Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Keep hoping Rev,
- I can't wait to see the results coming in.
- A very shrewd move by the owners.....really!
Fed with hearing about stability. It's rubbish.
You need a manager to get something like the best out his players while he's in charge.
No evidence to suggest staying with any manager long term bring success
I agree. Stability is massively important, just look at Chelsea.
Oh wait, hang on.......
Leicester fan in peace. I think the Chelsea comparison is an unsuitable one. They have a core group of players in cole, lamps, terry etc to push on through instability and abramavic pulls in top quality managers.
You only have to look at the likes of leicester to see how important stability in the championship is. I was hoping the forest owners wouldn't tread the impatient path we have but it seems they are doing. How can 4 months be enough time to build a promotion squad? And if MacLeish has been told he doesn't need to achieve promotion this season then why sack SOD?
It doesn't make sense. When the players start tweeting their dismay it shows how damaging a mid season appt can be. New style, new players in jan and for what? Just to get you in the top 6? You were only a point off anyway.
Stability is the key, we are doing better now because we have stuck with a manager for more than 3 months!
Honestly I wish you guys the best, I have no axe to grind against a team who are a big name in football history
Sutton, the only time a football club can get away with a high turnover of manager (like Chelsea) is when (like Chelsea) they have a huge disposable wodge to throw around, because each manager is going to build on the foundations of the previous incumbent by bringing in his own favourites. It costs a huge amount to keep ripping things down and building them up again.
If that is truly the case with Forest's owners (that they are loaded) then you can get away with it (inserts obvious gag about credit cards and wages). I'm not going to knock it because if Derby were in a similar position, I'd want us to 'splash the cash' too (despite the memories of Davies and Jewell).
I agree with Blackstarr & OOE, the Chelsea comparison is a poor one, a billion pounds spent, a core of players who have been there over the decade, include Drogba in that until this season.
Chelsea changed the rules of the English game. Money always gave certain clubs the edge, but Chelsea could spend and absorb losses that would bankrupt most clubs. Look at Shevchenko as a signing, £30m lost. How many clubs can go out and spend £50m on a misfiring striker?
Chelsea are now like Real Madrid & Bayern Munich, it doesn't really matter who the manager is because they contain a squad that is amongst the best in their domestic league and Europe. They will always compete.
Stability overrated? Not sure about that for other clubs. Swansea are an excellent example of a well-run club, who have often been the victims of their own success but have improved steadily over a decade, taking their time over selecting a manager. Huw Jenkins and Derby fell out over Bodde, but he has done a terrific job overseeing their success.
Most managers that win promotion do so in there first full season at this level. If Nonleague were to take Derby up he'd be the longest severing manager to do so for quite a while.
No evidence that sticking with a manager, having "stability" or "building" having a 3/5 year plan blah blah blah, achieves anything.
It's one of those things you'd think would be true. It's what managers say and what some fans like to think. But it's rubbish
Sutton
I dispute that. The circumstances at Derby are different, the manager hasn't got the finances, but I think he has put structures in place that could help safeguard the club's future (The Academy).
I believe if Clough had had some of the budgets available at some clubs (Blackburn, £8m on Rhodes), he would have got a club up.
Look at Malky Mackay, I doubt he would have got Watford up, but he did an excellent job under difficult circumstances, shrewd signings (Graham) and the Academy. Dyche did much the same. Now Mackay is at a club with the resources to mount a serious promotion challenge.
In short, I believe if Clough sells a player, like Southampton did, and he is allowed this money to reinvest, we could mount a serious challenge.
The flipside to winning promotion is that so many of these clubs fail to consolidate and quite a few of them end up ruining themselves (Palace under Dowie), and I think the figures bandied about are overrated because clubs end up having to spend so much on increased wages and fees.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Rodgers had been at Swansea one season when he took them up. Same with RDM at WBA. Both had been there less than a year.
Palace sacked their manager when they were in the bottom three and Dowie took them up. Boro didn't sack Southgate in the prem and went down, would they have stayed up if they'd have got rid? Who knows. It works both ways.
Sacking the manager is never a good thing on it own. It obviously depends massively on who you bring in.
Silly non-argument, Sutton.
If every club takes the Forest approach and changes managers each season (Spring, Summer etc in your case), then there are no unsuccessful managers remaining in a job after one year, therefore everyone getting promoted has to, by definition, be promoted in their first year.
I never said you should swap managers every 5 months or every year. All I'm saying is, if you look at the facts there's no evidence that giving a manager years gives you better chance of success.
The whole we need stability stuff is rubbish. That's shown at this level, where the managers that go up tend to do so quickly and at the top. Like it or not its how it is.
That's not say just sacking managers all over the shop is good.
I'd like to see some stats for each of the 3 promoted sides from the Champ over last 10 years and how long their managers had been in post. Last season for example, Reading and Southampton had managers that had been there a couple of years at least. Rodgers was quite new but plays similar football to Martinez and therefore there was an easy transition.
