Should managers, like players, only be allowed to move during the transfer window?

[Junior_Arab]

1 minute ago, Steve McQueen said:

Is it Italy where you can only manager 1 team a year in the league?

that’s why they rehire the previous managers all the time.

if you couldn’t sack them then would you go gardening leave & still bring in someone new?

I don’t think that’s a rule in Italy, but the convention there when “sacking” a manager is to put him on gardening leave as per your suggestion but keep him on the payroll.
 

That means you don’t have a big pay out and if the manager wants to accept a new job he has to resign or even have his new club pay you a fee. And that’s why they “re-hire” former managers so often - their successor gets sacked and they’re still on the payroll so the owner simply brings the first guy back. 

[scottsdad]

Always enjoyable when @Ric sets up a new thread and decides to argue with everyone who posts on it. 

[Bully Wee Villa]

Transfers and sackings make the game more interesting. Why would anyone want to make it more dull?

[AJF]

6 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

Always enjoyable when @Ric sets up a new thread and decides to argue with everyone who posts on it. 

Indeed. Also enjoyable when he makes something up that you said and ignores your questions calling him out on it.

[btb]

1 hour ago, Ric said:

 

1 hour ago, btb said:

 

• Would you trust a manager who had signed a pre-contract with another club to be 100% focussed on yours, even if that just meant looking for other jobs?
• The scope for confusion re the above point woud be immense.

- I don't know why you think there would be confusion, is there confusion now when a player signs a PCA? If so, again, that's an argument against the window, not specifically managers.

 

I wouldn't be happy with a manager who was looking out for another clubs interests for the following window/season but perhaps you're correct and it's more of an argument for scrapping transfer windows altogether. If a chain is set up and we've got a manager the scope for confusion/conflict of interest increases exponentially.

 

[Ric]

14 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

Always enjoyable when @Ric sets up a new thread and decides to argue with everyone who posts on it. 

 

7 minutes ago, AJF said:

Indeed. Also enjoyable when he makes something up that you said and ignores your questions calling him out on it.

Nonsense, both of you.

It's not my fault I am left to correct the inaccuracies of other posters..

 

[AJF]

Just now, Ric said:

 

Nonsense, both of you.

It's not my fault I am left to correct the inaccuracies of other posters..

 

If it's nonsense, I'm sure you'll be able to easily answer my question then and tell me where I said appointing youth/reserve managers "never happens".

[kingjoey]

As someone said in an earlier post, because there is no registration process for managers, this is not even a possibility.

[Ric]

Just now, AJF said:

If it's nonsense, I'm sure you'll be able to easily answer my question then and tell me where I said appointing youth/reserve managers "never happens".

Come now AJF, you and I both know the intent of your comment. The fact your club specifically did this just recently and your "well it's really rare you know" response is a touch at odds, and certainly not enough grounds to claim I am somehow misrepresenting your point.

 

[Ric]

Just now, kingjoey said:

As someone said in an earlier post, because there is no registration process for managers, this is not even a possibility.

The "it can't be done, because currently it's not being done" is probably not the strongest argument to be made.

 

[AJF]

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

Come now AJF, you and I both know the intent of your comment. The fact your club specifically did this just recently and your "well it's really rare you know" response is a touch at odds, and certainly not enough grounds to claim I am somehow misrepresenting your point.

 

The intent of my comment? If you weren't selective and had actually quoted the full comment I made, you'd realise that the very next sentence I said:

Quote

"There is a reason it is not common. Additionally, they are almost always "interim" appointments. Which backs up my theory around the manager merry-go-round."

Surely you understand the meaning of "not common". That is nowhere near saying it never happens as you claim. It is, in fact, acknowledging it does happen but it is not very common. My reasons for it not being common is because the majority of the time, clubs opt for a preferred candidate with more experience.

Edited February 17, 2022 by AJF

[Ric]

1 minute ago, AJF said:

..clubs opt for a preferred candidate with more experience.

Simple answer to that is "because they can", it's the same argument for players.

[craigkillie]

I would disagree, as that relies on the contract that they and the club entered into. There is absolutely no legal reason that people cannot resign from their position,  and find work elsewhere, and no contract should be allowed to restrict that. The restrictions come from the registration, not the employment.
 

They can leave at any point, probably with a notice period, but they are unlikely to be able to do so for free.

[AJF]

Just now, Ric said:

Simple answer to that is "because they can", it's the same argument for players.

Again, you are so selective of your quotes and fail to acknowledge you misrepresented what I said. I still haven't seen any valid argument that would make me believe clubs shouldn't be able to appoint their preferred managerial candidate.

And I will repeat what I said before: restricting managerial appointments to out of contract managers or appointing youth/reserve/assistant managers will only lead to short term managerial appointments until a club appoints their preferred candidate. The turnover of managers would be much higher.

[the jambo-rocker]

No. Stupid question. Ric is clearly pissed off that saviour Jim could be fucking off to Aberdeen and the top 6 will allude them yet again.

[DukDukGoose]

You can always tell what's bothering @Ric as he starts a poll. Easy for the rest of us to keep track so I appreciate that.

if you're this upset about us asking to speak to Goodwin, I can only imagine the seethe if he takes the job and we finish ahead of you.

[Ric]

3 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

You can always tell what's bothering @Ric as he starts a poll. Easy for the rest of us to keep track so I appreciate that.

if you're this upset about us asking to speak to Goodwin, I can only imagine the seethe if he takes the job and we finish ahead of you.

 

4 minutes ago, the jambo-rocker said:

No. Stupid question. Ric is clearly pissed off that saviour Jim could be fucking off to Aberdeen and the top 6 will allude them yet again.

There is a classic P&B bingo card right there.

"yOu ArE sEeThInG!" ..

 

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Ric

[DukDukGoose]

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

There is a classic P&B bingo card right there.

"yOu ArE sEeThInG!" ..

 

 

I didn't say you were seething.

Yet.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Merkland Red said:

I didn't say you were seething.

Yet.

Laying the groundwork for it. 

[Ric]

9 minutes ago, AJF said:

And I will repeat what I said before: restricting managerial appointments to out of contract managers or appointing youth/reserve/assistant managers will only lead to short term managerial appointments until a club appoints their preferred candidate. The turnover of managers would be much higher.

Or.. conversely, it will actually lead to more long term appointments because of the limitations on hiring and firing.

 

22 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

They can leave at any point, probably with a notice period, but they are unlikely to be able to do so for free.

Which is regulated by the contract, a contract the manager would have signed before committing to the job.