Hiring a manager and risk

[BarryP]

Obviously any time a club hires a new manager that hire comes with a certain amount of risk. It was stated on another thread that hiring Bob Bradley would be to much of a risk at the present time.  A statement that for the purposes of this thread I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with but the statement made me wonder the following:

1. What prior managerial hires by Fulham would have been considered not to be risky?
2. What was the biggest risk hire by Fulham that came good?
3. What was the biggest risk hire that went south the fastest?
3. What are the current names associated with Fulham that you would consider to have the least amount of risk?

[Rambling_Syd_Rumpo]

very interesting question Mr P,I see them all as a risk but I've done my best to answer
be very interesting to see how others see this
1)None
2)Keegan/Adams
3)Sanchez
4)Hughes,everybody else has some level of risk after Hughes because he has had proven sucess at a club our size with a little less money(Blackburn)

[richardhkirkando]

I think that after Sanchez, we're all going to have a tendency to overstate the importance of risk vs safety.  Most of the time though, when a club hires a less experienced manager, the results don't really change a whole lot...it's still up to the players.  Sanchez might have been an all-time great underachiever, and no matter who we hire, that's very unlikely to happen again.  But it's fresh in our minds, so that word "proven" is going to be at the top of everybody's wishlist.