Culture Change?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
T

THURNBY CANARY

Active Member
Mar 27, 2012
2,292
21
38
Thurnby Leices
I wondered if the cynical sackings of managers, largely through foreign owners desperate for instant gratification is actually starting to backfire. The Liverpool situation is not flowing well and Martinez does not look to have full backing while still the favourite, there have been several others who have distanced themselves from the job.
The same at Villa, notably Brendan Rogers who overtly chose to stay at Swansea. Last year we had the shambles at Wolves who got rid of McCarthy and then a long list of managers turned their backs on the appointment. I am hoping that we may be seeing a change in mindset and hopefully an increase in loyalty which could see contracts starting to mean something in the future. this could be all wishful thinking but I thought it was at least worth running buy you all to see if there is some agreement or appreciation or whether I am just talking tosh again!
 
where i would disagree about the culture change is that both major clubs highlighted, liverpool and aston villa, appear to be having problems for two different reasons. firstly, their approach for a new manager is only going to alienate the clubs of the managers they are seeking to interview - managers, including our own i suspect, probably feel that they won't have the same job to go back to if they are interviewed and then don't get the job. also, neither club are as big at this moment in time as they'd like to think they are. both are run in a bizarre fashion by american owners - many managers will be put off because they probably think they wouldn't be able to work under their system. i also wonder if they are slightly puzzled by the lack of 'high calibre' managers interested in the jobs. there was a time when the thought of managing either club would be very appealing - not so much now. liverpool's squad is heavily reliant on an ageing gerrard - they have already made it public there is only £30m to spend and that they MUST assure champions league football next year - highly unlikely! villa have nothing at all going for them except their history. the wolves case you also brought up was a total farce from start to finish - they shouldn't have sacked mccarthy but they had agreed in principal to hire curbishley. when that fell through they had no back up plan.
 
Good post,

Thing is, managers of the so called 'big' clubs with foreign owners invariably do not have total control of football matters. I think this may be the reason why Rodgers and Martinez have distanced themselves from certain jobs in the past. Other than Ferguson and Wenger, I can't think of any others that you would say really had that total control. Hopefully, this may lead to Paul Lambert thinking long and hard before moving on. I would say that he has a relatively free reign to do what he wants at City and generally gets his own way with McNally too <ok>
 
kickitoff-throwitin said:
Good post,

Thing is, managers of the so called 'big' clubs with foreign owners invariably do not have total control of football matters. I think this may be the reason why Rodgers and Martinez have distanced themselves from certain jobs in the past. Other than Ferguson and Wenger, I can't think of any others that you would say really had that total control. Hopefully, this may lead to Paul Lambert thinking long and hard before moving on. I would say that he has a relatively free reign to do what he wants at City and generally gets his own way with McNally too <ok>
Click to expand...

this is one reason why i feel david moyes would only go to man united. he, like lambert and ferguson, has total control over the football side of things at his club. to move to someone like say, chelsea or spurs, where that isn't the case, would be a huge gamble which may wreck his career.
 
kickitoff-throwitin said:
Good post,

Thing is, managers of the so called 'big' clubs with foreign owners invariably do not have total control of football matters. I think this may be the reason why Rodgers and Martinez have distanced themselves from certain jobs in the past. Other than Ferguson and Wenger, I can't think of any others that you would say really had that total control. Hopefully, this may lead to Paul Lambert thinking long and hard before moving on. I would say that he has a relatively free reign to do what he wants at City and generally gets his own way with McNally too <ok>
Click to expand...

Just what I was going to say. It seems at some clubs, the manager doesn't necessarily get to choose which players are brought to the club. (Torres to Chelsea springs to mind). Who, particularly if you were trying to build a career in management, would sign up to that?
 
I guess it is no surprise that those clubs that constantly do well leave football matters to the manager and the board deal with off the field issues. Some clubs have got away with it due to vast sums of money but there is a huge list where it has not worked. Positions such as director of football just don't seem to work in this country although they have worked for sides on the continent
 
We all remember a system when players transfers and wages were sorted out by the two clubs and the player. Now all and sundry are involved including the dreaded agent. Consequently, and thanks to Bosman, players wages in particular, have shot through the roof.
Anybody who owns a club, but particularly American and European owners, are quite loathe to pay out large sums and to be quite honest, I don't blame them.
 
Of course the other hindrance to any manager and club are wretched agents. I admire Paul Scholes for the reason that he does not have one ( and never has) and of course Hucks sacked his - great move. Foreign owners generally are a curse in my opinion and the amount of cash that Man City and Chelski have thrown about has largely ruined the game as a competitive sport.
 
