|
Post by johnknee on Jan 13, 2011 19:41:21 GMT 1
if the league can prevent players being transferred at certain stages of the season- why is it ridiculous? There is a significant difference between managers and players - if a player plays badly then he can be dropped, made to play in the reserves or train with the youths. If a manager fails, then the idea that you can't drop him from his duties is a dodgy road to go down. Managers are more important and can make or break a club more than what individual players can. if a manager has a contract- why is it ridiculous that the club should be prevented from breaching that contract? In the real world, if your manager thinks you are failing and not hitting your targets then they have the means to ask you to leave the company and football clubs are no different. Breach of contract happens all the time in all walks of life and for the breach of contract, the person leaving the company gets compensation. With the weekly wage the modern manager gets, the average chairman has to consider how much compensation they'll have to pay when deciding if to sack the manager. players cannot just cancel their contract and walk away from the club they are contracted to! No, but they can sulk and manufacture a transfer - just ask Mascarano from Liverpool, or Anelka from most of his early clubs, or Gallas's move from Chelsea or come the end of the season Fabregas from Arsenal or........ I'm trying to think if asking for a transfer counts as a kind of breach of contract.......
|
|
|
Post by dickwroe on Jan 14, 2011 0:53:04 GMT 1
QUOTE:_ There is a significant difference between managers and players - if a player plays badly then he can be dropped, made to play in the reserves or train with the youths. If a manager fails, then the idea that you can't drop him from his duties is a dodgy road to go down. Managers are more important and can make or break a club more than what individual players can.UNQUOTE: Read more: gillsconnected.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=messageboard&action=display&thread=2322#ixzz1Axk0tTxyall the more reason for clubs to excercise due dilligence when appointing them a good manager no more becomes a bad manager overnight than does a player
|
|
|
Post by wgongwolvesgill on Jan 15, 2011 12:13:48 GMT 1
I blame money and the structure of money for this. I think the player transfer window should also get a large part of the blame. Before the player transfer window, if things weren't going according to plan a club had two options for change: Sign new players Sack the manager Normally clubs would sign new players first in an attempt to turn things around, and the change of manager would only occur once the situation was critical. Now the only option clubs have is to sack the manager, so it is more likely that they will go down that path earlier than they used to.
|
|
|
Post by philthegill on Jan 24, 2011 9:08:04 GMT 1
Fotball has always been about money essexgill. Sky and the premier league have simply exagerated the gap between the have and have nots. I cant remember too many of us complaining when we splashed the cash and bought Hessie, Barry Ashby, Paul Smith or Bob Taylor. Dickroe made an excellent sugestion but I can just imagine the untenable position a club or manager of a team strugling at foot of the table would find themsleves in with the fans baying for the managers head at every home game or low season ticket sales . We've been very lucky at Gills to have had chairman who have given their managers every opportunity to succeed. I'm no big fan of Penfold but to his credit, he does stand by his managerial appointments
|
|
|
Post by essexgill on Jan 24, 2011 12:00:21 GMT 1
It's the growing gap in finances that causes the problem. If dropping from league 2 into the conference means a drop of around £400k for example, then who can really blame the chairman for trying something new. It's easy for us to say stick with the manager but that to me is real financial pressure.
With all of the sackings at the moment there's a lot of stick with the manager talk and some of the sacking have been barmy. I think though sticking with the manager isn't always the answer because many would just continue to be bad managers. So you can't have a blinkered view one way or another and as the chairman you would have to weigh up all of the factors. It's barmy to suggest you could put in place some rule to solve the problem when the real problem is money!
|
|