OK so I know that whenever the frequency of manager sackings in Football comes up, no matter how much the argument heats up it always ends up with a few people saying "it's just the times, football is all about money these days that's what it comes down to" and then nothing more is said. I'm sure during the Spanish inquisition, when that got out of hand some people were saying "it's just the times, nothing we can do about it" but we don't have that kind of thing anymore, at least not in the western world (and not to that extreme). So I think maybe it's about time people stopped making excuses for this kind of behaviour, its just utterly unheard of in any other profession. For the record I have absolutely no problem with Pochettino and I'm not suggesting that old managers be reinstated, I just don't think it should be tolerated anymore. In some instances, even this season, I can understand certain decisions to sack managers. Bournemouth for example, spent a fortune on players and were getting nowhere, then suddenly they sign their old manager and they are pushing for the play offs. Yet the frequency is just getting ridiculous now, nobody knows what Blackburn are meant to be anymore, Venky's probably either hate football or hate Blackburn because what has sacking managers left right and centre actually achieved? I'm not trying to start a revolution here or anything, I just think fans need to see beyond the whole "its the manager that's the problem" attitude because in some instances that does seem to influence the owners.
Sacked managers
- Thread starter randomsamno9
- Start date
-
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
-
I agree that managers are probably sacked too frequently, but football is a results driven job. It may not be common or easy to sack managers in a lot of industries at the level we are familiar with, but it is common at the top level in major companies to sack nonperformers. The risk of this happening is offset by the fact that they get payoffs we can only dream about.
In football, results are not the same in any other business. In other businesses your not limited to a year with 20 other companies and if you don't perform well enough your not allowed to compete with those companies next year. Relegation is inevitable because there are 3 relegation spots, 3 teams have to go down, if a manager is only working with what they are given there is often nothing they can do. The fairplay rules may well, eventually, change things a little, but nobody knows how, managers could be blamed more often, could be blamed less. What I do know is that there was a time when most managers were given a chance. Perhaps a rule such as no manager changes after the season starts should be introduced (with some exceptions, such as a manager having to leave for health reasons). Lots of people will hate it but it would be fairer nonetheless. I think we can also look at the managers themselves in some situations, who occasionally leave at the drop of a hat because someone said they can make an extra bit of money. I will never understand for the life of me why Nigel Pearson went from Leicester to Hull a few seasons ago. Where is he now? Back at Leicester, and now Hull are doing better without him. Still, a change in the system should be considered, because its becoming less like a sport and more like a bit of entertainment each year now.
"In football, results are not the same in any other business. In other businesses your not limited to a year with 20 other companies and if you don't perform well enough your not allowed to compete with those companies next year. "
Most companies would dream of that. Public companies today are under great pressure to make their results once per quarter and have many more than 20 competitors (unless in a monopoly or oligopoly, and some managers even mess those companies up e.g. the railways). When companies fail to perform, many people end up losing their jobs, and usually its not the managers. Football managers are very well remunerated (in the top leagues anyway) to do a great and interesting job, lets save the tissues for the less fortunate and enjoy the circus that football is today, its not going to change any time soon.
Most companies would dream of that. Public companies today are under great pressure to make their results once per quarter and have many more than 20 competitors (unless in a monopoly or oligopoly, and some managers even mess those companies up e.g. the railways). When companies fail to perform, many people end up losing their jobs, and usually its not the managers. Football managers are very well remunerated (in the top leagues anyway) to do a great and interesting job, lets save the tissues for the less fortunate and enjoy the circus that football is today, its not going to change any time soon.
Perhaps but many managers can also spend many years in a job, never once feeling under pressure even at times of poor performances. In football, managers are sacked even when they have over performed. It is a strange business Football, but there is still room for changes. Only a couple of years ago I was told things wouldn't change, the top four (liverpool, arsenal, chelsea and man u) wouldn't change at all, the fairplay rules would never be introduced, touchline technology wouldn't be considered, German and French football would never improve, over and over again I'm told things wont change in football and they do. You will excuse me if I take the word change a little less seriously than others do, the story of history is the story of change, and frequently that change is cyclical, so I don't think a return to an old style of football ownership is completely beyond imagination. Perhaps it would only be a subtle change, I mentioned the top 4 before and we may only be able to change 1 or 2 names to that come the end of the season, but things still changed nonetheless.
