Sacking managers (1 Viewer)

CJparker · Mar 4, 2012

SO AVB goes, yet another scalp for the media and 'outer' fans who target a manager going through a tough run.

There was a time not that long ago where the average manager would get 2-3 years in the job. Frankly that's not enough anyway, but now the average is down to under 12 months.

Football seems to have developed such a "Success Now" culture that it's seen as OK to fire someone a few months into a job for perceived underperformance. In reality, success takes year of prepreation and so you need to give managers a real long run at the help before you can start demanding results.

The same applies at Coventry - some fans have been calling to the manager to go, as if it's somehow unacceptable for a team to struggle on the pitch. If we had this attitude about other jobs in life, nobody would have a successful career.

Things have got to change.

bulkingtonskyblues · Mar 4, 2012

i think thorn must be the most untouchable man in football, also the most useless

sw88 · Mar 4, 2012

AVB got sacked with a 45% win rate, yet AT probably has a 15 or 16% win rate and still in a job? And they say footballs a funny game....

Sky · Mar 4, 2012

sw88 said:
AVB got sacked with a 45% win rate, yet AT probably has a 15 or 16% win rate and still in a job? And they say footballs a funny game....

Oh yes I forgot the part in which Coventry are a premiership team that should be aiming for champions league and winning cups.

señor Santiago · Mar 4, 2012

Sky said:
Oh yes I forgot the part in which Coventry are a premiership team that should be aiming for champions league and winning cups.

hahahah beat me to it, + the 50 odd million pound they spent in the summer, We spent 1% of that.

covcity4life · Mar 4, 2012

yeh we are doing so well to be in relegation zone!!!!

dickheads wake up,we are good enough to stay up,we just need a manager(or assitant) who doesnt suck his players dicks after every match

dadgad · Mar 4, 2012

Tbf, my gran cud av got a 45% win rate with Chelski.

Football is skewed and that cubt Abromovici started the madness.

LeamingtonBootBoy · Mar 4, 2012

May as well stick with AT now.

The questions will need to answered at the end of the season....Is he good enough for another championship campaign...or has the ability to challenge for promotion from the 3rd tier of English football.

Surely the bulk of this squad are capable of getting into the top 6 of League 1....even with a couple leaving????

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 4, 2012

covcity4life said:
yeh we are doing so well to be in relegation zone!!!!

dickheads wake up,we are good enough to stay up,we just need a manager(or assitant) who doesnt suck his players dicks after every match

What very erudite and well chosen words.

Simple question, as often asked. We invest less in our first team squad than any other team bar two others. In investment, we are in the bottom three. Where do you expect us to finish then?

Sky · Mar 4, 2012

señor Santiago said:
hahahah beat me to it, + the 50 odd million pound they spent in the summer, We spent 1% of that.

1% of 50m is 500k we spent 300k on McDonald and that's it. That's only what they spent on Torres remember.

ccfc2011 · Mar 4, 2012

AVB was rubbish he's no Mourinho.

Macca · Mar 4, 2012

I m surprised we ve won any games this year listening to some on here. You d think we were fielding a Sunday league side. Sounds like most have given up

covcity4life · Mar 4, 2012

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
What very erudite and well chosen words.

Simple question, as often asked. We invest less in our first team squad than any other team bar two others. In investment, we are in the bottom three. Where do you expect us to finish then?

how long have you watched footy? you dont have to have the most expensive squad to be good

otherwise managers wouldnt really be needed would they

Otis · Mar 4, 2012

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
What very erudite and well chosen words.

Simple question, as often asked. We invest less in our first team squad than any other team bar two others. In investment, we are in the bottom three. Where do you expect us to finish then?

I've said eleventy billion times and one that I was expecting a relegation scrap this year, but never, ever expected us to be bottom 3 since last October and 7 points adrift at the bottom at Christmas.

We have underachieved and underperformed. Was expecting more of a fist of it and we have lacked spirit and fight in many, many matches. Expected us to at least chase, harry and fight and show a bit more passion at times. Even Claus Jorgensen in the last home game against Barnsley was very surprised at our lethargy and lack of fight and he commented that he expected us to be at their throats from the first whistle.

It's usually what happens in games you have to win.

Paxman II · Mar 4, 2012

This one is not questionable surely? AVB was both too young to take over a side of pre-madonnas getting old and to be frank he should have been doing much better regardless.

Colonel Mustard · Mar 4, 2012

AVB should have no complaints. You don't walk into a job like the Chelsea one, overseen by a man like Abramovich, and expect to have time to rebuild. Instant success is what is demanded; I'm sure AVB was told of these expectations before he took the job.

oldskyblue58 · Mar 4, 2012

cant imagine AVB will be too upset - he will have a big pay off and a whole lot of folk saying he was undermined by senior players & not given enough time. His employment prospects will be fine

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 4, 2012

covcity4life said:
how long have you watched footy? you dont have to have the most expensive squad to be good

otherwise managers wouldnt really be needed would they

How daft is that statement? Did you post it for a bet? Is it for Sports Relief?

