pete 319 Posted February 5, 2014 With the demise of Laudrup only these two are left as managers who started the season in the relegation threatened clubs. Bruce ok but until now had been doing ok.We''ll see if things change now I fear too late for City to make changes for the better. Swansea hopefully will fail spectacularly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,531 Posted February 5, 2014 It will indeed be interesting to see if the clubs that hold their nerve and keep their managers stay up at the end of the season. Sure as anything, at least one of the clubs that has changed manager will go down......... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kangaroo Court 0 Posted February 5, 2014 Sacking their managers hasn''t done a lot for any of the other clubs so what makes anyone think we''ll be so different? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stoke canary 0 Posted February 5, 2014 Big Sam 3rd longest serving manager in the Prem League. Our Chris 6th. Goes to show how difficult managing a football team has become.Got to achieve something and do it quick !! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viva Marc Libbra 0 Posted February 5, 2014 Erm Palace? Sunderland? A new manager will take a couple of games or get his ideas across so there is time for Mel and Solskjaer. Mulensteen is struggling though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Budapest Canary 152 Posted February 5, 2014 Well, Palace took the Pulis option, something probably no-one would have been too happy with in this forum, although probably would have involved the least gamble. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wiz 0 Posted February 5, 2014 Our clash with West Ham soon could be called The P45 Stakes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shaun Tilly Lace 0 Posted February 5, 2014 I would give Savvy Sam more chance of saving his club from relegation than Cautious Chris has of saving ours. Oh yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vlad666 203 Posted February 5, 2014 West ham would have to pay him 6 million to sack him so they decided to invest that money in the transfer window instead. Big Sam is on refi cilia money. Something like 13th highest paid manager in Europe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norfolkngood 1,087 Posted February 5, 2014 west ham haven''t had a striker most of the season whos fault that was nobody knows sams or board ? they have better results now carroll has returned and have signed some on loan in the window i think they will be higher than us ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's Character Forming 1,161 Posted February 5, 2014 What about Hull, Stoke and Villa ? None of them are exactly safe ! And all have the same managers they began the season with. Looking at the managerial changes :Fulham - long term Prem club were on a disastrous run. Changed their manager some time back. Now bottom although by no means out of touch. Any established Prem club in their position would be likely to sack their manager. Not yet clear whether the change will do them any good.Palace - disastrous start (under a manager quite a few on here wanted for us). No surprise they wanted a safer pair of hands, the only surprise was that they started the season with Holloway at all. Pulis has clearly steadied the ship.Swansea - as many have pointed out, they are suffering from having to play their extra European fixtures, and with all the press articles it looks like Laudrup has been sacked as much for off the field problems as for their poor recent league form. Cardiff - Malky fell out with their owner. Can''t learn much from that except that eccentric foreign owners tend to sack managers at a whim, whether it''s Chelsea or Cardiff.Sunderland - di Canio was a loose cannon from day 1. Once they''d appointed him they had to stick with him for the back end of last season and would probably have looked a bit silly if they''d sacked him over the summer, but no surprise he didn''t last very long. So overall this doesn''t support the idea that we should be following the lead of these clubs and sacking our manager. If anything it makes it clear that it should only be done with careful consideration, not shooting from the hip. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's Character Forming 1,161 Posted February 5, 2014 Also forgot WBA. I remember people saying back in the autumn what a good job Clarke was doing, then a poor run of form and he was out. Not yet convinced it was a good move for them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,562 Posted February 5, 2014 [quote user="Its Character Forming"]What about Hull, Stoke and Villa ? None of them are exactly safe ! And all have the same managers they began the season with. Looking at the managerial changes :Fulham - long term Prem club were on a disastrous run. Changed their manager some time back. Now bottom although by no means out of touch. Any established Prem club in their position would be likely to sack their manager. Not yet clear whether the change will do them any good.Palace - disastrous start (under a manager quite a few on here wanted for us). No surprise they wanted a safer pair of hands, the only surprise was that they started the season with Holloway at all. Pulis has clearly steadied the ship.Swansea - as many have pointed out, they are