Frankly, whatever anyone's opinion, I don't see what anyone can do about it. Football has become so much more than it was, even as recently as 15-20 years ago.
People go on about managers being given sufficient time to get things right, but it's not the people who are risking relegation, or sometimes a lack of success, who are saying it. Yes, it's harsh. For those who don't like it, my advice is don't be a manager or get together and own your football club and then you can give a manager sufficient time to relegate you or bring you success.
People go on about managers being given sufficient time to get things right, but it's not the people who are risking relegation, or sometimes a lack of success, who are saying it. Yes, it's harsh. For those who don't like it, my advice is don't be a manager or get together and own your football club and then you can give a manager sufficient time to relegate you or bring you success.
When most managers get sacked, it also comes with a very nice pay off as well which most people do not get. If the chairman/owner is willing to pay off the manager then surely its up to him/her to do so. All managers understand thier position is driven by results. Di Mateo was loved by the fans but the owner thought he was not good enough after winning the FA Cup and European cup, Our own NA is similar as he did nothing wrong but the chairman believes MP is better for the club, and I personnally have to agree with himalthough it was tough
Another thing..! I wouldn't mind betting there's a correlation between the frequency of managers being sacked before the transfer window was introduced and since its introduction. After all, part of some managers jobs is to hire/fire the right/wrong people at the right time. That's one ability the transfer window has taken away.
My explanation has nothing to do with money; it's to do with statistics.
Let's imagine a 17 team league where there are 32 games a season. Let's also imagine for simplicity that you either win or lose every game. Let's also imagine that results are totally random.
You'd think that in this league there would be no reason to sack a manager, as it's all random.
Except, in any set of 32 games there would probably be a run of five or more losses for about a third of teams. In fact, in a typical season, one team would have a run of eight losses. Every other season, a team would have a run of nine losses and every fourth season a team would have a run of ten losses.
Put into that mix a bundle of smug footy-club-owning knowalls and you would get mass sackings every year. And the irony is that they would be proven right. There's a 50% chance that if you sack your manager after a losing run, your team will win one of the next two games and a 25% chance that they will win both!
Ironic, isn't it? In a totally random game, chairmen learn that it's good to sack managers. No wonder they do it in a complex, real world.
Vin
Let's imagine a 17 team league where there are 32 games a season. Let's also imagine for simplicity that you either win or lose every game. Let's also imagine that results are totally random.
You'd think that in this league there would be no reason to sack a manager, as it's all random.
Except, in any set of 32 games there would probably be a run of five or more losses for about a third of teams. In fact, in a typical season, one team would have a run of eight losses. Every other season, a team would have a run of nine losses and every fourth season a team would have a run of ten losses.
Put into that mix a bundle of smug footy-club-owning knowalls and you would get mass sackings every year. And the irony is that they would be proven right. There's a 50% chance that if you sack your manager after a losing run, your team will win one of the next two games and a 25% chance that they will win both!
Ironic, isn't it? In a totally random game, chairmen learn that it's good to sack managers. No wonder they do it in a complex, real world.
Vin
I think that the best managers start off okay and get better as time progresses. Under Adkins, we were a bit inconsistent at the start of our first season under himbut found our form towards the end. The most obvious example is SAF. Kenny Dalglish started off well at Liverpool, who would have been in the CL had the season been based on since he took over, but in the long run they finished eighth the following season and sacked him. Sacking managers may be good in the short run but not necessarily in the long run.
There's no doubt about it, some managerial sackings have been a bit bloody ridiculous. On the surface, Cortese sacking Adkins was too, but I believe many are coming around to realising that the decision may have been the best one, given the availability of Pochettino, the timing and the ambitions of the club. I think Adkins knew he was on a tight line as well. No, I'm talking about sackings like Chris Hughton at Newcastle, Michael Appleton at Blackburn and Billy Davies at Nott'm Forest, during his first term. What do these clubs expect..? Forest have now realised that Davies was doing a pretty damn god job at the time, and look what he's doing for them now. Incidentally, they say managers should never go back. Well he's surely biffed that little rule about.