Invariably the most expensive squads are best. Look at the top of the Premier League, La Liga, Serie A. Strangely enough, all of these clubs seem to feel the necessity for managers as well as their expensively assembled squads.

To step away from this invariable outcome takes for a manager to over-perform, or under-perform.

You can hope, not expect a manager to over-perform. Thorn is simply dishing up a level of performance consummate with our investment level. As such, in broad terms he's doing neither

Tonylinc · Mar 4, 2012

oldskyblue58 said:
cant imagine AVB will be too upset - he will have a big pay off and a whole lot of folk saying he was undermined by senior players & not given enough time. His employment prospects will be fine

Exactly OSB. I would think that he has walked away with something like 3-6 mill. Nice work if you can get it.

Donnie Brasco · Mar 4, 2012

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
How daft is that statement? Did you post it for a bet? Is it for Sports Relief?

Invariably the most expensive squads are best. Look at the top of the Premier League, La Liga, Serie A. Strangely enough, all of these clubs seem to feel the necessity for managers as well as their expensively assembled squads.

To step away from this invariable outcome takes for a manager to over-perform, or under-perform.

You can hope, not expect a manager to over-perform. Thorn is simply dishing up a level of performance consummate with our investment level. As such, in broad terms he's doing neither

In your defence you have reasoned well for the prosecution. Barcelona have a high value squad but it didnt cost them that much.

lots of love

stupot07 · Mar 4, 2012

Donnie Brasco said:
In your defence you have reasoned well for the prosecution. Barcelona have a high value squad but it didnt cost them that much.

lots of love

The value of the squad isn't just how much it cost to buy players but also their playing wage budget. Do you not think that Barca pay top wages? The article in the below link shows that Barca has biggest playing budget in world sport.

http://www.lfcreds.com/reds/index.php?topic=37933.0

Barca also have spending power when they need to having spent €72m Euros on Fabregas and Sanchez this season, and €71.5m last season on Villa, Afellay, Mascherano, Adriano, and €85.5 (+Eto'o) the season before that for Ibrahimovic and 5 others...

Houchens Head · Mar 4, 2012

I wonder if SAF would ever get the boot if Manure Nited started having a bad run of results? Can't exactly call him an under achiever eh? :thinking about:

Grendel · Mar 4, 2012

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
How daft is that statement? Did you post it for a bet? Is it for Sports Relief?

Invariably the most expensive squads are best. Look at the top of the Premier League, La Liga, Serie A. Strangely enough, all of these clubs seem to feel the necessity for managers as well as their expensively assembled squads.

To step away from this invariable outcome takes for a manager to over-perform, or under-perform.

You can hope, not expect a manager to over-perform. Thorn is simply dishing up a level of performance consummate with our investment level. As such, in broad terms he's doing neither

Well on the face of this I would say that this is an argument based on sound economics. What we are saying is the squads that cost the most and pay the most get the best league position. Yes that seems not arguable. And the manager employed to do the job, well he is bound by pure economics his league position is pre-determined by the fate of the budget. At this point the sound economic debate becomes questionable.
Of course where the budget is enourmous compared to its peers you expect the big teams to succeed at at Premier Levels normally this is what you get. Indeed in the Championship parachute payments should ensure an advantage for the relegated Premier Teams. However, what when the margins are less? How about League Two? Here one assumes the pay differentials are tight. So are Cheltenham the second richest team in that League - doubtful. Swindon the richest - couldn't say. Point is here the gap is tight.
So there has to be margins at which the differences make no significant difference. This is clear in the Premier League. Fulham, Swansea and Norwich thrive but Q.P.R and Liverpool (relatively) flounder. Is this just managers over-achieving or achieving exactly what they were employed to do?

If Coventry are in the bottom 3 of salaries then who is fourth bottom, who is fifth or sixth? Is it significantly different. It is likely not to be and the economic argument may prevent top half finishes (though Blackpool got promoted with a lower wage bill than Coventry that season) but it has very little impact in the odd place or two. This is where the manager comes in, the tactics, the motivation, the shrewd exploitation of opponent weaknesses. There are 8 teams in the league with a worse home record than Coventry which again raises doubts that this is a significant factor at all.

So for me the argument of economics is too simplistic and is not as significant a factor as you may think. If it was our highest paid players would be the best and I would guess Clingan and Eastwood are easily up their in the pay scale.

