What is the average lifespan of a Manager nowadays, Compared to 20/30 yrs ago..
And dont say check the dead thread..
And dont say check the dead thread..
Rita_Poon
Player Valuation: £100m
Managers last as long as perceived success does. spurs were so scared of winning a cup with contract stipulations on the line, they sacked the manager (moaninho) days before the final. Ranieri managed a modern miracle with leicester and lasted what, another ten months after? west ham couldn't dump Moyes fast enough after they'd sold Rice to Arsenal (his best player) for promises new. Look at the circus at forest, the mounting pressure at newcastle. There's a reason they build sacking clauses into their contracts, and it's just part of the game now.
20 or so of them by you?
Like your saying there, other then the innocent fresh in managers just coming through, managers hopes of building a team to be proud of is gradually being replaced by a 2yr stint and a good pay off..
Rita_Poon
Player Valuation: £100m
It's the mess of the current ownership, sign players for 4+ years, but go through managers every 18 months. One aspect flies in the face of the other.
Adversely, you've picked out the worst examples of this, Amorim is soon to join the ongoing sacking circus over at United too, most likely.
Pressure mounting at Newcastle after 4 years, a cup, and going a bit backwards in the league every season is to be expected - they've spent quite heavily to do it too.
Ranieri's Leicester mounted the worst defense of a title probably in history and were close to relegation when he was sacked. He'd probably get them over the line too and it was a bit of a rushed sacking, but it was obviously not working anymore, for many reasons.
Tottenham, United and Forest just hire/fire whenever they feel like it anyway, has been the case for ages now, and sometimes it's not even about football it seems. Fully expect Frank to be gone soon too really, and hopefully Ange finally relegates Forest as he's atrocious. Another case could be made for Watford of yesteryear
Managers get 2-3 year contracts, demand their own players, which cost a ton, get them, then underperform - yeah, if that was any other job they'd be fired too, like. 2-5 years/seasons seems to be a decent average which many reach, and most managers in the Prem currently have been at their job for over a year or closing in on two.
Point is, it's not as black and white, as most things in life.
Bishop Thumpety-Thump
Player Valuation: £20m
All joking aside, is everything ok mate? You’re seem even more unhinged than usual.
Bishop Thumpety-Thump
Player Valuation: £20m
Bishop Thumpety-Thump
Player Valuation: £20m
All saying exactly the same thing. He should go and do some voluntary work in an old folk’s home, he’d fit right in.
Adversely, you've picked out the worst examples of this, Amorim is soon to join the ongoing sacking circus over at United too, most likely.
Pressure mounting at Newcastle after 4 years, a cup, and going a bit backwards in the league every season is to be expected - they've spent quite heavily to do it too.
Ranieri's Leicester mounted the worst defense of a title probably in history and were close to relegation when he was sacked. He'd probably get them over the line too and it was a bit of a rushed sacking, but it was obviously not working anymore, for many reasons.
Tottenham, United and Forest just hire/fire whenever they feel like it anyway, has been the case for ages now, and sometimes it's not even about football it seems. Fully expect Frank to be gone soon too really, and hopefully Ange finally relegates Forest as he's atrocious. Another case could be made for Watford of yesteryear
This
smileychap
Player Valuation: £10m
All sad, all true.
I'd love to see stats on the correlation between 'success' (to be defined, promotion, stay in Prem, a cup run or winning stuff) vs 'stable mgt' (also to be defined, say 3+ seasons, financial position etc). Other than Chelsea I'd say, the longer the better. So desperate owners chopping and changing (Everton) run contrary to that. Spurs a good example above - and it took 2.5d seasons of Dyche to avoid the drop after the unmerry-go-round that preceded him, post Moyes V1.
Definition / expectations are key - like are Brighton, Bournemouth, Brentford, Forest now unsuccessful? They're no closer to winning anything. Have Burnley been unsuccessful owing to some relegations prior to PRem return, or more successful owing to the finances on which their performance is achieved.
