The Manager Merry-go-Round

[pantskyle]

Burnley, Hull, Bmouth, Swansea, Boro, would all be quite happy just to stay up this season and next, regardless of finish.

Can throw Palace and Sunderland on that list if they don't end up relegated this season.

Right, besides the fact that some of those sides have actually sacked managers in recent seasons... Which was kind of the point of the discussion.

 

[SM]

Right, besides the fact that some of those sides have actually sacked managers in recent seasons... Which was kind of the point of the discussion.

If you want to go off precedent:

Hull, Burnley, Norwich and QPR are all sides where the side was relegated but the manager not sacked, despite managing the previous season.

 

[pantskyle]

If you want to go off precedent:

Hull, Burnley, Norwich and QPR are all sides where the side was relegated but the manager not sacked, despite managing the previous season.

I probably wouldn't call four clubs "plenty". Did those four clubs also have the same manager for the full two seasons?

We can put it into even more perspective, the money from survival now is much more than ever before so the risk of relegation can make/break clubs.

 

[SM]

Pearson won't get anywhere near the team. The owners still don't like him and his piss ant son.

Pearson seems to be making a list of enemies amongst owners.

 

[SM]

I probably wouldn't call four clubs "plenty". Did those four clubs also have the same manager for the full two seasons?

We can put it into even more perspective, the money from survival now is much more than ever before so the risk of relegation can make/break clubs.

That was clubs off the top of my head who have demonstrated what they would do in that very situation. "Plenty" of others haven't even needed to prove that they would do so in that situation.

Yes, they did which is why I said they had managed the previous season. Bruce started at the beginning of 12/13 and was managing in 15/16 in the Championship after relegation; Dyche had been manager for the full season and had Burnley promoted from the Championship before taking them back down; Norwich appointed Neil the previous season (So maybe not the full season) same as Redknapp and both kept their sides up before being allowed to take them down and come back up.

 

[SM]

Plenty would have. It just depends on the context of the 17th finish.

If you coast for most of the season between 12-15th and never really in danger of relegation, then 17th is fine. If you're dropping into the relegation zone and looking in a bad way, then yes a change might be made. But plenty of clubs would be happy if they knew that they would definitely stay up in consecutive seasons regardless of finishing place.

Might want to re-read this post too Pants, I acknowledged that teams genuinely in the mire and a real threat at relegation will generally make a change, but if they were coasting through and happened to finish 17th, owners would be fine with it.

 

[TheOz]

Leicester City are like the anti-Arsenal.

 

[pantskyle]

That was clubs off the top of my head who have demonstrated what they would do in that very situation. "Plenty" of others haven't even needed to prove that they would do so in that situation.

Yes, they did which is why I said they had managed the previous season. Bruce started at the beginning of 12/13 and was managing in 15/16 in the Championship after relegation; Dyche had been manager for the full season and had Burnley promoted from the Championship before taking them back down; Norwich appointed Neil the previous season (So maybe not the full season) same as Redknapp and both kept their sides up before being allowed to take them down and come back up.

Might want to re-read this post too Pants, I acknowledged that teams genuinely in the mire and a real threat at relegation will generally make a change, but if they were coasting through and happened to finish 17th, owners would be fine with it.

I don't need to re-read your posts, you're the person that has launched themselves into a discussion not involving you and whilst not even reading what my point was.

 

[Magma]

nostalgia isnt a shield for ineptitude

 

[SM]

I don't need to re-read your posts, you're the person that has launched themselves into a discussion not involving you and whilst not even reading what my point was.

Oh no. I joined a discussion on a discussion board that I might have a bit more experience in than someone that supports a club that never flirts with relegation.

 

[pantskyle]

Oh no. I joined a discussion on a discussion board that I might have a bit more experience in than someone that supports a club that never flirts with relegation.

How do you possibly have more experience in that topic, I must have missed the fact that I've followed the league for longer than you've been out of nappies.

I'll make it simpler for your little big head to understand, "plenty" of sides would not keep a manager around for two consecutive seasons of relegation battles.

 

[SM]

How do you possibly have more experience in that topic, I must have missed the fact that I've followed the league for longer than you've been out of nappies.

I'll make it simpler for your little big head to understand, "plenty" of sides would not keep a manager around for two consecutive seasons of relegation battles.

Just because I finally got over my incontinence last week, doesn't mean you have to point score off it.

 

[SM]

So the part where I said "It depends on the context of the second season finish" where I explicitly say that if it didn't involve a relegation battle it would be fine to finish 17th? (And yes, teams have finished 17th despite not being legitimately in a relegation battle).

 

[RossFC]

They should have waited until they were knocked out of the Champions league.

 

[Jatz]

Pearson seems to be making a list of enemies amongst owners.

Well he's a bit of a campaigner, isn't he? Haha

 

[SM]

Well he's a bit of a campaigner, isn't he? Haha

Well I never.

 

[Jatz]

Hahahaha you should hang around here more often Pants.

 

[pantskyle]

So the part where I said "It depends on the context of the second season finish" where I explicitly say that if it didn't involve a relegation battle it would be fine to finish 17th? (And yes, teams have finished 17th despite not being legitimately in a relegation battle).

Hypotheticals now?

It is was against the rules to sack managers then no managers would be sacked for being in danger of relegation.

 

[pantskyle]

Hahahaha you should hang around here more often Pants.

It's bad enough that I talk every day with him over facebook.

 

[Jatz]

It's bad enough that I talk every day with him over facebook.

Just following you around is he?

You might be uninvited to the Sydney hangout SM

 

[pantskyle]

Just following you around is he?

You might be uninvited to the Sydney hangout SM

He is alright mostly, just doesn't have an off button.

 

[SM]

Hypotheticals now?

It is was against the rules to sack managers then no managers would be sacked for being in danger of relegation.

.. You're speaking in hypotheticals "If a team finished 15th then 17th.." I'm qualifying you're hypothetical in terms of my response.

 

[RossFC]

So much for a full vote of confidence.

 

[pantskyle]

.. You're speaking in hypotheticals "If a team finished 15th then 17th.." I'm qualifying you're hypothetical in terms of my response.

Jatz said that. I replied with "not many teams etc etc".

 

[SM]

He probably would.

Not many teams would accept finishes of 15th and 17th in consecutive seasons with the same manager.

I get you're replying to Jatz, but you're still making the hypothetical. It's not really worth arguing over though, I agree with you that no manager will survive two seasons mired deep in relegation battles. Managers can survive finishing in those positions though. Just depends on the context.