Money is only one portion of the argument and not as great a one as you wish us to believe.

dongonzalos · Mar 5, 2012

kduffy said:
Well on the face of this I would say that this is an argument based on sound economics. What we are saying is the squads that cost the most and pay the most get the best league position. Yes that seems not arguable. And the manager employed to do the job, well he is bound by pure economics his league position is pre-determined by the fate of the budget. At this point the sound economic debate becomes questionable.
Of course where the budget is enourmous compared to its peers you expect the big teams to succeed at at Premier Levels normally this is what you get. Indeed in the Championship parachute payments should ensure an advantage for the relegated Premier Teams. However, what when the margins are less? How about League Two? Here one assumes the pay differentials are tight. So are Cheltenham the second richest team in that League - doubtful. Swindon the richest - couldn't say. Point is here the gap is tight.
So there has to be margins at which the differences make no significant difference. This is clear in the Premier League. Fulham, Swansea and Norwich thrive but Q.P.R and Liverpool (relatively) flounder. Is this just managers over-achieving or achieving exactly what they were employed to do?

If Coventry are in the bottom 3 of salaries then who is fourth bottom, who is fifth or sixth? Is it significantly different. It is likely not to be and the economic argument may prevent top half finishes (though Blackpool got promoted with a lower wage bill than Coventry that season) but it has very little impact in the odd place or two. This is where the manager comes in, the tactics, the motivation, the shrewd exploitation of opponent weaknesses. There are 8 teams in the league with a worse home record than Coventry which again raises doubts that this is a significant factor at all.

So for me the argument of economics is too simplistic and is not as significant a factor as you may think. If it was our highest paid players would be the best and I would guess Clingan and Eastwood are easily up their in the pay scale.

Money is only one portion of the argument and not as great a one as you wish us to believe.

My only question here is why did Blackpool get relegated after going up. If their manager could get them to excel why did they not stay up? I hink they had a top manager who did get them to excel. However because their budget was crap in comparison to the other prem teams they were relegated despite his valiant efforts

Grendel · Mar 5, 2012

dongonzalos said:
My only question here is why did Blackpool get relegated after going up. If their manager could get them to excel why did they not stay up? I hink they had a top manager who did get them to excel. However because their budget was crap in comparison to the other prem teams they were relegated despite his valiant efforts

Actually this also goes against the economic argument. They probably had the smallest wage structure and budget in Premier League history yet still only went down by one point. SISU are saints compared to Owen Oysten.

dongonzalos · Mar 5, 2012

kduffy said:
Actually this also goes against the economic argument. They probably had the smallest wage structure and budget in Premier League history yet still only went down by one point. SISU are saints compared to Owen Oysten.

I think the norm is the more you spend the more sucess generally. There are exceptions and that depends on having an amazing manager or you happen to have a couple of class players.

However I do think generally the more money spent the higher up the table you will be. However it will not be an exact science due to many other variables.

It would be interesting if all clubs started the league with the same transfer kitty. Then it came down to managerial ability and how you invest that dosh.

Grendel · Mar 5, 2012

dongonzalos said:
I think the norm is the more you spend the more sucess generally. There are exceptions and that depends on having an amazing manager or you happen to have a couple of class players.

However I do think generally the more money spent the higher up the table you will be. However it will not be an exact science due to many other variables.

It would be interesting if all clubs started the league with the same transfer kitty. Then it came down to managerial ability and how you invest that dosh.

It's overstated particularly when are in the lower reaches of a league. Finances are more similar and other factors come into play.

Colonel Mustard · Mar 5, 2012

dongonzalos said:
I think the norm is the more you spend the more sucess generally. There are exceptions and that depends on having an amazing manager or you happen to have a couple of class players.

I know this is a bit of a tangent, but the issue is that there hasn't been a fair balance when it comes to finances. Clubs should be free to spend in order to gain an advantage - but only if there is a suitable punishment for financial mismanagement. Then, I suspect, there would be much greater parity when it comes to spending, and we may actually applaud owners who keep clubs in robust financial health. It's a ludicrous situation when clubs can be rewarded for mortgaging the club's future, yet be punished for running a tight ship. It's tough to discuss the effects of spending when there are few consequences for those who overextend themselves.

It would be interesting if all clubs started the league with the same transfer kitty. Then it came down to managerial ability and how you invest that dosh.

It'd certainly be fun to see greater parity in various forms. I think something as simple as limited squad sizes could have a profound effect. For example, the top teams couldn't always buy up the best players from smaller teams, which by default would mean a greater share of player quality throughout a league; it would also encourage the swapping of players in order to meet quotas, which means a small team could get one of Man Utd's best youth team players as part of a transfer.

ccfcway · Mar 5, 2012

Did we win an away game last season under Thorn ?

Could he be the 1st manager in history not to actually win away from home with a team ?

Sacking managers (1 Viewer)

New Member

New Member

Chief Commentator!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Fairly well known member from Malvern

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency