The Managerial Merry Go Round™

[Checko]

Wonder if they'll go for someone like Glasner and continue the 3 at the back revolution, which will obviously annoy Scholes, or maybe go for somoene like Iraola, depending on how Bournemouth's season plays out. 

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

I can’t help but feel some of these managers must think who the fuck is Jason Wilcox etc to tell me what to do? 

[Froggy]

2 minutes ago, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

I can’t help but feel some of these managers must think who the fuck is Jason Wilcox etc to tell me what to do? 

 

A lot of us probably feel that way about our boss.  They're still our boss.

[Interpolic]

Watkins will be 31 this season, Ruben Neves 29. They'd both have been good signings but there aren't many big clubs spending on that age profile anymore. Wissa is a bit of an outlier. 

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Just now, Froggy said:

 

A lot of us probably feel that way about our boss.  They're still our boss.

Most jobs are similar to football tbh.

 

[Keegans Export]

Just now, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

I can’t help but feel some of these managers must think who the fuck is Jason Wilcox etc to tell me what to do? 

The Head Coach/DOF dynamic seems so tricky, very few teams seem to have cracked it.

 

Man City I suppose but with Pep there and the amount of money & talent at their disposal it should be expected. Will be interesting to see how it looks once he goes. Brighton have been fairly consistent over multiple managerial changes. Many more cases where the relationship has caused more problems than it's solved. Us and Villa are in a situation where our success seems almost entirely on having hired the right guy but what happens when the right guy moves on?

 

I don't really know what the answer is tbh. There's always going to be the understandable short-term thinking of the manager (who knows he'll be first out the door if results aren't deemed good enough) conflicting with the longer-term view of the DOF. 

 

Assuming we don't do much business in January, we'll be in a tricky situation in the summer. If Tino or Tonali go, we'll have a lot of leeway financially but we'll have to do a fair bit of rebuilding - do we go mostly down the U24, overseas route? If so the board will have to adjust what they expect Howe to achieve accordingly, but football is inherently short-termist at the top level.

[Froggy]

8 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

It does sound like his position became untenable, but allowing it to get to that point is another matter.

 

They were seemingly all in on Amorim and his system despite him showing very little at all, but then also didn't really give him what he claimed to need to get them there.

 

Tbf, I think being all in on him and giving him what he wanted would have also been insane, but it seems like they got into this bizarre situation where they were sticking with him, but not giving him what he claimed to need, not necessarily Neves, but Watkins etc, and alienating him in the process, and then despite him picking up good results and having you in a decent position in a season where nigh on everyone is inconsistent, he gets the sack.

 

You know I really liked Amorim, but I can't buy in to the storyline that he wasn't given what he needed. We had an awful attack last season and he asked for attackers and was handed Cunha, Mbeumo and Sesko. Now we need midfielders, and it's common knowledge that we're advanced with Baleba and have a keen interest in Wharton and Anderson. It just feels like Amorim was looking for a way out. 

 

Thankfully I think this squad easily transitions into a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. While I believed in what Amorim was working towards, it was going to take time and I think we'll be stable enough under an interim like Ole who'll play on the counter.

[Kid Icarus]

7 minutes ago, Interpolic said:

Watkins will be 31 this season, Ruben Neves 29. They'd both have been good signings but there aren't many big clubs spending on that age profile anymore. Wissa is a bit of an outlier. 

Over a long enough period Man United and the rest of the big 6 can write off whatever is lost on buying players like that and the potential upside is success. It seems like a weird hill to die on for what would have been very affordable.

[Kid Icarus]

4 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

You know I really liked Amorim, but I can't buy in to the storyline that he wasn't given what he needed. We had an awful attack last season and he asked for attackers and was handed Cunha, Mbeumo and Sesko. Now we need midfielders, and it's common knowledge that we're advanced with Baleba and have a keen interest in Wharton and Anderson. It just feels like Amorim was looking for a way out. 

 

Thankfully I think this squad easily transitions into a 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1. While I believed in what Amorim was working towards, it was going to take time and I think we'll be stable enough under an interim like Ole who'll play on the counter.

How many of those 3 did he want? He definitely didn't want Sesko, right? £70m in that context is a huge outlay.

[Froggy]

5 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

How many of those 3 did he want? He definitely didn't want Sesko, right? £70m in that context is a huge outlay.

