Mpache Posted March 25, 2021 Posted March 25, 2021 Most likely so teams don't sack their managers after 3 bad games.
Devil-Dick Willie Posted March 25, 2021 Posted March 25, 2021 Schalke aren't going to Brazil any time soon I see.
Mpache Posted March 25, 2021 Author Posted March 25, 2021 9 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said: Schalke aren't going to Brazil any time soon I see. This rule should be adopted in Italy, who have amazingly shit patience. Nobody is worse than Brazil though!
El Profesor Posted March 25, 2021 Posted March 25, 2021 52 minutes ago, Mpache said: This rule should be adopted in Italy, who have amazingly shit patience. Nobody is worse than Brazil though! Yep. Brazilian clubs are way too fast to pull the trigger on coaches. This has created a terrible herd mentality of conservatism in brazilian football, where the main goal of most coaches is to play safe, defensive football in order to get results and keep the job. Botafogo, for example, had 5 coaches in the year of 2020.
Subscriber Pyfish+ Posted March 25, 2021 Subscriber Posted March 25, 2021 Something I think would work well across the board in football. If two managers can't get it right, you know there's a deeper set problem there.
Subscriber Mel81x+ Posted March 25, 2021 Subscriber Posted March 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Pyfish said: Something I think would work well across the board in football. If two managers can't get it right, you know there's a deeper set problem there. Its called the owners.
Subscriber Pyfish+ Posted March 25, 2021 Subscriber Posted March 25, 2021 25 minutes ago, Mel81x said: Its called the owners. It might help them realise they are the issue... but then again, it won't.
Subscriber Mel81x+ Posted March 25, 2021 Subscriber Posted March 25, 2021 16 minutes ago, Pyfish said: It might help them realise they are the issue... but then again, it won't. It really wont but I think you're right in the sense that owners would have to think very hard before they make a decision on who to appoint and it also makes it important to properly vet someone before hiring them.
Administrator Batard Posted March 25, 2021 Administrator Posted March 25, 2021 This doesn't seem legal
El Profesor Posted March 25, 2021 Posted March 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Batard said: This doesn't seem legal Good point. I'd say it's probably unconstitutional as it limits the rights of access to work for the coaches, but I highly doubt it will be taken to court. There is a lot of reticence around football to take their demands to the ordinary justice. At least here in Brazil. 4 hours ago, Mel81x said: Its called the owners. Most brazilian football clubs are non-profit associations. It's similar to the spanish model, there are presidents not owners. I'd say the problem in our football is not ownership but club politics. Think Barcelona and Bartomeu. This is the level of mess of most brazilian clubs.
Subscriber Mel81x+ Posted March 25, 2021 Subscriber Posted March 25, 2021 15 minutes ago, El Profesor said: Good point. I'd say it's probably unconstitutional as it limits the rights of access to work for the coaches, but I highly doubt it will be taken to court. There is a lot of reticence around football to take their demands to the ordinary justice. At least here in Brazil. Most brazilian football clubs are non-profit associations. It's similar to the spanish model, there are presidents not owners. I'd say the problem in our football is not ownership but club politics. Think Barcelona and Bartomeu. This is the level of mess of most brazilian clubs. I'd imagine to offset the problem of 1 coach being rotated ever so often clubs will now have more presidential change overs. Because I cant imagine fans being happy with poor appointments and judging by the number of changes that already happen this seems like a likely scenario.
Administrator Batard Posted March 25, 2021 Administrator Posted March 25, 2021 15 minutes ago, El Profesor said: Good point. I'd say it's probably unconstitutional as it limits the rights of access to work for the coaches, but I highly doubt it will be taken to court. There is a lot of reticence around football to take their demands to the ordinary justice. At least here in Brazil. Most brazilian football clubs are non-profit associations. It's similar to the spanish model, there are presidents not owners. I'd say the problem in our football is not ownership but club politics. Think Barcelona and Bartomeu. This is the level of mess of most brazilian clubs. I think this creates an additional issue where what happens if your permitted two coaches a year/season decide to resign. The club are forced to forego a manager until the following year/season?
Mpache Posted March 25, 2021 Author Posted March 25, 2021 14 minutes ago, Batard said: I think this creates an additional issue where what happens if your permitted two coaches a year/season decide to resign. The club are forced to forego a manager until the following year/season? That's a good point. I suppose they'll work exceptions to the rule. However the problem is as aforementioned, Brazilian directors are way too inpatient, and most clubs end up with at least 3 managers in a season.
El Profesor Posted March 25, 2021 Posted March 25, 2021 3 hours ago, Mel81x said: I'd imagine to offset the problem of 1 coach being rotated ever so often clubs will now have more presidential change overs. Because I cant imagine fans being happy with poor appointments and judging by the number of changes that already happen this seems like a likely scenario. Good point. It will be indeed interesting to see how the politics around the clubs evolve in this new scenario. 3 hours ago, Batard said: I think this creates an additional issue where what happens if your permitted two coaches a year/season decide to resign. The club are forced to forego a manager until the following year/season? No. If the coach himself asks to be relieved of his functions it´s not counted as a change. And this is a potential loophole that may render this rule ineffective. Considering the brazilian cultural problem of always finding ways to circumvent the rules, I can see clubs reaching agreements with coaches in order to make those latter ask to leave.
Administrator Batard Posted March 25, 2021 Administrator Posted March 25, 2021 3 minutes ago, El Profesor said: No. If the coach himself asks to be relieved of his functions it´s not counted as a change. And this is a potential loophole that may render this rule ineffective. Considering the brazilian cultural problem of always finding ways to circumvent the rules, I can see clubs reaching agreements with coaches in order to make those latter ask to leave. So they effectively can incentivise a coach to leave, likely on the terms they would have achieved had they been sacked. In Italy, managers tend to be kept on the books rather than paid off in one hit - it's also why you see managers so frequently return to the same clubs - is it similar in Brasil?
El Profesor Posted March 25, 2021 Posted March 25, 2021 6 minutes ago, Batard said: So they effectively can incentivise a coach to leave, likely on the terms they would have achieved had they been sacked. In Italy, managers tend to be kept on the books rather than paid off in one hit - it's also why you see managers so frequently return to the same clubs - is it similar in Brasil? Yes. Santos, for example, had recently 5 coaches simultaneously on their books.
Administrator Batard Posted March 25, 2021 Administrator Posted March 25, 2021 3 minutes ago, El Profesor said: Yes. Santos, for example, had recently 5 coaches simultaneously on their books. That is insane.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.