Why Hughtomn will not be sacked after Man City...regardless of the result

[Moosheep 0]

I can''t say this is how it is done at NCFC, but if I was running a club this is how I would be doing things.Each week results are predicted for all games for the remainder of the season (probably done at great expense by a football consultancy firm using computer modelling!), giving a guestimate at a final league position. This prediction is passed on to the board who will have in mind an acceptable finishing position. If their team''s predicted finishing position goes below that of their acceptable finishing position they will need to make a decision. Either they can revise their acceptable finishing position or take some action which may improve their predicted finishing position. Actions could include bringing in new players (loan or permanent), changing manager or coaching staff (or both), forcing the manager to change tactics (you WILL play Hooper and RvW together!), or to change the colour of your strip to something considered more lucky in the far east!. Obviously as the season goes on the forecast final table becomes more accurate, and also the number of options available to the board get reduced (eg transfer window passing). To put this in a NCFC context, I believe that at the beginning of the season the board were looking at an acceptable finishing spot of maybe 10th (Alan Bowkett in October). As the season progressed and things have not gone as expected our predicted finishing position has been well below this leading to the board revise their acceptable final position downwards, and is now anything other than bottom three (David McNally on Radio Norfolk). Should the predicted finish now fall below this the only realistic action open to the board would be to change manager. As this has yet to happen we can assume that they are still predicting that we will not be relegated.  So given all this, will a manger change happen if we lose to Man City. My answer is no, because realistically no-one will be seeing Norwich getting anything from this game, so it will have no bearing on our predicted finishing spot. The only scenario I can see where the board would sack Hughton after the Man City would be if we lost and there were a lot of shock results for the teams around us as. In that situation our predicted finishing position may well drop into the bottom three meaning the board will need to take some action (maybe cross their toes as well as their fingers)All hypothetical of course, but it is better than doing any proper work!Moo

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Moosheep"]I can''t say this is how it is done at NCFC, but if I was running a club this is how I would be doing things.Each week results are predicted for all games for the remainder of the season (probably done at great expense by a football consultancy firm using computer modelling!), giving a guestimate at a final league position. This prediction is passed on to the board who will have in mind an acceptable finishing position. If their team''s predicted finishing position goes below that of their acceptable finishing position they will need to make a decision. Either they can revise their acceptable finishing position or take some action which may improve their predicted finishing position. Actions could include bringing in new players (loan or permanent), changing manager or coaching staff (or both), forcing the manager to change tactics (you WILL play Hooper and RvW together!), or to change the colour of your strip to something considered more lucky in the far east!. Obviously as the season goes on the forecast final table becomes more accurate, and also the number of options available to the board get reduced (eg transfer window passing). To put this in a NCFC context, I believe that at the beginning of the season the board were looking at an acceptable finishing spot of maybe 10th (Alan Bowkett in October). As the season progressed and things have not gone as expected our predicted finishing position has been well below this leading to the board revise their acceptable final position downwards, and is now anything other than bottom three (David McNally on Radio Norfolk). Should the predicted finish now fall below this the only realistic action open to the board would be to change manager. As this has yet to happen we can assume that they are still predicting that we will not be relegated.  So given all this, will a manger change happen if we lose to Man City. My answer is no, because realistically no-one will be seeing Norwich getting anything from this game, so it will have no bearing on our predicted finishing spot. The only scenario I can see where the board would sack Hughton after the Man City would be if we lost and there were a lot of shock results for the teams around us as. In that situation our predicted finishing position may well drop into the bottom three meaning the board will need to take some action (maybe cross their toes as well as their fingers)All hypothetical of course, but it is better than doing any proper work!Moo[/quote]Good reasoning Moo.  I would only add to that, that being in the bottom three, which is quite possible for any of us in the bottom half of the table would not be a doomsday scenario if it is only temporary and we are out of there by the end of the season.   Crossing fingers and toes may well be the only option, if we ever do drop into that zone,  as changing manager at this stage is not really an option imo.  The best we can hope for is that players and manager stay strong and together and have enough in there to steer us clear by the end of the season.  That is why I am always going on about the support recognising this and accepting the situation.  Also - and looking at it from the other angle - that 10th place original target is not so far off either..........  

[YellowNets1901 0]

I think your hypothesis would''ve been correct had Swansea not sacked Michael Laudrup this week.

That''s not me saying we would sack CH and appoint ML. I don''t think we would. I just think it might make the Norwich board realise that if Swansea are sacking their manager, a manager who guided them to a cup win, achieved some success in Europe, done ok in the league, then surely we must consider that our manager isn''t pulling up any trees, and hasn''t been for the past 12-14 months.

A defeat to Man City and a slide into the bottom 3 would see CH gone IMO, and rightly so too. He should''ve gone when we lost 7-0 to City earlier this season. Many fans couldn''t see things getting better and they haven''t. Chris Hughton is a very lucky man. Firstly, to still be manager of our football club and secondly, to even be managing in the Premier League.

Neil Lennon for me.

[T 190]

The target was indeed 10th but the board has budgeted on 16th so that is the most likely expected finish so CH currently doing better than budget.

[Moosheep 0]

Being in the bottom three wouldn''t necessarily result in Hughton''s sacking, but I do think that if the board believed that we were heading for a bottom three finish that they would act. I can''t see any reason not to. Assuming that a bottom three finish would result in Hughton''s sacking then you may as well get rid of him as soon as you believe that that is where you are going to finish. The ''new manger effect'' may result in a few surprise results which save the team, and if not nothing has been lost and the new manager has had a chance to get to know the players and decide which players would be useful in the Championship and which can be let go.Moo

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Moo argues his case pretty well. As regards the Man C game, well no-one (except maybe Lakey ) seriously expects us to get anything from it, so it''s something of a dead rubber. Whether we tumble into the bottom 3 rather depends on the C. Pal v WBA game ending in a draw. But, there was little point in making his famed ''bottom three'' comment if he was not prepared to act on it should it occur.I would agree that  it''s unlikely that CH will be shown the door tomorrow , or even before the end of the season now, but I suppose that DMc N may just see his bottom 3 comments as a Sword of Damocles handy for hanging over CH if performances/results take a serious nosedive in the rest of February.

[ron obvious 1,501]

If you look at the Laudrup sacking, it was not solely because of their league position, but mostly due to his attitude, which, if their Chairman is to be believed, stank.

I don''t think anyone has ever questioned Hughton''s commitment to the job.

[wooster 134]

Were the board to have changed manager at the end of last season and made it clear to prospective applicants that there was £25-30m (gross) to spend on new players there would have been some interesting names putting themselves forwward.

The same would be true at the end of this season, if we stay up.

 

I''m not sure we''d get the pick of the crop if the post was available now - so I imagine that it an inportant driver for keeping things as they are now from the Board''s perspective. 

 

[skeps 0]

this is getting boring now

[wooster 134]

whereas as that comment was unnecessary and boorish

[Clint 221]

What about if we lose 7-0 again? I think it would be hard to justify keeping him!