can see the cost in most cases of getting rid of a manager is more than worth it. It's the pressure of these differentials which means these decisions get taken.
It's very easy for us as supporters in our position to say the sacking are harsh but the financial implications of relegation are very real. I don't understand the sackings at Charlton and Peterborough though, that does seem crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by dickwroe on Jan 13, 2011 13:08:35 GMT 1
if the league can prevent players being transferred at certain stages of the season- why is it ridiculous?
if a manager has a contract- why is it ridiculous that the club should be prevented from breaching that contract?
players cannot just cancel their contract and walk away from the club they are contracted to!
your attitude of "we cant stop this because it has already happened" is very french 1939 if you don't mind me saying
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisgills on Jan 13, 2011 17:46:40 GMT 1
if the league can prevent players being transferred at certain stages of the season- why is it ridiculous? if a manager has a contract- why is it ridiculous that the club should be prevented from breaching that contract? players cannot just cancel their contract and walk away from the club they are contracted to! your attitude of "we cant stop this because it has already happened" is very french 1939 if you don't mind me saying Agree maybe a more settled managers who are able to work more the long term good of the clubs would result in developing more youngsters.Which would be good for the game as a whole in this country.How it could be done and be legal etc would be a difficult process but one worth looking at for sure.Who would have thought that we would have transfer windows and players able to walk away at the end of their contracts five years before it happened. |
|
