Those who think that important should look at this link.
http://www.leaguemanagers.com/managers/longest-current.html (http://www.leaguemanagers.com/managers/longest-current.html)
Arsene Wenger is the obvious exception but in the entire Football and Premiere League there are only 14 managers who have served 3 years or more at their current clubs as manager of whom only four have clocked up four or more years.
Long term planning is obviosly desireable in theory but in practice it simply doesn't happen these days.
We need the right man for now not for some long term project because that's not the way football works.
Personally i think we should be looking 3-5 years ahead not just short haul, short haul always leads to revolving doors and uncertainty. if it doesn't work out you make a change but you look ahead. Put clause sin the contract base don performances to limit the pay out exposure and then you protect yourselves.
But that's ignoring the evidence of how football actually works.
All managers are appointed for the long haul but most are gone within a year or two.
Excluding Kit we've had 23 managers in the last 50 years.
As sure as night follows day, there will come a time when we don't do so well under Kit, and he is criticised on here.
But hopefully, that won't happen for a long time yet, and we can have a run of success with this true, and extremely likeable, Fulham man, who is so far showing great managerial ability, and has a unique empathy with our young team.
When you face financial meltdown, through relegation or no Champions League then 18 months 2 years would I guess be considered the long haul in football.
It's the economics behind the scenes that need a skilfully operator. Someone who will let you know in advance how much you have to spend long before the Windows open. We are one of those clubs not big enough to hold onto successful players or managers but just big enough to attract players and managers who have lost their way or are at the beginning of their careers. We're more Iceland than Tesco. Primark than M&S.
Roy could have been here for the long haul but thought he'd achieved all he could and wanted another challenge. Managers don't have to be sacked, they are normally ambitious people with their own objectives and can move on fro their own reasons as well. Wenger is an exception but perhaps he has got his own satisfaction from running the club relatively successfully for a long time on a relatively modest budget.
IF Kit is the man who is appointed, I can see him having enough to challenge him at Fulham for several years to come, all other things being equal. That is, that he get us promoted within a timescale satisfactory to Khan and performs adequately to re-establish us. Do that, and he will have made a name for himself.
There are all sorts of reasons for managers leaving but the fact is that with very few exceptions they don't often last more than 2 or 3 years.
With that as a simple truth the priority is to get the right man for now. Great if we buck the trend and he's still succeeding with us years in the future but look around and you can see that the Fergusons, Wengers and Gradis are major exceptions.
What's the longest stay for us since Bedford Jezzard? Probably Chris Coleman at 3 years I think.
for me i have had enough of short term we as FFC, for me at least and I don't care if people disagree its my opinion, need to look ahead for 3-5 years, we have good youngsters they need stability so they know the manager has faith in them. Chopping and changing may mean they do not progress. We have to look longer term for me.
Quote from: TonyGilroy on October 24, 2014, 09:20:39 AM
There are all sorts of reasons for managers leaving but the fact is that with very few exceptions they don't often last more than 2 or 3 years.
With that as a simple truth the priority is to get the right man for now. Great if we buck the trend and he's still succeeding with us years in the future but look around and you can see that the Fergusons, Wengers and Gradis are major exceptions.
What's the longest stay for us since Bedford Jezzard? Probably Chris Coleman at 3 years I think.
Alec Stock 1972-1976. Bobby Campbell 1976-1980. Malcolm McDonald 1980-1984. Not disagreeing Tony but that period, we had relative stability.
One reason why their should be two appoitments:
The manager...Kit Symons
A DOF with a longer contract and a proper job remit of supporting and building on all football related work at the club.
The ODF would be more of a strategic appointment separate from the manager and no matter who the first team manger/coach is that position would still be required.
I am sure that every football supporter would like to have a manager that they trust is doing right for the club, understands it and is happy to stay and build and rebuild teams over and over again in a successful way.
Unfortunately this is a rare event.
Of our managers, which of these left too early: Hodgson definitely, Adams possibly, Keegan possibly
A case could be made for Tigana (but when the relationship breaks with the chairman there is only one winner)
I cannot really make a case for anyone else.
We need stability and we are forced into a rebuilding job due to mismanagement over many years. A manager has to have the results as well as some idea where the club if going. We do well and the manager is poached by a bigger club. We do badly and he is sacked.
Felix was clearly given a chance to be the big boss and managed to help us even further down the ladder. We now need a few seasons of the right man doing the right thing. I had no great feeling for Kit before he took over. But he has already done a wonderful job. He himself said how badly things must have been if we are still in the relegation area after the good results.
