You're Sacked!

League Managers' Association chief executive Richard Bevan has this morning had a pop at professional football clubs for the way they treat managers.

So far this season 103 managers and coaches have lost their jobs. Bevan said:

"That's over 100 people, 100 managers, 100 families,"

"I'm not sure where the arrogance of football comes from that we don't have to behave as any other industry."

Is he right, should a manager at a football club expect the same rights as a manager of a pub or an office?

Bevan used the sacking of Appleton as an example, but forgot to mention that Appleton walked out of Blackpool after only a few days in the job to join Blackburn.

These managers are highly paid, shouldn't they be shown the door if results are poor?

Who do you side with, the clubs or the managers?

I do think managers need time, it's ridiculous to be sacking someone after a month or two.

That said, you don't know what goes on behind the scenes, sometimes it's obvious a certain manager isn't right, not clicking with the players, poor training regime or some such, so if you add that to a really poor run sometimes it's better to just move on.

It's right that managers should be treated no differently than any other employed person. If they aren't happy they have access to a tribunal, same as everyone else - but they never go there as they negotiate fancy golden handshakes which few of us have the opportunity to do. In law, they are treated the same, so I don't quite get his point.

I've sacked people after a few days. It happens in all types of job.

Football managers usually get the rest of their contract paid up. So they shouldn't really complain too much imo.

Football managers are on decent wages to start with and when they do get sacked they nearly always get a substantial payout. It's not as if they are on the breadline.

Having said that, I do think that some Chairmen are too quick to sack managers rather than give them time to get their feet under the table.

For me the real question is whether sacking managers so quickly does the clubs any favours. It unsettles everyone and leads to further poor appointments. Look at us- Big Sam goes, we get Little Sam,then Megson ,then Coyle- three bad 'uns in a row.
Blackburn-exactly the same only quicker.
Getting rid of one guy does not guarantee that the next one will be any better. Look up and down the leagues (Chelsea,Burnley, Villa) and its the same story. Get shut too quick and it often simply compounds the problem.
People need to be given time

You can't cast all clubs into one boat, each club has their own reasoning for sacking their manager.

For example a league one manager gets sacked after 10 games having only won one is unfair IMO has he had little time to build the team he wants it to be, however sacking a manager like Coyle after over 2 years at the club leading us to relegation was fair as the club was obviously only going one way under him.

rammywhite wrote:
Getting rid of one guy does not guarantee that the next one will be any better. Look up and down the leagues (Chelsea,Burnley, Villa) and its the same story. Get shut too quick and it often simply compounds the problem.
People need to be given time

Burnley?

The last manager we got shut of was Brian Laws.

But you've had a few managers in a short period of time- Coyle,Laws Dyche. Are you any better of because of it?
Look at clubs who persevere with their managers- (Everton,United Hull)- they seem to be reaping the benefits of sticking with managers despite unpromising starts

This thread is about managers getting the sack.

Coyle left for your lot.
Laws was sacked.
Howe left for Bournemouth.


Bolton got shut of their last two.

Doesn't matter how they went- the point is that short lived managerial appointments damage clubs.

Now you've moved the goalposts.

I entered this conversation because you put Burnley in the same bracket as Chelsea and Aston Villa, when we couldn't be further away from them two in terms of sacking managers.

To answer your secondary point, yes having to frequently change managers through no fault of your own can and does damage clubs.

Fair point, Copper. Burnley didn't choose to have had three managers in that time whereas Chelsea/Blackburn/Villa has been a sackfest.

rammywhite wrote:But you've had a few managers in a short period of time- Coyle,Laws Dyche. Are you any better of because of it?
Look at clubs who persevere with their managers- (Everton,United Hull)- they seem to be reaping the benefits of sticking with managers despite unpromising starts

Hull?

Poyet to Reading being reported? This could do us a favour if it help's Brighton capitulate.

If Gus has any sense he will stick with Brighton. A bigger club than Reading plus he has the chance of promotion whereas Reading are coming back down.

MartinBWFC wrote:

rammywhite wrote:But you've had a few managers in a short period of time- Coyle,Laws Dyche. Are you any better of because of it?
Look at clubs who persevere with their managers- (Everton,United Hull)- they seem to be reaping the benefits of sticking with managers despite unpromising starts

Hull?

OK- shit example. I'll need to think of someone else

They are well paid and compensated, eventually, in some cases when they are fired. Generally I don't have any sympathy especially at the Prem / Championship level, lower down the leagues you sometimes wonder what drugs the owners / board / fans are taking in regards to expectations and short term memory loss.