How long should a manager get?

Status
Not open for further replies.

My opinion is that a manager should get all the time in the world - as long as he can provide the proper development in each season. By that I don't just mean results but visible development in game: that definitely should come with results in 1 or at least 2 seasons time. This needs proper vision from the manager ( he have to know exactly what he would like to play with his team against different opponents) and he has to know exactly which kind of players does he need to achieve his goals. And he also has to adapt to the culture of the country he works in and fully embrace the club's phylosophy.

If a club finds someone who is THE manager for them that's the beginning of a fairytale. But it's very-hard to find the most appropriate person for this job.
 
It's a tough question and if you had a definite answer then companies all over the world would be hiring you on big consultancy money.

I think the simple answer is as long as agreed annual projections are being met. It does however help as a manager when you report into someone that trusts you, your judgement and your ability to deliver in the short, medium and long term. I'd personally take that over money.
 

Bruce Wayne said:
I read a study this week that looked at leadership and luck. Long story short, the researchers reckoned that around 70% of the success of a company is down to luck rather than the talents of their leaders, and because leaders don't tend to last long enough for the luck to even itself out, it's difficult to tell how good they actually are.

Given football managers tend to last considerably less time than CEOs, how can we really say whether (for instance) Sherwood is a good manager or an (un)lucky one? Should managers get more time at clubs to really prove their worth?
Click to expand...

depends how quickly it takes to get to a level of bad that becomes unacceptable...and what that level is

anecdotally our break even level is 10th but that was 10yrs ago, the gates and the sky money has gone up since then so in theory there is a bit more wiggle room on that figure

I think my avatar sums it up.

#jobforlife
 
I'd say a couple of seasons myself unless there's dramatic underperformance.
You want your man to be given sufficient time to make his mark on the team IMO.
That'd be a season, two or three depending on finances/expectations at the club in question.
 
Or to turn the question around, how long should a chairman be given if he/she is incapable of hiring the right manager time and time again?
 

Tubey said:
It's a business though - why 'should' a manager get three years to underperform, on the off chance they come good by the fourth?

If it's a case of, say, Martinez, where he earned the good will in the first season to justify the disastrous second to an extent, then that's fine, but saying a manager should be given 4-5 years no matter what is daft. Moyes would still be the United manager, for example. How smart a decision would that be for business at United?
Click to expand...
I think it's less the point that every manager ought to get 4 or 5 years and more that successes/failures of managers in the first season or two can't really be explained by the manager's talent, but rather by variance. You need a much larger sample size in order to assess a manager's impact on the team or added value to the club.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top