It's all about timing. Changing manager at the right time is massively important, and I personally think that forest have made the change at exactly the right time.
Stability at any club can only be achieved if they bring a new rule into play:
No club should be allowed to change their manager (unless the manager dies) until a season has finished
At least, in this league, you'd get 46 games to prove it
Adding to that if he walks away, his assistant takes over. No new manager can be put in place until the season is over
I really do despair of some Forest fan's especially you Sutton. You should take on board the title of this article and TRY to think more , that way you might not look quite so STUPID.
I just hope that no one decides to boo today, or sing SODs name. Now that would be STUPID, and EMBARRASSING.
RFB - not sure if your dig at Sutton is tongue in cheek or not. He has been trying to make a valid point.
In our case I think the change was inevitable. Many seem to have used the Leeds second half display to gloss over a myriad of inadequacies. We have been poor more often than not and do sit a point off the play-offs. However, we are also only three points off 13th position.
Stability was ensured in the summer by our wholly generous and involved owners. Anything more at present is a massive bonus.
That is the daftest thing I've ever heard webbo! You telling me a scenario where the manager loses the dressing room and loses 7 or 8 on the bounce but hangs on for some kinda pay off should be maintained under rules until the seasons end??? Footballs a high cost business these days and like any business owner if there shelling out millions in operating costs they have every right to make a change if they feel its within the clubs best interest! That's life so no pie in the sky nice guy rules will ever change that. SOD was very unlucky to lose his job but he's in a very wll paid job and will get employment elsewhere but he knows the game as he benefitted himself at his mate cotteril's expensive only this year
I really do despair of some Forest fan's especially you Sutton. You should take on board the title of this article and TRY to think more , that way you might not look quite so STUPID.
______
Yeah it's really stupid to look at facts rather ideals. Facts are facts mate.
You want to win games, promotion, trophies depending on your status and position in the football pyramid. You get nothing for employing a manager longer than other clubs. Although to listen to some you'd think employing a manager longest is the most important thing.
Sign in if you want to comment
We needed stability - We got stupidity
Page 1 of 2
posted on 28/12/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 28/12/12
Keep hoping Rev,
- I can't wait to see the results coming in.
- A very shrewd move by the owners.....really!
posted on 28/12/12
lol yeah right!
posted on 28/12/12
with you on that rev
posted on 29/12/12
Fed with hearing about stability. It's rubbish.
You need a manager to get something like the best out his players while he's in charge.
No evidence to suggest staying with any manager long term bring success
posted on 29/12/12
I agree. Stability is massively important, just look at Chelsea.
Oh wait, hang on.......
posted on 29/12/12
Leicester fan in peace. I think the Chelsea comparison is an unsuitable one. They have a core group of players in cole, lamps, terry etc to push on through instability and abramavic pulls in top quality managers.
You only have to look at the likes of leicester to see how important stability in the championship is. I was hoping the forest owners wouldn't tread the impatient path we have but it seems they are doing. How can 4 months be enough time to build a promotion squad? And if MacLeish has been told he doesn't need to achieve promotion this season then why sack SOD?
It doesn't make sense. When the players start tweeting their dismay it shows how damaging a mid season appt can be. New style, new players in jan and for what? Just to get you in the top 6? You were only a point off anyway.
Stability is the key, we are doing better now because we have stuck with a manager for more than 3 months!
Honestly I wish you guys the best, I have no axe to grind against a team who are a big name in football history
posted on 29/12/12
Sutton, the only time a football club can get away with a high turnover of manager (like Chelsea) is when (like Chelsea) they have a huge disposable wodge to throw around, because each manager is going to build on the foundations of the previous incumbent by bringing in his own favourites. It costs a huge amount to keep ripping things down and building them up again.
If that is truly the case with Forest's owners (that they are loaded) then you can get away with it (inserts obvious gag about credit cards and wages). I'm not going to knock it because if Derby were in a similar position, I'd want us to 'splash the cash' too (despite the memories of Davies and Jewell).
posted on 29/12/12
I agree with Blackstarr & OOE, the Chelsea comparison is a poor one, a billion pounds spent, a core of players who have been there over the decade, include Drogba in that until this season.
Chelsea changed the rules of the English game. Money always gave certain clubs the edge, but Chelsea could spend and absorb losses that would bankrupt most clubs. Look at Shevchenko as a signing, £30m lost. How many clubs can go out and spend £50m on a misfiring striker?
Chelsea are now like Real Madrid & Bayern Munich, it doesn't really matter who the manager is because they contain a squad that is amongst the best in their domestic league and Europe. They will always compete.