suffering from having to play their extra European fixtures, and with all the press articles it looks like Laudrup has been sacked as much for off the field problems as for their poor recent league form. Cardiff - Malky fell out with their owner. Can''t learn much from that except that eccentric foreign owners tend to sack managers at a whim, whether it''s Chelsea or Cardiff.Sunderland - di Canio was a loose cannon from day 1. Once they''d appointed him they had to stick with him for the back end of last season and would probably have looked a bit silly if they''d sacked him over the summer, but no surprise he didn''t last very long. So overall this doesn''t support the idea that we should be following the lead of these clubs and sacking our manager. If anything it makes it clear that it should only be done with careful consideration, not shooting from the hip.[/quote]I think there are three citeria that all have to be met:Firstly, there has to be a deep-seated rift/lack of trust/etc between the directors and the management (as at Cardiff and Sunderland, and - in a different way - at Palace) and/or strong evidence that a particular manager is on a long-term slide. That the bad results are not some blip but the continuation of a decline (as with Jol and Clarke).Secondly, the change has to be made early enough to have an effect. In practice this means some time before the January transfer window.Thirdly, the new manager has to seem likely to produce markedly better results than his predecessor has done (as exampled by a vastly experienced Pulis instead of a Holloway who said he just wasn''t up to the job, and an up and coming Poyet rather than a off-the-wall di Canio).I don''t think it is a coincidence that of the five clubs (leaving out Swansea) that have switched, the two where the managers are significantly outperforming their predecessors are those (Palace and Sunderland) where all three criteria have been met. With Cardiff, Fulham and West Brom it was not clear the new man was going to be a marked improvement. Nor has that ever been obvious with Hughton. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
City 2nd 191 Posted February 5, 2014 norfolkngood wrote the following post at 2014-02-05 6:05 PM:west ham haven''t had a striker most of the season whos fault that was nobody knows sams or board? And WHU have scored more goals than NCFC. I would suggest it''s NCFC who don''t have the strikers! And to boot their goal difference is 50% better. Think you are right, they will be higher, much! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rudolph Hucker 0 Posted February 5, 2014 What is the natural ''best before date'' for the average Premier League manager. It seems most are best in the short term. Why? Does the job burn them out?If you get a good manager then give him the security of a longer term contract but why oh why was Hughton given a long contract? Was he such a precious and talented commodity we needed to fete him and pay a large amount of compo to his former Club?Lambert was on a one year rolling contract. Perhaps it was another of those poor decisions which came out of the pointless bun fight with Villa to try and taunt Lambert by giving his successor a much better deal than he had?Hughton was given a golden opportunity to manage again in the EPL. He was so excited he got a speeding fine on his way here. Did we really need to bollox ourselves by paying unnecessary kings ransoms we are no too frightened to opt out of? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's Character Forming 1,161 Posted February 5, 2014 I guess that when Lambert was poached the board found the comp for the one-year rolling contract wasn''t great. Hence a longer contract for Hughton to tie him in and make it a bit harder for another club to poach him. Which works both ways. I don''t the decision to keep Hughton is based on the cost of sacking him. I think the assessment was made back in November/December that there was a high likelihood he would keep us up, and changing him, with all the uncertainties involved, wouldn''t improve the chances of safety. Now, things are looking a bit more worrying - although there is a massive over-reaction on here - but it''s an even bigger gamble to change your manager in February. If the board felt we are more likely to get relegated with Hughton, the cost of relegation would easily outweigh the cost of sacking him It''s the difference between the mature reflection of McNally and the rest of the board, who carry the can for success and failure, compared to how easy it is for people on here to call for the manager to be changed with no responsibility for what then happens. In answer to your "bes before date" question, managers in the PL are easy scapegoats when a team is doing poorly. Much of the time, changing the manager makes no difference IMO, but it deflects criticism in this 24-hour news age by "doing something". If players are performing badly, a team will try to ship them out and get a transfer fee so won''t want to rubbish them (by and large). If the team as a whole has a bad spell, what do you do ? Sacking the manager is the easy option to assuage the fans, getting in a new manager isn''t as expensive as bringing in lots of new players. Which explains why long-term manager contracts are rare. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pete 319 Posted February 5, 2014 It was Lambo''s decision to stick with the one year rolling contract. