I think it's obvious why we have had caretaker managers (for too long in a couple of instances), the same as just about every club has at times.The real question is why we have had so many caretakers … it’s not an agenda it’s just facts
I think it's obvious why we have had caretaker managers (for too long in a couple of instances), the same as just about every club has at times.The real question is why we have had so many caretakers … it’s not an agenda it’s just facts
I think it’s not the case we seem to have more than most as shown.I think it's obvious why we have had caretaker managers (for too long in a couple of instances), the same as just about every club has at times.
Where was it shown that we have more caretakers than most? There was no data about other clubs, only ours unless I missed something?I think it’s not the case we seem to have more than most as shown.
You suggested that it was the same as other clubs not me. In this respect we have had the most over any club 9, second is Chelsea 7 and third 5 is villa … other clubs have had less. We are top of the league of caretaker managers you will never sing that!Where was it shown that we have more caretakers than most? There was no data about other clubs, only ours unless I missed something?
Yes, we've had the most because we are one of only 6 ever present clubs. 2 of those 6 clubs having two of the most successful managers in the PL and with little change so the odds are it was going to be us or Chelsea with the most. A better comparison is how often that we have caretakers compared to other clubs and not we've had 9 while someone in the PL for a couple of seasons has fewer.You suggested that it was the same as other clubs not me. In this respect we have had the most over any club 9, second is Chelsea 7 and third 5 is villa … other clubs have had less. We are top of the league of caretaker managers you will never sing that!
Having a caretaker for a game or two when a manager leaves unexpectedly is inevitable. Having one in place for several games after sacking a manager is simply poor planning.So to have a reasonable conversation
- Remove the caretakers
- Highlight who lasted less than average EPL tenure (2 years, 4 days)
- Who succeed/failed
Easy success in that list -> BMJ, Juande (he got a cup), Harry, Poch
Keep in mind, pretty much everyone in that list got/kept the club in Europe from BMJ -> current
So real fudge ups? Nuno, Santini and pre that you are bitching about something 20 years ago?
Going back to my original point of why have we had the need to have so many … poor initial recruitment? Manager not aligned to our transfer “strategy”?Yes, we've had the most because we are one of only 6 ever present clubs. 2 of those 6 clubs having two of the most successful managers in the PL and with little change so the odds are it was going to be us or Chelsea with the most. A better comparison is how often that we have caretakers compared to other clubs and not we've had 9 while someone in the PL for a couple of seasons has fewer.
We've had 5 periods with a caretaker under ENIC, most were short with only one period under Pleat that was way too long. I don't see the issue once we got the correct manager in after the caretaker period, (that hasn't always been the case) and a much more important point than caretakers that are here for a few weeks.
You're seemingly ignoring Liverpool and Everton as well. There are 4 ever presents who aren't Arsenal and Manchester United not just ourselves and Chelsea.Yes, we've had the most because we are one of only 6 ever present clubs. 2 of those 6 clubs having two of the most successful managers in the PL and with little change so the odds are it was going to be us or Chelsea with the most. A better comparison is how often that we have caretakers compared to other clubs and not we've had 9 while someone in the PL for a couple of seasons has fewer.
We've had 5 periods with a caretaker under ENIC, most were short with only one period under Pleat that was way too long. I don't see the issue once we got the correct manager in after the caretaker period, (that hasn't always been the case) and a much more important point than caretakers that are here for a few weeks.
It’s exactly the sort of response even when the facts present themselves. There is a genuine discussion as to why we have needed so many caretaker managers. Instead of giving a response it’s deflected with other film flam. Sorry if I come across as rude.You're seemingly ignoring Liverpool and Everton as well. There are 4 ever presents who aren't Arsenal and Manchester United not just ourselves and Chelsea.
I think it's the need as you mentioned to deflect potential criticism from Levy and the board, I can only describe it as a teflon defence because rather than discussing the points and maybe articulating reasons the why it's the case (and I do think there are reasons), instead it's just a deflection and one that just ignores reality. I dunno man.It’s exactly the sort of response even when the facts present themselves. There is a genuine discussion as to why we have needed so many caretaker managers. Instead of giving a response it’s deflected with other film flam. Sorry if I come across as rude.