Roy Hodgson and Steve Mclaren could've been called successful after long-ish periods at Fulham and Boro respectively (albeit of the worse England Managers I've watched in action), both of which culminated in the clubs appearances in finals. The ultimate example might also be Fergie in terms of Prem, Wenger and Mourinho V1 Chelsea and Moyes V1 Everton (not that he's doing badly as v2). All had time in the job. Money can boost things, Blackburn, Newcastle, Wigan, Bolton etc, there was relative longevity for Martinez and Fat Sam at the last two there...
Ultimately I think the poor quality of debate, punditry, hysteria and clubs own desires to accelerate success - result in a lot of poor decision making, hype, disappointment and waste. Truer, long-term, less dramatic 'success' at many clubs goes under the radar, as sackings / failures etc as ever grab the headlines.
I consider the job being done at Brentford, Brighton, Bournemouth and now Moyes hopefully to be very successful in terms of sustainability, Forest are a question mark, spending big. Villa / Newcastle need to prove they can scale recent improvement into Europe to be 'successful' IMHO.
Utd are the epitomy of the opposite.
Rita_Poon
Player Valuation: £100m
Get promoted, spend £100m + wages on new players, have a chance at staying up. Invest well, manage well, make a few moves for small upgrades, maybe cash in one major signing to improve two places on the field for the greater good. That's a successful manager and owners point of view, the club is established as a PL concern. Maybe it's good for 12th - 16th. Maybe*.
Spend another £100m and possibly see an improvement if it ALL goes well, to say 8th-11th. It's easier improving the quality to separate from the relegation favourites than to do well and be assured mid table. So then £100m again from 8th-11th to have a bash at a go at 5th-7th? Who are the rivals here, who do they have on the books already that someone would need to catch up with or buy better than? If someone has a deal with Adidas for £90m a year, and an airline for shirt sponsor similar, and flog thousands of shirts in Asia and the middle east, naming rights on the stadium, naming rights on the training ground, 80k attendances, creative bookkeeping using sides abroad in different leagues and jurisdictions, then maybe someone can try to go toe-to-toe financially to become established contenders. This example is tied to one club alone, chelsea were rinsing dirty russian oligarch monies, city have off the books oil monies, arsenal can't keep up - they've sacked the tea lady and dippy the dinosaur and the car park litter picker, then there's the unwashed over the way - they put the coutinho money on the roulette table and let it ride and won every spin - good for them. Recently we've seen villa and newcastle have a go for the higher reaches and then suffer with forced sales, their business model wasn't sustainable, so now they're hamstrung to cover it for a season. Money has implemented a yoyoing of efforts for clubs to try for the top spots, similar to the yoyoing all through the league, mid table, relegation battle, relegated promoted. Clubs are defined by their financial capability, the boundaries are becoming more stark and reinforced. Once in a while a perfect storm will occur but it's back to business the season after.
What can management be worth? 10%? 20%? 100%? It's hugely oversimplifying but a side put together for example £150m with a manager that gets 100% more out of them, then it's a £300m side. Up against a £700m side it's still underpowered, and that doesn't take into account the manager of said £700m side and their influence... 10%?
Football was easier in the past, it was a Saturday afternoon and some chatter over a few pints in the boozer after and that was that, unless a cup run of sorts meant a bit extra now n then. No rolling news, no 24 hour social media commentary, no forums, no experts, no insiders, no fakes, no celebrity agents, there was club call, rumours in the back pages of the gutter press, and maybe an interview with a manager before a big fixture.
It cost a lot less time, effort and money back then.
TLDR, jumpers for goal posts, World cup Willie, Pickles the dog, Cup final day, the chainman has a new car...
To have 27 attempts you have to able to actually be a prem manager mate ..
Something Bobby has not been able to do for very long
73 times
72 of those are from dave
One time for each point earned in our “ best ever” prem campaign
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