Long haul is no longer anything more than two seasons nowadays. As for managers like Wenger. A club like Arsenal may have progressed under different managers. They are very much an under performing club.
Quote from: Peabody on October 24, 2014, 09:30:50 AM
Quote from: TonyGilroy on October 24, 2014, 09:20:39 AM
There are all sorts of reasons for managers leaving but the fact is that with very few exceptions they don't often last more than 2 or 3 years.
With that as a simple truth the priority is to get the right man for now. Great if we buck the trend and he's still succeeding with us years in the future but look around and you can see that the Fergusons, Wengers and Gradis are major exceptions.
What's the longest stay for us since Bedford Jezzard? Probably Chris Coleman at 3 years I think.
Alec Stock 1972-1976. Bobby Campbell 1976-1980. Malcolm McDonald 1980-1984. Not disagreeing Tony but that period, we had relative stability.
I hadn't realised they'd each lasted 4 years.
Looking back though it was hardly stability. Stock was gradually sidelined most unwillingly, Campbell became ever more unpopular and Macdonald's private life unravelled whilst our Dear Leader was putting in place the plans that were designed to lead to the end of our miserable existence.
Happy days.
I think the DoF position is taken as read, particularly as Kit has hinted at it himself.
The Stock, Campbell and MacDonald eras were periods of relative stability and sustained progress/relative success, notwithstanding Clay's devious plans.
On the subject of those managers who left too early, I would suggest (as well as Roy) Tigana and Hughes. Not Keegan or, sadly, Adams. When Coleman was bought soon after he left he said "I wouldn't know how to pay £2m for a player - a couple of teams maybe". Sad but true. A great lower-division manager but not for MAF's Fulham-on-the-up.
The Tigana/Fayed relationship was becoming so toxic that actually Tigana should have left earlier. Didn't Coleman get 10 points from 5 games and we survived by a point or two.
I remember Tigana's last game - 0-4 to Blackburn I think at Loftus Road and it was truly the pits. How much of the blame should lie with Tigana rather than Fayed is a matter of opinion but he actually was kept on longer than was sensible.
I wasn't having regard for his relationship with Fayed, the truth of which I think we can only speculate at.
I think Hughes had more to offer.
TG you are so right - KS has galvanised the club NOW - that is what counts - there is no long term planning necessary - we needed someone to get us out of the terrible predicament FM left us in ---- and he has done it (so far)
The only long term planing we have had in the last 5 years has been the Youth academy/U21, I wonder who was in charge of that?
Surprise surprise, it was KS
Liverpool had success for many years by promoting from within the club's ranks. I would like us to try the same, give the job now to Kit and then start grooming the next guy from the academy staff/under 21s. That way the manager knows the kids coming through.
It all makes sense now but, to take TG's point to its logical conclusion, how sad it will be when Khan/the fans/the players get fed up with KS and he is levered out, notwithstanding his track record with the youngsters. Hence my postulated win-win scenario where KS is successful in taking us to the PL and re-establishing us there.
Should he succeed in that, he will have succeeded by any definition of either Khan's or his; should he fail then he would know why there had to be a parting of the ways. he's made it abundantly clear that he wants the job and he's well aware of what that might mean if the success weren't maintained in the long haul.
Win-win in the short haul as well, methinks.
I don't think I'm making a point really just providing the facts of managerial longevity.
Short termism is the way it is whether by accident or design.
To expand on that slightly. I don't think any manager is ever appointed on the basis that "he'll do for a while and we'll get rid after a year or two". That's how it nearly always works out though.
If the guy really excells he gets offered and takes a better job from which he gets sacked a year or two later.
You really can count the present day exceptions on the fingers of one hand.
Quote from: Baszab on October 24, 2014, 10:46:15 AM
TG you are so right - KS has galvanised the club NOW - that is what counts - there is no long term planning necessary - we needed someone to get us out of the terrible predicament FM left us in ---- and he has done it (so far)
The only long term planing we have had in the last 5 years has been the Youth academy/U21, I wonder who was in charge of that?
Surprise surprise, it was KS
Exactly and we should plan long term around the youngsters, be that KS or someone else. the way forward long term is to nurture those we have now and bring more through. That will benefit the club as a whole going forward
The reality is that no manager will or should be given more than a 3 year contract on their appointment. If by some miracle Kit gets us promoted, how long before other clubs with more money come knocking? We can't be certain he will reject them out of hand and elect to stay with the Fulham project. He may well commit but he has to consider his and his families security and new managerial career. Even Wenger the longest serving manager only gets a 3 year contract and doesn't renew it until the other has expired and to be honest having a manager under contract doesn't stop him having his head turned and poached.
