Manager Tenure

[crocarno]

With the current pressure cooker of today's football, it seems that managers are disposed of regularly. Although no club should put up with continued poor performance, I genuinely believe that a manager should be given a minimum period to manage/coach the team. Continued recycling of management (and associated staff) does not provide the necessary continuity required for any organisation and certainly leads to managers buying well established "top top" players from other clubs, rather than risk developing their own......what's the point in doing that or taking any risk if you'll be sacked in 4 weeks?

A potential solution (as the existing 2-6 year contracts mean nothing) would be to impose a minimum tenure of 12 months from the date of signing a contract. The way I see this working would be that if you want to "remove" your manager within that period, the club can only appoint (on a temporary basis) someone who was already at the club at the time the removed manager signed his contract - i.e. the club would have to use someone who has had association with the club for at least as long as the manager that was removed. This would hopefully increase stability as clubs would not be able to replace from elsewhere.

As with anything like this, I'm sure would be multiple other issues to resolve/exceptions to the rule (what would happen if due to sickness / death / misconduct etc.) the main one would require all teams in Europe to play by the same rules/criteria, but it might at least give clubs some stability and permit them to experiment/try things without the fear of getting the sack for losing 2 games. It would also ensure that clubs give a little more thought to the appointment of a manager if they knew they couldnt replace them for at least a year.

Thoughts?

 

[chelsea - over 100 years of history]

Some interesting ideas but I just don't think not being able to sack a manager is workable. Who is anyone to say whether someone should be kept on or not other than the club that pay the wages (plus a hefty pay off more often than not if he's sacked).

If the goal is to ensure the promotion of more youth etc, the easiest way is to bring in more rules like the home grown one. I.e a minimum 3 players in the match day squad from England etc or incentives to clubs that promote talent. Not sure how that would work but maybe if the P.L had an equivalent of FFP, then you could get some losses written off for home grown players or something?

 

[crocarno]

C>100 years.

For me, it's also about the stability. Clearly managers will still be on hefty salaries and high value release/early termination clauses, but maybe if they knew they couldn't recruit externally during that period, it might help. If it really wasn't working then, in effect, that manager would be relesased on garden leave and an internal temporary appointment would have to be made. It might just stop all the continuous hire & fire approach.



In terms of the quality / opportunity of young English footballers, the problem is well before the PL. My son plays in a local under 12 team (played with the same group for 5-6 years) and there are real issues. Although the league comes under the FA banner, there are a significant number of issues, two of which really stick out.

Firstly, the ground/pitch/facilities are terrible. Over this winter (admitedly the weather was poor) during an 11 week period, 8 games were cancelled/not allowed to be played. Many grounds don't even have toilet facilities. Linesmen are provded by the clubs. If they can't play, they won't improve.

Secondly, at under 11's (9-a-side) the goals measure either 16 or 20ft wide and are 8 ft high......therefore you have an 11 year old in a 20x8ft goal. All this encourages is hoofball and the powerful strikers of the ball to hit from anywhere. Also, games end up with high scorelines and defenders and keepers are demoralised and verbally attacked by the other kids (and sometimes the parents). It certainly does not encourage teams to play / move the ball, be creative or look for space. It really is messed up

 

[Chelsea Pensioner]

Seems to me that Managers have a style or type of football, in the same way as players are skilful, solid, brilliant, steady etc.
Too many clubs bring in managers who are at odds with the squad that will have to manage. This means upheaval and difficult transitions, poor results and the manager quickly on his bike.
Clubs need to be far more aware of matching styles and expectations.
Brendon Rogers had a decidedly dodgy start at Liverpool but it came good because the "chemistry" was right between him and his squad. Spurs take note.