Stability overrated? Not sure about that for other clubs. Swansea are an excellent example of a well-run club, who have often been the victims of their own success but have improved steadily over a decade, taking their time over selecting a manager. Huw Jenkins and Derby fell out over Bodde, but he has done a terrific job overseeing their success.
posted on 29/12/12
Most managers that win promotion do so in there first full season at this level. If Nonleague were to take Derby up he'd be the longest severing manager to do so for quite a while.
No evidence that sticking with a manager, having "stability" or "building" having a 3/5 year plan blah blah blah, achieves anything.
It's one of those things you'd think would be true. It's what managers say and what some fans like to think. But it's rubbish
posted on 29/12/12
Sutton
I dispute that. The circumstances at Derby are different, the manager hasn't got the finances, but I think he has put structures in place that could help safeguard the club's future (The Academy).
I believe if Clough had had some of the budgets available at some clubs (Blackburn, £8m on Rhodes), he would have got a club up.
Look at Malky Mackay, I doubt he would have got Watford up, but he did an excellent job under difficult circumstances, shrewd signings (Graham) and the Academy. Dyche did much the same. Now Mackay is at a club with the resources to mount a serious promotion challenge.
In short, I believe if Clough sells a player, like Southampton did, and he is allowed this money to reinvest, we could mount a serious challenge.
The flipside to winning promotion is that so many of these clubs fail to consolidate and quite a few of them end up ruining themselves (Palace under Dowie), and I think the figures bandied about are overrated because clubs end up having to spend so much on increased wages and fees.
posted on 29/12/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/12/12
Rodgers had been at Swansea one season when he took them up. Same with RDM at WBA. Both had been there less than a year.
Palace sacked their manager when they were in the bottom three and Dowie took them up. Boro didn't sack Southgate in the prem and went down, would they have stayed up if they'd have got rid? Who knows. It works both ways.
Sacking the manager is never a good thing on it own. It obviously depends massively on who you bring in.
posted on 29/12/12
Silly non-argument, Sutton.
If every club takes the Forest approach and changes managers each season (Spring, Summer etc in your case), then there are no unsuccessful managers remaining in a job after one year, therefore everyone getting promoted has to, by definition, be promoted in their first year.
posted on 29/12/12
I never said you should swap managers every 5 months or every year. All I'm saying is, if you look at the facts there's no evidence that giving a manager years gives you better chance of success.
The whole we need stability stuff is rubbish. That's shown at this level, where the managers that go up tend to do so quickly and at the top. Like it or not its how it is.
That's not say just sacking managers all over the shop is good.
posted on 29/12/12
I'd like to see some stats for each of the 3 promoted sides from the Champ over last 10 years and how long their managers had been in post. Last season for example, Reading and Southampton had managers that had been there a couple of years at least. Rodgers was quite new but plays similar football to Martinez and therefore there was an easy transition.
posted on 29/12/12
It's all about timing. Changing manager at the right time is massively important, and I personally think that forest have made the change at exactly the right time.
posted on 29/12/12
Stability at any club can only be achieved if they bring a new rule into play:
No club should be allowed to change their manager (unless the manager dies) until a season has finished
At least, in this league, you'd get 46 games to prove it
posted on 29/12/12
Adding to that if he walks away, his assistant takes over. No new manager can be put in place until the season is over
posted on 29/12/12
I really do despair of some Forest fan's especially you Sutton. You should take on board the title of this article and TRY to think more , that way you might not look quite so STUPID.
posted on 29/12/12
I just hope that no one decides to boo today, or sing SODs name. Now that would be STUPID, and EMBARRASSING.
posted on 29/12/12
RFB - not sure if your dig at Sutton is tongue in cheek or not. He has been trying to make a valid point.
In our case I think the change was inevitable. Many seem to have used the Leeds second half display to gloss over a myriad of inadequacies. We have been poor more often than not and do sit a point off the play-offs. However, we are also only three points off 13th position.
Stability was ensured in the summer by our wholly generous and involved owners. Anything more at present is a massive bonus.
posted on 29/12/12
That is the daftest thing I've ever heard webbo! You telling me a scenario where the manager loses the dressing room and loses 7 or 8 on the bounce but hangs on for some kinda pay off should be maintained under rules until the seasons end??? Footballs a high cost business these days and like any business owner if there shelling out millions in operating costs they have every right to make a change if they feel its within the clubs best interest! That's life so no pie in the sky nice guy rules will ever change that. SOD was very unlucky to lose his job but he's in a very wll paid job and will get employment elsewhere but he knows the game as he benefitted himself at his mate cotteril's expensive only this year
posted on 29/12/12
I really do despair of some Forest fan's especially you Sutton. You should take on board the title of this article and TRY to think more , that way you might not look quite so STUPID.
______
Yeah it's really stupid to look at facts rather ideals. Facts are facts mate.
posted on 29/12/12
You want to win games, promotion, trophies depending on your status and position in the football pyramid. You get nothing for employing a manager longer than other clubs. Although to listen to some you'd think employing a manager longest is the most important thing.
Page 1 of 2