Whereas the evidence indicates that whatever the intentions are when a manager joins that it often ends up in tears after the 3 year mark, though that shouldn't affect the decision-making process in any way, as every club should be looking for long-term stability, and that starts with the coaching and managerial teams, and then the players.
Without this outlook any club, or business is simply planning to fail.
Quote from: Logicalman on October 24, 2014, 12:12:32 PM
Without this outlook any club, or business is simply planning to fail.
But isn't the core fact that only a small percentage of clubs can succeed. It's not just that there's a loser for every winner.
Of the 24 clubs in our division only three succeed each year. Three do disasterously. Of the other 18 a few will be happy with consolidating or coming close but most owners wil see their clubs failing to meet their aspirations.
So maybe 6 or 7 out of 24 leave their owners and fans satisfied. Solution? Sack the manager.
Quote from: TonyGilroy on October 24, 2014, 09:20:39 AM
There are all sorts of reasons for managers leaving but the fact is that with very few exceptions they don't often last more than 2 or 3 years.
With that as a simple truth the priority is to get the right man for now. Great if we buck the trend and he's still succeeding with us years in the future but look around and you can see that the Fergusons, Wengers and Gradis are major exceptions.
What's the longest stay for us since Bedford Jezzard? Probably Chris Coleman at 3 years I think.
Part of the reason for the turnover is that the FA keep nicking them!
Quote from: Baszab on October 24, 2014, 10:46:15 AM
TG you are so right - KS has galvanised the club NOW - that is what counts - there is no long term planning necessary - we needed someone to get us out of the terrible predicament FM left us in ---- and he has done it (so far)
The only long term planing we have had in the last 5 years has been the Youth academy/U21, I wonder who was in charge of that?
Surprise surprise, it was KS
Well, Kit was coach, Huw Jennings "was in charge of that." But I take the point.
" no-good hair splitting is it?" - or whatever the Welsh bloke says !!
The other thing to note is that there are two main reasons for keeping a manager.
1. You are in the premiership and surviving or at least meeting expectations (Bruce and Wenger being the key examples)
2. You are a lower league team with few expectations
The longest serving Championship manager is Mick McCarthy at 2 years. This basically shows how difficult it is to stay with a club where success only appears to be measured by being promoted to the Premiership.
Quote from: Holders on October 24, 2014, 09:14:28 AM
Roy could have been here for the long haul but thought he'd achieved all he could and wanted another challenge. Managers don't have to be sacked, they are normally ambitious people with their own objectives and can move on fro their own reasons as well. Wenger is an exception but perhaps he has got his own satisfaction from running the club relatively successfully for a long time on a relatively modest budget.
IF Kit is the man who is appointed, I can see him having enough to challenge him at Fulham for several years to come, all other things being equal. That is, that he get us promoted within a timescale satisfactory to Khan and performs adequately to re-establish us. Do that, and he will have made a name for himself.
I agree that Roy could have been here for the long term and built a dynasty. However even he might have found the whole ownership transition challenging.
Quote from: TonyGilroy on October 24, 2014, 12:20:15 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on October 24, 2014, 12:12:32 PM
Without this outlook any club, or business is simply planning to fail.
But isn't the core fact that only a small percentage of clubs can succeed. It's not just that there's a loser for every winner.
Of the 24 clubs in our division only three succeed each year. Three do disasterously. Of the other 18 a few will be happy with consolidating or coming close but most owners wil see their clubs failing to meet their aspirations.
So maybe 6 or 7 out of 24 leave their owners and fans satisfied. Solution? Sack the manager.
I see the point you make, but it really will depend on what the club sees as 'success'.
For the likes of teams such as Oxford, or perhaps Pompey, their 5 year plan is perhaps not to get up into the realms of the Premiership, but maybe to simply keep on an even keel, become financially sound and possibly get up one maybe two divisions, whilst still maintaining that financial basis.
I guess its comes down to realistic expectations.
What I would comment on regarding the managerial turnover, is that it can often be the result of two simple things, promotion and relegation. Yeah I know the second one is obvious, but the former reason?
We see all too often the powers-that-be will assign a manager when in the lower tiers, let that manager run with the squad, making all the right decisions and then, once he gets them into the Prem, either they immediately get in a 'seasoned' manager, or keep the current one and unless they win every game the same way they did the previous seasons, they sack him. That's unrealistic expectations by owners, rather than the ability of the manager, but it is life as a football manager