Going back to my original point of why have we had the need to have so many … poor initial recruitment? Manager not aligned to our transfer “strategy”?
Fair point.So as genuine discussion
- Chelsea's success (as with Real Madrid) can show manager time in role is not always related to outcomes
For us, we need/needed to be perfect and demands/expectations are high
- Yes, that means certain hires were mistakes or unable to achieve expected results
I actually have no issue with club recognizing a mistake and moving to rectify fairly quickly
- The counter example I would give is United and OGS, I think they are still paying for the acceptance of mediocrity for 3 years
It’s exactly the sort of response even when the facts present themselves. There is a genuine discussion as to why we have needed so many caretaker managers. Instead of giving a response it’s deflected with other film flam. Sorry if I come across as rude.
I think it's the need as you mentioned to deflect potential criticism from Levy and the board, I can only describe it as a teflon defence because rather than discussing the points and maybe articulating reasons the why it's the case (and I do think there are reasons), instead it's just a deflection and one that just ignores reality. I dunno man.
Also a churn is when a better guy (club perception) became availableJust a thought but it is the sheer speed that the manager has lost the dressing room that has created the necessity for the caretaker to do more than one or two games? There is actually only one manager, Redknapp, that finished a season and left by mutual consent. I know Sherwood, Mason and others did but they were interim appointments. Way too many autumn/winter departures in my opinion.
I'm also wondering whether the same logic adds fuel to the process of finding quality replacements. In an ideal world, you know you're parting ways with your manager. The season ends, you've already done all of the due diligence and negotiations and the next guy turns up on July 1st for pre-season training. They've already been working in the background with you on summer transfer targets.
It seems our transitions haven't been anything like we've just seen with Klopp / Slot or Pellegrini / Pep. They are very reactive transitions and that can't help.
Also a churn is when a better guy (club perception) became available
They sacked poch because someone thought Mou was better
They sacked Nuno because Conte had clearly said he would come
100% it seems like Brighton are on the pulse admirably identifying players coming into their peak or managers also to a degree and have already done their homework quietly and make decisions effectively and quickly.Just a thought but it is the sheer speed that the manager has lost the dressing room that has created the necessity for the caretaker to do more than one or two games? There is actually only one manager, Redknapp, that finished a season and left by mutual consent. I know Sherwood, Mason and others did but they were interim appointments. Way too many autumn/winter departures in my opinion.
I'm also wondering whether the same logic adds fuel to the process of finding quality replacements. In an ideal world, you know you're parting ways with your manager. The season ends, you've already done all of the due diligence and negotiations and the next guy turns up on July 1st for pre-season training. They've already been working in the background with you on summer transfer targets.
It seems our transitions haven't been anything like we've just seen with Klopp / Slot or Pellegrini / Pep. They are very reactive transitions and that can't help.
Stating there are 6 ever presents is ignoring there are two others beside Arsenal, Utd, Chelsea and us? Ok, if you can't figure out 6 - 4 =2....You're seemingly ignoring Liverpool and Everton as well. There are 4 ever presents who aren't Arsenal and Manchester United not just ourselves and Chelsea.
And you ignore the part about the caretaker for a week or two isn't really an issue, the issue is getting the next manager right after the caretaker. If you moaned about taking too long to replace a caretaker, that is fair enough in a couple of cases. If you moaned about ending up with Nuno after a caretaker again, fair enough. But moaning about haveing caretakers, that's flim flam.It’s exactly the sort of response even when the facts present themselves. There is a genuine discussion as to why we have needed so many caretaker managers. Instead of giving a response it’s deflected with other film flam. Sorry if I come across as rude.
Stating there are 6 ever presents is ignoring there are two others beside Arsenal, Utd, Chelsea and us? Ok, if you can't figure out 6 - 4 =2....
It's Chelsea, Villa were in the Championship for 2-3 seasons about 5 years ago.Actually don't think Chelsea is the last ever present (might be wrong), believe it might be Villa?