But which is more important the money or the manager? I haven't said at any point that Pep is not a good manager, but City were nowhere before the money arrived. They had not won the league since the 60s and at the end of the last century were in the 3rd tier of English football and they only got out of there in 'dubious' fashion. Now thanks to the money they have won almost everything, that is not a coincidence
kinda proves the point though back him with top talent and he will elevate your club as you have demonstrated by analysing his Bolton tenure. however on the flip side I still haven’t seen Pep work at a club with moderate or below financial muscle to prove that he truly is a man manager. So far he’s proven that he’s quite good at cherry picking the best players in the world and assembling them into a team.
We`ve had Pochettino, Mourinho and Conte, nothing will change for the better until there is change at the very top.
Backing a manager with top talent isn't a wise strategy if a.) That's mortgaging the club's longterm sustainability b.) There's something dodgy going on behind the scenes to make it happen c.) All of the above The fact that so much of Bolton's current issues stem from the unsustainable debts which started to balloon around 2009-10 owes a lot to the practise that a few clubs were guilty of at the same time of thinking you could spend way beyond your means as long as you avoided relegation from the Premier League as that gravy train will keep your head above water - an idea that also caused longterm damage to the likes of Blackburn and Portsmouth from that same period which ultimately put them in the position they're now in, because it turns out you can only pay unsustainably season on season if you have a bottomless pit of money so it eventually balances out as Chelsea and The Sheikh Mansour Team have proved For example, remember how I said Bolton were paying 72% of their turnover on wages in 2006-7? That same season The Thaksin Shinawatra Team were paying 107% of their turnover on wages on the expectation that, sooner or later, the Champions League gravy train would balance the books
Watford are another case in point. They have used brief periods in the Premiership relying on bouncing back straightaway to finance a model which is not sustainable in the long term. Couple that with their view that it is fine to have two or three managers each season to keep your head above water. Now both have evaporated. What decent manager would want to commit to them? Get promoted and the likelihood is you will not be viewed as Premiership management material so will go anyway. In the early days their "innovative" tactic of managerial merry go round worked but it now seems they do not have a clue.
The issue isn't whether there are coaches with an edge, it is how to work out which ones they are. A two per cent edge is more or less undetectable. Even seeing a 5% edge in the data is a big ask.
It doesn’t at all. If money is all that matters then why do all the rich clubs only go for the likes of Pep, Mourinho, Ancelotti and why did Sam and Roy Hodgson fail at England, Liverpool, Everton and Newcastle.
The simple answer is that some managers are looking 2-3 season into the future, while others are looking at Game 38 and no further Pulis, Hodgson, Dyche and Allarshyte are all very useful when looking at the final game of the season and hoping you're at least 17th in the table, but they're only going to offer that - which is ultimately why Bolton's finances exploded, because by qualifying for Europe they were looking at that season and that season alone, never considering it might have been a blip and not a regular occurrence going forward Obviously there's the other side of the coin with mangers like Conte and the ubermensch who also operate looking at their position come Game 38, but they operate on finishing 1st not 17th and that usually comes with better sustainability due to the funds those clubs have available
To an extent the same managers keep getting top jobs because there is an element of a self fulfilling prophecy. As I pointed out above, Pep was very, very fortunate to get the Barca job when he did. He inherited an incredibly strong team with a simply ridiculous set of youngsters who he coached through La Masia. Not knocking his achievements with that group but to an extent, it was harder to fail than to succeed. Once that success was reached, a legend was born and since then a positive feedback loop has continued to feed that legend. Mourinho is similar. Achieved amazing things with his Porto side and was then very, very fortunate to be picked as one of the first managers to work for the first owner in football to whom money was literally no object. Like Pep, it was in some ways harder to fail than succeed with that first title winning Chelsea side, and once success was reached a similar feedback loop was made. However, the loop can be broken, no question. Mourinho is also proof of this. His time at United and at us demonstrated that he isn't quite as 'special' as he says he is, needing an unlimited budget and relatively uncompetitive league in order to flourish. At those clubs, he had neither, and struggled. This dented his reputation severely and as I wrote before we stupidly hired him, all of Real, Bayern, Juve, Dortmund, Inter and PSG changed manager while he was out of work and none of them considered hiring him. I questioned if we thought we were smarter than the collective wisdom of the planet's biggest clubs. And I was right. The loop was to an extent broken, which is why he is currently plying his trade at a mid table Italian team.
Football is a funny old game. It’s a paradox because moments in time can define how a manager or player are viewed more than the body of work, be it a year or years, that preceded it. Under Poch we were the most consistent side in the PL over 2 years but won nothing in that time because we couldn’t put results together over the span of games it takes to win a cup. Success in football, as in life, is as much about timing and luck as it is skill and hard work. You can only really judge managers and players based on the card of hands they’re dealt.
After some twitter chatter about Rangnick in the last couple of weeks, it’s interesting to see us linked to Johannes Spor. Not someone I know a lot about but having looked him up, he seems someone who has been heavily involved with the RB group and now in a similar recruitment/player management role across a number of clubs all owned by the same owner. Definitely seems to be a theme here, with Nagelsmann looking like our top choice for manager, and DoFs being linked who have been part of footballing ‘ecosystems’, and of course Scott Munn who built and ran one for City Group. It would be a major change in direction for the club if we start building a network (though I think I’m right in saying that ENIC have owned stakes in other clubs in the past so perhaps not a complete departure in strategy for our dear owners).
I think the element of risk plays a part. Big clubs rarely take big risks, with signings or managers. For instance look at some of the players Brighton have sold recently for crazy money, yet bought for absolute peanuts. The big clubs only want players once proven at a high level, the likes of Madrid for instance wouldn't pay £2.5m for some unknown Japanese winger in the J-League but would now likely be willing to pay £60m for a Japanese superstar in the Premier League... Same player, different era of their career. So I think the same applies to managers, the manager first needs that big break but then if they make a success of it, it sets them up for life with countless opportunities. For what it's worth though, I do generally agree that the likes of Jose, Pep and co are of a higher pedigree than most but I do also wonder for some managers "what if" seeing as managers more so than players (other than keeper maybe) have smaller openings at big clubs, as you can only have one manager at any given time and there's only about 6 elite clubs.
Allardyce did better at Everton than Ancellotti did! (2 x 8th placed finishes in against Ancelottis 10th & 12th both were manager for half a season and a full season) And you can hardly say that Allardyce failed for England he had a 100% win record all be it was for the only game he was manager for.
Quite admire Nagelsmann’s stance. Sounds like he’s interested in us and sees potential but is also wary of there not being a lot of planning and vision at the moment so won’t commit. Wait to hire the (right) DoF, see what the plans are and then build on something all being well. Much better than someone just saying “yes”, taking the contract then being left scratching their heads over potential funds and the actual footballing plan on how to move forward. We get this right and we might just see a mini revival to stop the rut. He might be the closest thing to Pochettino that isn’t Pochettino.
yeah sounds like he’s saying ‘I’m ready but are you?’ that’s fair enough coz we all know we are never ready
This does tie in to what Dan KP said a few weeks ago about how we're only interested in bringing in managers who see us as their first preference, not the backup And it has to be said, that's likely why Poch isn't on the list given he's open to talks with Chelsea and isn't making much of a secret about keeping his options open in case the Los Ladrones job opens up
