I don’t really understand why some think Holloway has been treated badly. He will have been given targets/metrics at the beginning of the season, accepted them, and he and Les will know how he did against them. Football manager is one of the least secure jobs in the world, he walks away with the rest of his contract paid up, which is more than 99% of people who get made redundant get.
So what if he wanted to stay and have a longer contract? I would like a pay rise, a promotion and a generous early retirement package, but I’m not going to get them, and I’ve put 17 years in.
Stability? We have stability regardless of manager - we are a club with a salary cap, which buys cheap, sells wherever possible at slightly less cheap, and tries to turns kids into professionals. Part of the ‘philosophy’ is a style of football which presumably we can see in the teams that Ramsey oversees, but which seems to collapse, along with ‘stability’ of team selection, when it gets to the first team.
It seems to me that the prime reason for discomfort about this is sentimentality - Holloway is a nice bloke and an R. Which is fair enough, sentimentality is the only reason I spend any time on QPR. But I’m pretty sure that if we had kept JFH and he delivered exactly the same results (26 wins out of 80 games, 10 clean sheets) everyone would have been baying for his blood. Holloway’s highly emotional sentimentality is a weakness in this job.
Judging by what C Whittingham has written, Holloway is an unhappy man, not his old eccentric self, given to rambling and incoherent outbursts. Perhaps the club is doing him a favour.
Just noticed that Col has said this much more clearly.