 

He wanted Watkins and Martinez instead of Sesko and Lammens. With the money Villa would have wanted I think they would have been mistakes as transfers, and we've made those mistakes too many times in the past.

 

You'd be talking what, £80m for Watkins (30) and Martinez (33)? That's according to Brummie anyway. We signed Sesko (22) and Lammens (23) for £88m instead. 

 

I'm in strong agreement with the board over those decisions. The power dynamic over transfers between a manager and executives is a tricky one to navigate though. 

 

 

Edited January 6 by Froggy

[Keegans Export]

3 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

He wanted Watkins and Martinez instead of Sesko and Lammens. With the money Villa would have wanted I think they would have been mistakes as transfers, and we've made those mistakes too many times in the past.

 

You'd be talking what, £80m for Watkins (30) and Martinez (33)? That's according to Brummie anyway. We signed Sesko (22) and Lammens (23) for £88m instead. 

 

I'm in strong agreement with the board over those decisions. The power dynamic over transfers between a manager and executives is a tricky one to navigate though. 

That's kind of what I was getting at with my post earlier.

 

I understand the clubs more long-term view, but if you're going for two younger players with no PL experience instead of two tried-and-tested options that has to be reflected in the expectations on the coach doesn't it?

 

It's not exclusive to those transfers or Man Utd in general obviously but there's a clear disconnect there in two strategies that can rarely exist simultaneously. 

 

 

Edited January 6 by Keegans Export

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

He wanted Watkins and Martinez instead of Sesko and Lammens. With the money Villa would have wanted I think they would have been mistakes as transfers, and we've made those mistakes too many times in the past.

 

You'd be talking what, £80m for Watkins (30) and Martinez (33)? That's according to Brummie anyway. We signed Sesko (22) and Lammens (23) for £88m instead. 

 

I'm in strong agreement with the board over those decisions. The power dynamic over transfers between a manager and executives is a tricky one to navigate though. 

 

 

 

Villa would have been asking for 100m + for those two and your right, they did the right thing. such stupid request also reinforces my view that he's an idiot  

[Froggy]

1 minute ago, Keegans Export said:

That's kind of what I was getting at with my post earlier.

 

I understand the clubs more long-term view, but if you're going for two younger players with no PL experience instead of two tried-and-tested options that has to be reflected in the expectations on the coach doesn't it?

 

It's not exclusive to those transfers or Man Utd in general obviously but there's a clear disconnect there in two strategies that can rarely exist simultaneously. 

 

You think the expectations on Amorim were unreasonable? I think the board and the fans knew this was a long term project. It sounds like Amorim is the one who got fed up. Europa League was the expectation from everyone and I don't think that's a lot to ask at all given the team and signings.

 

If we signed Watkins and Martinez, they're both for high fees/wages and would both need replaced again in a couple of years. We've signed players who might be a bit of a risk, but at least have some time to grow as players and resale value if they don't. 

[Cf]

20 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

The Head Coach/DOF dynamic seems so tricky, very few teams seem to have cracked it.

 

Man City I suppose but with Pep there and the amount of money & talent at their disposal it should be expected. Will be interesting to see how it looks once he goes. Brighton have been fairly consistent over multiple managerial changes. Many more cases where the relationship has caused more problems than it's solved. Us and Villa are in a situation where our success seems almost entirely on having hired the right guy but what happens when the right guy moves on?

 

I don't really know what the answer is tbh. There's always going to be the understandable short-term thinking of the manager (who knows he'll be first out the door if results aren't deemed good enough) conflicting with the longer-term view of the DOF. 

 

Assuming we don't do much business in January, we'll be in a tricky situation in the summer. If Tino or Tonali go, we'll have a lot of leeway financially but we'll have to do a fair bit of rebuilding - do we go mostly down the U24, overseas route? If so the board will have to adjust what they expect Howe to achieve accordingly, but football is inherently short-termist at the top level.

 

Two key points for me here.

 

Firstly Brighton are consistently mid-table. They've flirted with Europe but that seems to be the extent of their ambitions. The model seems to work as far as that is concerned but does it work for wanting to win things? See also Chelsea who seem happy with the Brighton model but aiming for CL instead of Europa. Liverpool it's arguably causing them problems now too - Slot looks like the wrong guy with players forced on him and they've got an expensive lopsided squad.

 

The second one is giving managers time. It's why i've found some of the discourse on here about Howe disappointing during our rough period. Clubs crave stability and cite the DOF as one of the ways to achieve that but ultimately it's the manager who will give you stability. I'm not saying we shouldn't have DOFs and all the rest of it, but they need to be seen as peers to the manager, not as their boss.

