THE CONCRETE ROUNDABOUT (TCR)

The Unofficial MK Dons Forum. Discuss and debate all things Dons
It is currently Thu Apr 25, 2024 11:47 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Crossroads
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:50 pm
Posts: 431
Don Direction wrote:
FilthyDon wrote:
DippyDon wrote:
FilthyDon wrote:
Give me an example of when giving a manager time for the sake of it after a shaky start has actually paid off.

I wasn't about back then, but I hear that Alex Ferguson bloke did alright in the end


Definitely an exception, and the fact they were one of the richest clubs in the world might have helped with bringing the right players in.

For your typical EFL club, there really isn't any benefit in keeping a manager for the sake of it and giving them 'time to build'. Either it clicks or it doesn't.

Karl Robinson didn't need "time to build". He got us to the playoffs in his first two seasons.


So we should give Robbie to the end of this season seen. We aren't that far off top 6.


This. Let's wait and see.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crossroads
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4780
FilthyDon wrote:
dons50 wrote:
FilthyDon wrote:
I think the concept of stability and giving managers time is rubbish in football. It's all about the right fit, not giving managers time for the sake of it.

Teams bring in managers all the time. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. You could bring in a manager and he does rubbish, sack him after 6 months and bring in someone else who does brilliantly. You could change managers 3 or 4 times in a short space of time before getting someone in that the team just clicks with.

Give me an example of when giving a manager time for the sake of it after a shaky start has actually paid off.

Conversely, I can give several examples of when getting rid of several managers in a short space of time has resulted in one that works out:

- Huddersfield changed managers eight times in 3 years before getting David Wagner and are now in the Prem.
- Sheffield United changed managers six times in 4 years before getting Chris Wilder and it just clicked for them.
- Bournemouth changed managers seven times in 5 years before getting Eddie Howe who took them from L1 to the Prem.

Bottom line is, giving a manager time for the sake of it offers no benefit over frequent changes until you get the right one in.


Why does football think it's different from the rest of the world?


Because football is more of a short term results oriented business at this level.

Fans and stakeholders want instant results, when they are paying money to watch and support a team, investing so much time and energy following a club, there is only so much lack of progress they can put up with, especially when a manager like Neilson appears to have taken us one step forward, one step backwards since taking over

I don't have a problem with it, its how it is and it will never change. I have never been a fan of giving managers time, plenty have proven you don't need to give managers a transition season or anything like that. We don't owe these managers a career or sympathy, and contracts mean nothing in football these days.


The conventional wisdom is that football HAS to focus on ridiculously short term. In the real world this is nonsense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crossroads
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:01 am
Posts: 4853
dons50 wrote:
FilthyDon wrote:
dons50 wrote:
FilthyDon wrote:
I think the concept of stability and giving managers time is rubbish in football. It's all about the right fit, not giving managers time for the sake of it.

Teams bring in managers all the time. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. You could bring in a manager and he does rubbish, sack him after 6 months and bring in someone else who does brilliantly. You could change managers 3 or 4 times in a short space of time before getting someone in that the team just clicks with.

Give me an example of when giving a manager time for the sake of it after a shaky start has actually paid off.

Conversely, I can give several examples of when getting rid of several managers in a short space of time has resulted in one that works out:

- Huddersfield changed managers eight times in 3 years before getting David Wagner and are now in the Prem.
- Sheffield United changed managers six times in 4 years before getting Chris Wilder and it just clicked for them.
- Bournemouth changed managers seven times in 5 years before getting Eddie Howe who took them from L1 to the Prem.

Bottom line is, giving a manager time for the sake of it offers no benefit over frequent changes until you get the right one in.


Why does football think it's different from the rest of the world?


Because football is more of a short term results oriented business at this level.

Fans and stakeholders want instant results, when they are paying money to watch and support a team, investing so much time and energy following a club, there is only so much lack of progress they can put up with, especially when a manager like Neilson appears to have taken us one step forward, one step backwards since taking over

I don't have a problem with it, its how it is and it will never change. I have never been a fan of giving managers time, plenty have proven you don't need to give managers a transition season or anything like that. We don't owe these managers a career or sympathy, and contracts mean nothing in football these days.


The conventional wisdom is that football HAS to focus on ridiculously short term. In the real world this is nonsense.


I'm not too sure. Businesses have to make profits,increased sales and competing against their rivals, while even public sector managers have to keep to budgets and hit targets. The phrase bottom line comes from business and while it might not be as cut throat as football, but if a business started to lose customers managers would be replaced.

_________________
Disclaimer: All my comments are my opinions unless stated otherwise. I'm just a fan following my club.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Crossroads
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 4780
ReturnofMoo wrote:
dons50 wrote:
FilthyDon wrote:
dons50 wrote:
FilthyDon wrote:
I think the concept of stability and giving managers time is rubbish in football. It's all about the right fit, not giving managers time for the sake of it.

Teams bring in managers all the time. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. You could bring in a manager and he does rubbish, sack him after 6 months and bring in someone else who does brilliantly. You could change managers 3 or 4 times in a short space of time before getting someone in that the team just clicks with.

Give me an example of when giving a manager time for the sake of it after a shaky start has actually paid off.

Conversely, I can give several examples of when getting rid of several managers in a short space of time has resulted in one that works out:

- Huddersfield changed managers eight times in 3 years before getting David Wagner and are now in the Prem.
- Sheffield United changed managers six times in 4 years before getting Chris Wilder and it just clicked for them.
- Bournemouth changed managers seven times in 5 years before getting Eddie Howe who took them from L1 to the Prem.

Bottom line is, giving a manager time for the sake of it offers no benefit over frequent changes until you get the right one in.


Why does football think it's different from the rest of the world?


Because football is more of a short term results oriented business at this level.

Fans and stakeholders want instant results, when they are paying money to watch and support a team, investing so much time and energy following a club, there is only so much lack of progress they can put up with, especially when a manager like Neilson appears to have taken us one step forward, one step backwards since taking over

I don't have a problem with it, its how it is and it will never change. I have never been a fan of giving managers time, plenty have proven you don't need to give managers a transition season or anything like that. We don't owe these managers a career or sympathy, and contracts mean nothing in football these days.


The conventional wisdom is that football HAS to focus on ridiculously short term. In the real world this is nonsense.


I'm not too sure. Businesses have to make profits,increased sales and competing against their rivals, while even public sector managers have to keep to budgets and hit targets. The phrase bottom line comes from business and while it might not be as cut throat as football, but if a business started to lose customers managers would be replaced.


Agree with all of that. It's just the timeframe in which the normal world kneejerks that's different.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Leighton and 63 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group