The sacking of all of the Premier League managers except Hughes have been surprising and I was very disappointed in the way Southampton got rid of Adkins and I lost a bit of my enthusiasm for the club at the time. I am not an Adkins lover, however the sacking of Adkins basically stated we will run this club as a business with no regard to the fans or the community.
In amongst all this, you have to remember that Appleton was at Blackburn exactly one day longer than he was at Blackpool, who he left in the lurch after 66 days. He was fired at Blackburn after 67 days, meaning Blackburn generously gave him a day more than he gave Blackpool. There are other situations which also tell us that this is a two-way game: Lambert and Rodgers were worshipped at their respective newly-promoted clubs, and both within contract when they decided to leave for better opportunities. Perhaps Nigel would have done the same - we don't know. I felt really bad for both sets of fans, as I will feel bad for Swansea when Laudrup ups and goes after the usual lip service to the fans. Martinez did his best to leave Wigan, a club who easily could have fired him at points before that, and have kept faith in him through thick and thin. Whilst I think these sackings are as ridiculous as the next man, both parties know exactly what they are getting in to, and what the stakes are. It is simply a case of who ****s over who first - an amicable, end-of-contract parting of ways is very unlikely.
Yes, none of it is good for the fans or the clubs in terms of stability - but who are we kidding if we think that is a consideration by most people at the top in reality? It's a food chain, and the players are involved in exactly the same. The only ones who are not are the fans, and sometimes it works out (Swansea) and sometimes it doesn't (Blackburn). Relegation battlers and (to a lesser extent) clubs pushing for prizes and places at the top will always make rash decisions at strategic times in the season, and will always get criticised for it, particularly when pushing for biggest ever financial rewards. Wolves made a similarly stupid decision to Blackburn and Reading last season. Mid-table clubs like Stoke and Fulham will always have relative stability or have their manager leave them.
Yes, none of it is good for the fans or the clubs in terms of stability - but who are we kidding if we think that is a consideration by most people at the top in reality? It's a food chain, and the players are involved in exactly the same. The only ones who are not are the fans, and sometimes it works out (Swansea) and sometimes it doesn't (Blackburn). Relegation battlers and (to a lesser extent) clubs pushing for prizes and places at the top will always make rash decisions at strategic times in the season, and will always get criticised for it, particularly when pushing for biggest ever financial rewards. Wolves made a similarly stupid decision to Blackburn and Reading last season. Mid-table clubs like Stoke and Fulham will always have relative stability or have their manager leave them.
Prem Managers sacked:
Di Matteo (Chelsea)
Hughes (QPR)
McDermott (Reading)
Adkins (Southampton)
Championship Managers sacked/resigned:
Hill (Barnsley)
Kean (Blackburn)
Berg (Blackburn)
Appleton (Blackburn)
Coyle (Bolton)
McInnes (Bristol City)
Grayson (Huddersfield)
Jewell (Ipswich)
O'Driscoll (Forest)
McLeish (Forest)
Solbakken (Wolves)
League 1 Managers sacked/resigned:
Groves (AFC Bournemouth)
Ward (Colchester)
Thorn (Coventry)
Cooper (Hartlepool)
Curle (Notts County)
Dickov (Oldham)
Westley (PNE)
Knill (S****thorpe)
Smith (Stevenage)
Di Canio (Swindon)
League 2 Managers sacked/resigned:
Brown (AFC Wimbledon)
Holdsworth (Aldershot)
Robson (Barnet)
McGhee (Bristol Rovers)
Sheridan (Chesterfield)
Mellon (Fleetwood)
Fletcher (Plymouth)
Coleman (Rochdale)
Mills (York)
Waddock (Wycombe)
Managerial changes throughout the season from the Championship:
Howe (Burnley - AFC Bournemouth)
Freedman (Crystal Palace - Bolton)
Holloway (Blackpool - Crystal Palace)
Appleton (Blackpool - Blackburn)
Managerial changes throughout the season from League 1:
Appleton (Portsmouth - Blackpool)
Saunders (Doncaster - Wolves)
Robins (Coventry - Huddersfield)
Managerial changes throughout the season from League 2:
Cook (Accrington - Chesterfield)
Still (D&R - Luton)
Di Matteo (Chelsea)
Hughes (QPR)
McDermott (Reading)
Adkins (Southampton)
Championship Managers sacked/resigned:
Hill (Barnsley)
Kean (Blackburn)
Berg (Blackburn)
Appleton (Blackburn)
Coyle (Bolton)
McInnes (Bristol City)
Grayson (Huddersfield)
Jewell (Ipswich)
O'Driscoll (Forest)
McLeish (Forest)
Solbakken (Wolves)