 

Someone who I can't remember (sorry) made an interesting point that DOFs are slowly morphing into the managers of old, except they receive no public/media scrutiny and have a head coach to throw under the bus if things aren't working out.

[Keegans Export]

4 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

You think the expectations on Amorim were unreasonable? I think the board and the fans knew this was a long term project. It sounds like Amorim is the one who got fed up. Europa League was the expectation from everyone and I don't think that's a lot to ask at all given the team and signings.

 

If we signed Watkins and Martinez, they're both for high fees/wages and would both need replaced again in a couple of years. We've signed players who might be a bit of a risk, but at least have some time to grow as players and resale value if they don't. 

No I don't think they were but as it stands you're sixth, short of 5th on goal difference, so on course to meet those expectations? Suggests that perhaps the expectation from above is more than that, he wanted a certain amount of investment in January to achieve it, the club either disagreed again on targets or didn't want the outlay and the short term vs long term debate inevitably reered it's head.

 

You sign players in two key positions needing "some time to grow" then give your coach about four months to work with them? 

 

Again, I'm not specifically making this about Amorim/Man Utd but the general point holds - can a club prioritise long term thinking but judge a coach on short term results/performances? 

[Ben]

6 year contract for the new Chelsea head coach..........why ??

[Cf]

10 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

You think the expectations on Amorim were unreasonable? I think the board and the fans knew this was a long term project. It sounds like Amorim is the one who got fed up. Europa League was the expectation from everyone and I don't think that's a lot to ask at all given the team and signings.

 

If we signed Watkins and Martinez, they're both for high fees/wages and would both need replaced again in a couple of years. We've signed players who might be a bit of a risk, but at least have some time to grow as players and resale value if they don't. 

 

So the Brighton/Chelsea model of financial success trumps sporting success?

 

Don't get me wrong - all clubs will want to engage in this sort of trading every now and then to balance the books but if you've got a position needs filling then sometimes it makes sense to fill it with someone who you know will succeed. It's like us with Wissa - there's likely little resale value there but if he's the difference between CL or not then it's paid for that way.

[The College Dropout]

19 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

He wanted Watkins and Martinez instead of Sesko and Lammens. With the money Villa would have wanted I think they would have been mistakes as transfers, and we've made those mistakes too many times in the past.

 

You'd be talking what, £80m for Watkins (30) and Martinez (33)? That's according to Brummie anyway. We signed Sesko (22) and Lammens (23) for £88m instead. 

 

I'm in strong agreement with the board over those decisions. The power dynamic over transfers between a manager and executives is a tricky one to navigate though. 

 

 

 

Could've struck a balance. I agree with the logic but you don't want to end up like Spurs or Chelsea.

[joeyt]

Ryan Mason sacked from WBA

 

Mad how he had this unfounded backing from people in the media that he was some sort of upcoming great talented manager

 

I always thought it was because he was close with the Redknapps who could champion him at every possibility

[Zero]

11 minutes ago, Ben said:

6 year contract for the new Chelsea head coach..........why ??

 

compensation

[Elma]

12 minutes ago, Ben said:

6 year contract for the new Chelsea head coach..........why ??

 

Editors of the Oxford English Dictionary re-writing the definition of "Optimism" as we speak. 

[Froggy]

12 minutes ago, Cf said:

 

So the Brighton/Chelsea model of financial success trumps sporting success?

 

Don't get me wrong - all clubs will want to engage in this sort of trading every now and then to balance the books but if you've got a position needs filling then sometimes it makes sense to fill it with someone who you know will succeed. It's like us with Wissa - there's likely little resale value there but if he's the difference between CL or not then it's paid for that way.

 

I think there's a balance. Cunha and Mbeumo were the sure things this summer. 

 

Lammens looks like a good keeper already. I think that was a much better signing than spending double what we paid for a 33 year old basket case in Martinez.

[Froggy]

Also, was watching a clip of Scholes and Nicky Butt on some podcast. Nicky Butt genuinely suggested bringing in "Brucey" until the end of the season so there's an old head that knows the club.

 

That's what you're up against.

[alexf]

Rosenior talks abit like Scott Parker. 

Hope he's just as shite. 

[Pixelphish]

God I wish we had Mbeumo instead of Elanga. probably worth 6 points by himself.