A Three Year Contract

[Neutral Zone Ultra]

...given to Scott Parker before a ball had been kicked this season is for me (behind not signing a CB) the worst piece of business we've done this transfer window. Even if we had started the season well and were playing good football I would have seen it as a risky move - doesn't take much for things to go pete tong for a non top 6 prem club even at their best. And that's certainly not us now, and if we want to sack Parker which I for the record ideally would do, we'll be shelling out plenty of compo which we could have used to improve the team and hey, maybe even buy a CB. But no, if it does happen we're writing off a significant amount of money similarly to how we did when we signed Knockaert, Cav and Bobby Reid on permanent deals last year. Absolutely farcical financial planning.

TL/DR We are too eager as a club to reward mediocrity with financial risk

[cmg]

Almost insignificant in the wider scheme of things.

Managers are the most disposable commodity in football (apart from the bog paper in the corporate boxes if the drains are installed OK). All (bar one or two famous exceptions) get sacked eventually irrespective of length of contract and at the whim of the ownership.
Parker's new contract was little more than a gesture of thanks. The cost of sacking him, if sacking was felt by the owner to be appropriate, would be considered little more than minor colateral damage.

[Jims Dentist]

Almost insignificant in the wider scheme of things.

Managers are the most disposable commodity in football (apart from the bog paper in the corporate boxes if the drains are installed OK). All (bar one or two famous exceptions) get sacked eventually irrespective of length of contract and at the whim of the ownership.
Parker's new contract was little more than a gesture of thanks. The cost of sacking him, if sacking was felt by the owner to be appropriate, would be considered little more than minor colateral damage.

Not sure on this one but does not managerial sackings compo impact on FFP?
--The longer the contract etc.

[AnOldBrownie]

Almost insignificant in the wider scheme of things.

Managers are the most disposable commodity in football (apart from the bog paper in the corporate boxes if the drains are installed OK). All (bar one or two famous exceptions) get sacked eventually irrespective of length of contract and at the whim of the ownership.
Parker's new contract was little more than a gesture of thanks. The cost of sacking him, if sacking was felt by the owner to be appropriate, would be considered little more than minor colateral damage.

Not sure on this one but does not managerial sackings compo impact on FFP?
--The longer the contract etc.

I'd like to know/learn the answer to this as well.    Are manager's ANYTHING tied to FFP?

[Baszab]

We don't know what performance parameters are written into SP contract
Could be anything - bottom 3 by Xmas then xx only compensation to terminate
Knowing how clever our D of F is - there could be some sneaky provisos

[Jims Dentist]

We don't know what performance parameters are written into SP contract
Could be anything - bottom 3 by Xmas then xx only compensation to terminate
Knowing how clever our D of F is - there could be some sneaky provisos

Sorry, but he has never come across as being all that clever to me.

[Baszab]

Irony !!
Nor me

[Dougie]

I'd like to know/learn the answer to this as well.    Are manager's ANYTHING tied to FFP?

Yes, all staff costs are tied to it. However, in the scheme of things the salary of managers doesn't tend to be particularly high (at least in the case of someone like Parker - I hope) and you wouldn't necessarily be paying out the entire remainder of their contract.