So We're Stuck With Sheehan?

[J_B]

It's still a cost you'd rather not incur.

 

[monmouth]

It's still a cost you'd rather not incur.

Depending on contract terms timing might be quite important. Certainly replacement cost is the main relevant cost, rather than any contractually committed cost that won’t be mitigated, irrespective of the timing. As Jolly La Rue would be only too keen to tell us, those are actually sunk. Maybe also the chances of the sacked crew getting a job quickly, as that should mitigate any payments. All in all, you want to give it as much time to work as you can and make replacement as late as you can.

 

[Smurph]

It's still a cost you'd rather not incur.

Not all when you consider the reasons for sacking a manager.

 

[J_B]

Not all when you consider the reasons for sacking a manager.

I agree that when things get very bad there's a point at which you can't afford not to sack the manager.

We're not there yet.

 

[Smurph]

I agree that when things get very bad there's a point at which you can't afford not to sack the manager.

We're not there yet.

Same here, he's got the ability to turn this around (I think)

Can you imagine if we'd stuck with Williams, last season.

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

Even when we lose, we still only lose by one goal most of the time (Leicester only exception). That's not even in the same postcode as MartinWillyball, where we'd get bummed by 3 or 4 goals regularly.

 

[Swansea93]

Even when we lose, we still only lose by one goal most of the time (Leicester only exception). That's not even in the same postcode as MartinWillyball, where we'd get bummed by 3 or 4 goals regularly.

Mainly because we’re now hoofing it down the pitch into the channels instead of suicidal passing around the back, where 80% of goals we gave away.

 

[magicdaps10]

Mainly because we’re now hoofing it down the pitch into the channels instead of suicidal passing around the back, where 80% of goals we gave away.

We are now losing in a pragmatic way

 

[Swans Jack]

People said we couldn’t afford to sack Williams

Exsactly same thing was reported around this time last year. I really don't see us saying, we won't sack him, if it gets to a point we are in bottom 3 and we need to save money. Maybe he gets longer, but no club will risk worse case relegation for a mere million.

 

[monmouth]

Exsactly same thing was reported around this time last year. I really don't see us saying, we won't sack him, if it gets to a point we are in bottom 3 and we need to save money. Maybe he gets longer, but no club will risk worse case relegation for a mere million.

The players had downed tools and we conceded about 1000 goals in about half a dozen games. I would say that’s the point when you have to sack the manager, especially when he’s burbling on to WBA to come and get him…followed by ’oh, no I didn’t mean it gov, honest’ when it was obvious they had zero interest in a peanut.

I don’t think anyone believes we’re in a comparable place.

As I say though, I really couldn’t care less either way, as long as background planning is happening we we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot and make another stupid appointment like Duff/Williams (I understand why they went for Martin, even though he turned out to be selling snake oil).

 

[SwanseaBoy123]

It's still a cost you'd rather not incur.

Ofcourse not but when there's a chance you can get relegated by holding onto them then the decision is easy.

This thing that they can't/won't incur the costs to sack him is purely nonsense tbh i wouldn't believe it.

They almost certainly won't buy a manager out of a contract though if they do sack him. It will have to be a free agent.

 

[Michu78]

I am not sure why football clubs hand out 3/4 years deals on untested managers especially when most get sacked.

 

[monmouth]

I am not sure why football clubs hand out 3/4 years deals on untested managers especially when most get sacked.

Aye, a one year roller was more obvious here, with performance break clauses. If Sheehan wouldn’t accept, as he had offers, then their decision was made for them and they had the perfect PR get out ‘we didn’t feel we could meet Alan’s demands, given his inexperience as a number one, and we wish him good luck’. Failing that PR get out, given his results up to then, they had to give him a shot (otherwise if their choice had had Sheehan’s results to date they would have been hammered that Sheehan would have done better).

So they had to give him a go in my view, whatever their misgivings or real preferences, but they didn’t have to give him a unconditional long contract. They are yank businessmen, so I’d hope - no, expect - they have built in performance conditions and break clauses, and that’s when there might be some change if things don’t improve, maybe. But it would have to be a minimum of 9 months or a year, I’d reckon.

 

[Manselton Jack]

Even when we lose, we still only lose by one goal most of the time (Leicester only exception). That's not even in the same postcode as MartinWillyball, where we'd get bummed by 3 or 4 goals regularly.

Exactly the same as the first half of last season under Williams, we didn't lose by more than 1 goal until the Pompey game in January

 

[monmouth]

Exactly the same as the first half of last season under Williams, we didn't lose by more than 1 goal until the Pompey game in January

So true. How quick we forget. The drop off was spectacular