The other way to do it is to say a club can only sign a new manager over the summer if they sack their manager during the season then an interim within the club has to take control.

Exceptions will only be for a manager who died during the course of the season

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Great shout Quachett, avoids any loopholes

How about managers that sack 3 managers in a season are docked 3 points?

Perhaps someone from the LMA to be involved in the process of clubs hiring managers to give new owners or owners who have a history of sacking managers advice during the interview process.Strictly independant but to have guidelines and free advice on the process and the best options on the contact for both the club and the potential manager.

contract* not contact

comment by red_man23 - Will be doing plenty of gardening from May . (U1669)

posted 4 minutes ago

How about managers that sack 3 managers in a season are docked 3 points?
__________________________________________________

Not effective as most clubs just sack 1 manager, 2 at the most.

Some sackings are just ridiculous such as Di Matteo but a lot of the time they are justified. I think it would be a very poor idea to have to stick by your manager for 3 years as he could get you relegated 3 years on the trot but you would be forced to stick with him. That would not only damage the club massively but also the manger's reputation would be tarnished completely.

It's up to clubs how many managers they want to sack. They get paid off handsomely whether they fail or not, so don't feel too sorry for them.

Sorry but your idea is unworkable.

Clubs have the right to hire and fire who they like.

Why should football be any different to any other business?

I don't agree with the constant sacking of managers we are seeing, but the kind if rules you are suggesting are illegal and unworkable.

What's more important is that owners pass a more stringent test in order to purchase a club.

Many of the sackings are made by owners who are not fit for purpose and shouldn't have been allowed to buy the clubs in the first place.

A better system for controlling club ownership would solve most of the managerial merry go round.

What a load of balls this is. Would it even stan up in court?

Ridiculous.

Quachett

I know I was joking .

On a serious note. Part of me says do it on a yearly basis. But if a manager gets the sack after a year he won't get the payout they get now. This would deter anyone from getting into management.

The current way things are is ridiculous. But I'm sure the many managers that have gone through Chelsea aren't complaining about the payment they received.

The only workable thing would be a transfer window for managers....you could only change during the periods you can buy/sell players.

What would be the purpose of this new regulation? To avoid having to hear the feigned indignation of some association official with a vested interest? Maybe he should have expressed indignation that there are so many poor managers out there.

"Some sackings are just ridiculous such as Di Matteo but a lot of the time they are justified."

Exactly. Football is a zero-sum game, where some lose as a consequence of others winning - some managers will necessarily not do well, and they will be replaced. Some managers are replaced for no good reason (RDM), but most managerial replacements are justified (the recent (mis)managers of Blackburn, for example).

There are all sorts of reasons why the tenure of football managers should not be protected for a long period of time:

-It would be extremely difficult for fresh talent to enter the pool of football managers.
-Incompetents would be allowed to reign for a long time without having much incentive to improve.
-Owners would be much less willing to invest in a club if they could not make personnel decisions.

And the list goes on.

A better solution would be this:
-Make sure anyone entering the managerial pool has to prove competence through a rigorous (emphasis) qualification program rather than whatever piddling thing they have now. Perhaps make a certain period of assistant coaching necessary for qualification (although I'm not in favor of this).
-Make it necessary to attend training seminars and update one's qualifications on a periodic basis to improve one's skills. Doctors and various other professionals do it, so I don't think it's too much to ask it of football managers.

This way, we'd end up with better managers, and overall, a better game. But again, there's only so much you can do, because, as I said, it's a zero-sum game, where some football managers will necessarily do better than others.

HRH

Would that work though? What owner would get rid of the manager whilst trying to but players. They get rid at the beginning,and the new manager comes in with his transfer targets. Or they get rid just before the window closes, and the players bought by the outgoing manager become disaffected.

Unfortunately this would infringe so many employment laws as to be unworkable.

One season minimum with managers leaving and joining in summer break. Also if the club is not happy with manager within that year, they can keep him on the payroll but must allow the assistant manager/coach / director of football to step in for the remainder of the season.

comment by red_man23 - Will be doing plenty of gardening ... (U1669)
posted 4 minutes ago
HRH

Would that work though? What owner would get rid of the manager whilst trying to but players. They get rid at the beginning,and the new manager comes in with his transfer targets. Or they get rid just before the window closes, and the players bought by the outgoing manager become disaffected.

-------

Yeah, I agree really. It's not broke, it doesn't need fixing

We don't need manager rules we need rules to make sure the owners a suitable.

It's an unworkable proposal in my opinion. If put in place, even if only for a period of one year, then managers would simply be offered 1 year deals. Managers themselves are in the main unlikely to want to go for that, for obvious reasons.

If put in place for a longer period, say 3 years, then the ability of a club being able to appoint a new manager becomes severely limited. For they wouldn't be able to approach any manager who signed his present contract at his current club within the 3 year period. Which, under your proposed guidelines, would be pretty much everyone who is currently employed. Thus pretty much the only managers a club could approach were those who were out of work.

And there's usually a reason why they are out of work...

well, it breaks just about every employment law going...


alternatively, you could follow the player transfer regulations and have the managers being registered with the governing body.

start of the season, a club has to register the manager, and a subordinate. during the season if a manager is sacked, the subordinate automatically takes over until at minimum the end of the season.
clubs are able to sign new managers ONLY outside of the league season.
gives the club the option of giving the manager a bit of time to turn things around or sack him and go with the subordinate, who will automatically have the remainder of the season to prove himself.

in circumstances where both the manager/subordinate are guilty of gross misconduct (ie any action deemed as an instant sackable offence by the countries employment laws), in agreement with the governing body, the club can appoint a new manager and subordinate from those currently unregistered.

Bevan was very quick to highlight Blackburn, but said nothing about Appleton walking out on Blackpool to go there in the first place.

I find it slightly difficult to find much sympathy with a lot of them, although there are exceptions.

I don't think it would hurt to have managers only change in the windows.

this law is a bad idea?

why cos the natural law in this case is clubs who sack managers end up with crap... see chelsea where RA could offer 50mil per year and not get mourinho or guardiola.

clubs who sack managers end up relegated, see QPR and blackburn etc.

So in the end the manager's love it really cos they get a big pay off and end up being considered for new jobs as they are seen as hard done by.

mcleish..souness... hughes.. the list goes on. you only need on success and you can trade off that for a few jobs/contracts and you are set then for punditry.

Club who are not run by absentee idiots who hire know nothing big talkers to make decisions take care over decisions. these clubs go up and stay up. those who make rash decisions go down.

In the end the managerial merry go round is good for wannabe managers and coaches as one big contract = set for life. LFC have spend more on managers than players nearly.