I would just go to the interview for the Liverpool post in Miami for the free trip and sun (not that it's too bad here) and when I get home reject it!

Excellent post Thurnby!

One thing to note with a lot of these managers being linked with Villa and Liverpool is they ate already manager somewhere else. Why jump on the titanic when your both is still sailing?

Klopp, Mourinho et al have decent jobs where they are secure and winning trophies. Why go somewhere where there is less chance of winning trophies? Liverpool isn't as big as it used to be. These managers would rather be challenging for the league title and champions league which they can do at their current club.

With Martinez, Lambert, Rodgers et al they have found success at clubs who appreciate them and they have a team of players who respect them and play for the cause. Would Carroll, Gerrard and Downing be the same? I don't think so.
 
THURNBY CANARY said:
Of course the other hindrance to any manager and club are wretched agents. I admire Paul Scholes for the reason that he does not have one ( and never has) and of course Hucks sacked his - great move. Foreign owners generally are a curse in my opinion and the amount of cash that Man City and Chelski have thrown about has largely ruined the game as a competitive sport.
Click to expand...

Add Sky to that as well
 
Also with Liverpool you have to consider how the fans treated Hodgson from day one. The terraces won't be happy with anyone who isn't a "big name". (And thats a shame if the owners really are serious about a young, hungry manager).
 
CanaryWorf said:
Also with Liverpool you have to consider how the fans treated Hodgson from day one. The terraces won't be happy with anyone who isn't a "big name". (And thats a shame if the owners really are serious about a young, hungry manager).
Click to expand...

Problem is they're not going to get a big name as they are not as big as they used to be.
 
i don't understand what liverpool are playing at really. they've said they want a young, ambitious manager and then said that they HAVE to qualify for the champions league next season as their minimum requirement! surely, any young ambitious manager needs time to build the club up - their tactics are not going to work and i fully expect liverpool to be in the same position next summer, trying to find a new manager
 
Another way of looking at it is that the Premier League is moving, albeit slowly, towards a more European approach. Here in England there's a lot of tut-tutting if someone is perceived as not be being given enough time, i.e. several seasons, to develop the squad and style he wants (latest example Kenny Dalglish). The alternative is to see the squad as the more or less stable element, with the coach/manager appointed on a "this is what we have, see what you can do with it" basis. Of course, each incoming manager is usually allowed to get one or two players in, to strengthen perceived weaknesses in the existing squad, but that's the extent of it: tinkering yes, wholesale revamping no. In that context the transfer windows make far more sense than they do here at home.

So rather than seeing a "welcome" return to taking contracts seriously, two-way loyalty between chairman and manager, etc. etc. (all nice upright British sentiments), what we are actually seeing is managers reacting to an unsatisfactory state of affairs where, in the PL at least, we have neither a traditional English nor a more European organisational structure. Our usual falling between stools in other words. My own guess is that we can expect an increasing Europeanisation of the Premier League and a managerial merry-go-round at the end of each season will be more or less the norm.
 
Football has changed so much, even in the last 5 years and you're dead right Thurnby regarding owners wanting instant success. A new manager needs at least two/three years to stamp their own mark on a club but how
many clubs don't even give a new manager 1 season, it's crazy.
It's no coincidence that most clubs that are 'successful' have a long term manager.
Chelsea are the only club to buck the trend but since Mourinho left, they haven't looked like winning the league.

I wondered if Mancini would still be managing Citeh if Aguero hadn't scored that winner!
 
Carrowluke said:
.... It's no coincidence that most clubs that are 'successful' have a long term manager ....
Click to expand...

As I pointed out in my post, that's a very "provincial" attitude. If you look at the serially successful continental clubs, I think you'll get a different picture.
 
Carrowluke said:
Football has changed so much, even in the last 5 years and you're dead right Thurnby regarding owners wanting instant success. A new manager needs at least two/three years to stamp their own mark on a club but how
many clubs don't even give a new manager 1 season, it's crazy.
It's no coincidence that most clubs that are 'successful' have a long term manager.
Chelsea are the only club to buck the trend but since Mourinho left, they haven't looked like winning the league.

I wondered if Mancini would still be managing Citeh if Aguero hadn't scored that winner!
Click to expand...

didn't chelsea win the league two years ago? they've won countless trophies since mourinho left. bad example <ok>
 
I don't know the ins and outs of the workings within a football club but the director of football position must be used in a slightly different manner on the continent as it has been very successful for several clubs. Or maybe they use the manager in a different role to clubs in this country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back