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted February 5, 2014 [quote user="Kangaroo Court"]Sacking their managers hasn''t done a lot for any of the other clubs so what makes anyone think we''ll be so different?[/quote]Not entirely true, it has pulled Sunderland and Palace out of the mire when they were buried deep at the start of the season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted February 5, 2014 [quote user="pete"]It was Lambo''s decision to stick with the one year rolling contract.[/quote]As his mentor Martin O''Neil used to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,317 Posted February 5, 2014 In answer to Kangaroo Court whether or not you think it will make a difference depends on whether or not you think the cause of the problems at a club are due to the manager or due to other factors (such as meddling owner, players not good enough, financial issues etc). My view is that we have a good squad of players being held back by a poor/over cautious/conservative management team therefore my view is that in our case changing the management team would be likely to see an improvement in performance. I think Sunderland fall into the same category and I suspect that if the problems at Swansea have been caused by Laudrups slack attitude/lack of interest as is rumoured you will also see a marked improvement in their performances in coming weeks as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jonás Gutiérrez 0 Posted February 6, 2014 Think your club should be commended for not doing anything silly and having a bit of common sense in a league that is getting increasingly silly. It''s not been a great season for you and Hughton but it''s hardly been a disaster either. Think yous are a few players off being a top ten side and you will see players like Fer, Hooper and possibly(!) RVW get better with time. Need a better central defender, a player to link your midfield and attack and probably a better keeper. Most of the times I watch you it appears that the side is trying to play football which is to be commended and the likes of West Ham, Stoke etc don''t at all. Another thing I think should be taken into account is that your side has been pretty much rebuilt since Hughton took over no? No easy task in itself. I reckon yous will stay up and if you get a few key players in the summer you will be well set-up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rock The Boat 1,332 Posted February 6, 2014 quote user="Jonás Gutiérrez"Think your club should be commended for not doing anything silly and having a bit of common sense in a league that is getting increasingly silly. It''s not been a great season for you and Hughton but it''s hardly been a disaster either. Think yous are a few players off being a top ten side and you will see players like Fer, Hooper and possibly(!) RVW get better with time. Need a better central defender, a player to link your midfield and attack and probably a better keeper. Most of the times I watch you it appears that the side is trying to play football which is to be commended and the likes of West Ham, Stoke etc don''t at all. Another thing I think should be taken into account is that your side has been pretty much rebuilt since Hughton took over no? No easy task in itself. I reckon yous will stay up and if you get a few key players in the summer you will be well set-up. /quoteHmmm only the real Jonás Gutiérrez would create an avatar with those acute accents over the vowels.I think you''re a smashing player, btw. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jonzey 0 Posted February 6, 2014 Call me a cynic, but where is the incentive for a manager to succeed now? Let''s take Laudrup as an example. He fell out with the Swansea board, then performances dropped after fixture congestion. After a bad defeat rather than call the players in early the next day he disappears to France, and gets sacked, a £4.5mill payoff, his stock is still sky high across the footballing world with even our fans saying he should replace Hughton on a multi million pound contract.He''s laughing. He must of had a party when he was sacked. Why bother try as a manager in these types of scenario, which amazingly most managers seem to be in. Every time one gets sacked for being poor, all of a sudden he''s the solution to problems at another club. Madness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GenerationA47 752 Posted February 6, 2014 Jonzey. I would suggest that an ambitious manager with talent is a good manager, and conversely a good manager has the ambition to further his achievements and reputation. You are right there are possibly some examples of talented individuals who don''t have the necessary attitude to succeed long term but are still sought after... It ''works'' for those clubs that employ them because success is based so heavily on relationships (with the owners, players, agents,...) combined with short-term goals. I think if it wasn''t for the loopiness amongst owners and the celebrity ''small world'' of Premier League football, the Laudrups and Redknapps would sink sooner than they do, and we would see more longer-term appointments and managerial projects (who would not all be as good as the Fergusons and Wengers mind you). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites