Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome!

    Tired of Kevins and Karens on Facebook and other social media platforms?

    Our forum is completely focused on football and moderated to keep discussions civil. Sound good? Sign up!

Should Mid-Season Sackings Be Banned?


football forum
 Share

Should Mid-Season Sackings Be Banned?  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Mid-Season Sackings Be Banned?



Recommended Posts

 

Quote

 

"I would support completely the idea that managers can't be sacked during the season," Neville told The Gary Neville Podcast.

"When you set off at the start of the season with a manager then he has to be your manager for the entire season. Football would support it, in terms of the professional side - I'm not sure whether the owners would.

"But it would mean the players would know you're going to be the manager until the end of the season, they'd have to get on with it."

"Teams are making changes at the bottom of the league and I'm almost sitting there thinking 'I wish this doesn't work' because when it does, it gives others the confidence to change their manager," he added.

"There have been examples where it's worked when managers are sacked and where it hasn't. I'm not sure there is a distinction between either. It seems to be more the done thing where you do sack the manager at the earliest point as the players respond.

"We've seen that at Leicester - what an incredible bounce they've had. It's happened at Swansea and Hull."

 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/10808957/should-mid-season-sackings-be-banned-gary-neville-has-his-say

 

barfing-smiley-emoticon.gif

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sign up to remove this ad.

Of course not, this is a ridiculous argument. If a team is certain to be relegated, they should be able to hire a new manager to turn it around.

Don't know how Gary Neville is called a good pundit. Honestly comes out with so much bullshit. Only pundits I can stand nowadays are Carra, Rio and Jenas. Everyone else seems to be more interested in being controversial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people are bad at their job for a prolonged period, there needs to be some form of change at that club. People losing their jobs isn't nice but it's part of the real world and Football managers shouldn't be exempt from the threat of unemployment. 

The real debate is are teams too quick to lay-off managers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, HoneyNUFC said:

"Teams are making changes at the bottom of the league and I'm almost sitting there thinking 'I wish this doesn't work' because when it does, it gives others the confidence to change their manager,"

well yeah, if it's broken, you try and fix it.

I don't agree that they should be banned. Does he feel that clubs at the bottom of the league should just fester in their own shite, pretty much? Forget whether you can try and improve a situation by getting rid of someone who's the cause of it. Odd logic by Neville to suggest clubs can't have the option to change.

Also, it would give too much of a comfort zone for managers, surely? Knowing that they can try as hard as they can and potentially just not be any good at their job, yet they know they have until May to be in a job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he realises that without a mid-season sacking at Valencia he might not have been in a position where he commands zero respect as a manager right now.

I still can't believe he took that job. What on earth was he thinking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I've advocated this for years as it would put responsibility onto the owners for once and make them accountable for their team's results. They appoint managers then bin them off, paying them huge sums of compensation from the club's (ie the supporters') coffers and pass the buck.

If owners did their homework instead of appointing some bandwagon name then maybe they wouldn't have to sack their managers. Owners generally have zero interest in football, let alone the club, other than making money or, occasionally, something to do on a Saturday and give it the biggun to their equally parasitic pals.

Appoint your manager, stand by your decision and if your decision costs you a title or gets you relegated then maybe you are a shit owner and should fuck off and do something else instead.

The only downside would be if you had a manager who fell out with the owners and was deliberately picking shit teams and getting poor results. You could say that dispensation could be made for bringing the game into disrepute or gross misconduct but with some teams it would be hard to prove conclusively.

I am all for it though. Same with players. Transfer window open from the day after the season ends to the day before it starts, then get on with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be a terrible idea, it's a business, same way as any owner of any company can bin off any employee if they aren't doing their job properly.

No co-incidence that it's coming from Gary Neville's mouth either, one of the worst managers going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Completely unenforceable, but why the hell not? 

Look at Swansea - 3 managers this season and they're still in the shit. This 'shot in the arm' concept of sacking managers for mildly underperforming is infuriating as it does absolutely nothing to promote consistency in the game. The 'Oh, it's ok, we'll just get someone else' scattergun approach is beyond ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do correct me if I’m wrong, but I swear I remember a rule in Italian football where a manager cannot manage two different clubs in one season. (It might not exist any more; again, please do jump in if you know the current rule status.)

I understood the rule to mean that, say, Italian club A sack their manager mid-season, and then Italian club B sack their manager one week later. Now, Italian club B’s ex-manager cannot then apply for the job vacancy at Italian club A. He must either wait until next season to find a club, or look for work abroad. Alternatively, he could re-apply for the job at Italian club B later that season, if their replacement manager turns out to be awful and they then sack him, too. 

I guess the reasons behind this rule was an attempt to prevent knee-jerk sackings, as well as clubs 'stealing' same-division managers mid-season and causing crazy manager merry-go-rounds. 

Edited by tarzanontoast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/05/2017 at 7:01 AM, Smiley Culture said:

An interesting thought I've just had, should there be a limit to how many managerial changes any side can make in a season?

 

Maybe something like you can only make 1 change per season, but can promote a caretaker from within the club any number of times.

 

hardly seems relevant though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a no from Basildon. I understand that some clubs have abused the fact that they are free to hire and fire whenever they want, but that is the law of the land. I personally think that football has the problems it has due to it already acting too unlike 'real' businesses. For every argument made about a manager being let go too early there is somebody who will make one that a manager has been kept far too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

football forum
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Sign up to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...