League 1 Managers sacked/resigned:
Groves (AFC Bournemouth)
Ward (Colchester)
Thorn (Coventry)
Cooper (Hartlepool)
Curle (Notts County)
Dickov (Oldham)
Westley (PNE)
Knill (S****thorpe)
Smith (Stevenage)
Di Canio (Swindon)
League 2 Managers sacked/resigned:
Brown (AFC Wimbledon)
Holdsworth (Aldershot)
Robson (Barnet)
McGhee (Bristol Rovers)
Sheridan (Chesterfield)
Mellon (Fleetwood)
Fletcher (Plymouth)
Coleman (Rochdale)
Mills (York)
Waddock (Wycombe)
Managerial changes throughout the season from the Championship:
Howe (Burnley - AFC Bournemouth)
Freedman (Crystal Palace - Bolton)
Holloway (Blackpool - Crystal Palace)
Appleton (Blackpool - Blackburn)
Managerial changes throughout the season from League 1:
Appleton (Portsmouth - Blackpool)
Saunders (Doncaster - Wolves)
Robins (Coventry - Huddersfield)
Managerial changes throughout the season from League 2:
Cook (Accrington - Chesterfield)
Still (D&R - Luton)
Dont see the problem if i am honest. They are not employed like most people, they get a contract and whatever happens they get the money for that contract. So it is silly to compare it to other jobs.
We can all complain about sackings....whether it was right or wrong, whether it was actually needed or not. Most would argue that the game of football has moved on from a family day out to a weekly or bi-weekly trip for only part of the family and only then for the lucky ones as it has become so expensive. Why is it so expensive, well mainly because most have just become a business.
People say that the management do not take much notice of how the fans feel. I don't believe that, I think they do.... to a point. When it comes to running the business they make decisions based on business criteria not on emotions.
We as fans can only respond to those decisions, whether they are right or wrong, makes no difference in the sense that if you don't like what is happening you don't come along. If things seem ok then you hang on for a bit or like most fans give the management the benefit of the doubt.
Changing a manager under the conditions they have to work surely cannot be an easy decision for the management. They will have balanced the view as Cortese did to how the fans will react. In reality perhaps he knew better than some of us as to how we would react to NA's demise.
Once again though it was a business decision (or as far as we know it was) only time will tell whether he was right!
As for Teams like Blackburn....they seem to be making the very same mistakes we did. We can only speak from our experience as to the nightmare that must be going on behind the scenes there, from a fans point of view. We have no understanding of the managerial decisions and there basis.
It must be a nightmare for the fans.....there but for the grace of god go we...........
People say that the management do not take much notice of how the fans feel. I don't believe that, I think they do.... to a point. When it comes to running the business they make decisions based on business criteria not on emotions.
We as fans can only respond to those decisions, whether they are right or wrong, makes no difference in the sense that if you don't like what is happening you don't come along. If things seem ok then you hang on for a bit or like most fans give the management the benefit of the doubt.
Changing a manager under the conditions they have to work surely cannot be an easy decision for the management. They will have balanced the view as Cortese did to how the fans will react. In reality perhaps he knew better than some of us as to how we would react to NA's demise.
Once again though it was a business decision (or as far as we know it was) only time will tell whether he was right!
As for Teams like Blackburn....they seem to be making the very same mistakes we did. We can only speak from our experience as to the nightmare that must be going on behind the scenes there, from a fans point of view. We have no understanding of the managerial decisions and there basis.
It must be a nightmare for the fans.....there but for the grace of god go we...........
Thats just not true. I wish it were true for the banking sector!
However, even in football they aren't really getting the sack. They are basically getting there contracts paid off which is very different.
The other thing that I never understand is how quickly most of them get re-employed. Surely if they are all so poor chairmen would recruit from elsewhere.
Incidentally, I read somewhere (sorry if it was on here) that Saints had 2 managers for 30 years up until the end of Lawrie MCNeverdefend and 19 managers in the 28 years since. I had to really think to get them all.