Rafa - what happens next?

[David Hodgson]

I think both simply 'wanting Rafa out' or wanting to 'stick by him because he's the best option available' are not advancing the debate on the real issue here. It's about what's best for this club, not about listing Rafa's errors or about listing his past achievements.

 

I'm at a crossroads in my own position, and would like to see the following issues seriously discussed :

 

1) Is there really not a viable managerial alternative to Rafa out there ? In Houllier's last months no one was throwing up Rafa's name. Who are people ruling out as not good enough or not available ?

 

2) What's the real cost of changing manager ? Is there some sort of compensation mitigation clause in rafa's contract as Henry Winter recently suggested. Might money be available for a new man given recent commercial advances and would it be better in the hands of a 'new broom' than in an arguably ailing regime ?

 

3) Standing by Rafa remains a logical stance only if parameters for him staying are considered. Do we stand by him if this level of form and results continues for another 10 matches ? Regardless of the grace we think he deserves, is there a point at which confidence ebbs so low that we go into an uncorrectable freefall and then have to change for changes sake ? What is that point. Even if improvement comes soon, we are still on the backfoot in the race for a top 4 position. What would we accept as a minimum from the manager this season. 5th place? 7th ? Does 10th equate to 'he has to go'?

 

4) What are the real stats on the fortune of clubs who chop and change managers vs those that are patient ? Is patience more often rewarded or is it a myth based on a couple of high profile examples (e.g. Ferguson at Man Utd).

 

I will no doubt be accused of having an agenda for even posing these questions, but for those willing to really debate and explore this stuff I can assure that I am genuinely looking for answers here.

[Bailo]

4) What are the real stats on the fortune of clubs who chop and change managers vs those that are patient ? Is patience more often rewarded or is it a myth based on a couple of high profile examples (e.g. Ferguson at Man Utd).

To be rewarded, you have to firstly have the good manager - add in a lot of money and the success will come quicker. I think Wenger and Ferguson prove, however, that long-term managers reward you. Having said that, the relatively quick success of Wenger has saved him (IMO) in recent years. Ferguson is a freak - no-one will be given the time he was again.

[Gunga Din]

4) What are the real stats on the fortune of clubs who chop and change managers vs those that are patient ? Is patience more often rewarded or is it a myth based on a couple of high profile examples (e.g. Ferguson at Man Utd).

 

I will no doubt be accused of having an agenda for even posing these questions, but for those willing to really debate and explore this stuff I can assure that I am genuinely looking for answers here.

 

it tends to be that if a manager will win the Championship in England, he'll do it within 5 years (generally within 3) of taking over a club in the league. Ferguson is the one stand out exception to this, but going back and looking at championship winning managers, Mourinho, Wenger, Dalglish with Blackburn and us, Graham, Wilkinson, Kendall, Paisley, Fagan, Clough at Derby and Forrest, they tended to win it pretty quick. Ancelotti at Chelsea looks again like proving that point.

 

 

 

This "5 year plan" mantra that we seem to have adopted, holds us back. we always seem to be a year or two away from it, always buying for the future. I think we need to be more short sighted in our outlook. Have a one year plan. try and win the thing. if we dont, look for immediate improvement and try and win it again the following year

[kop205]

1) Is there really not a viable managerial alternative to Rafa out there ? In Houllier's last months no one was throwing up Rafa's name. Who are people ruling out as not good enough or not available ?

 

There may be and if such a candidate came along then they'd have to be considered. I think what annoys people is when they read stuff like 'Rafa has to go...I've no idea who we replace him with...' because that is inherently b******s.

 

2) What's the real cost of changing manager ? Is there some sort of compensation mitigation clause in rafa's contract as Henry Winter recently suggested. Might money be available for a new man given recent commercial advances and would it be better in the hands of a 'new broom' than in an arguably ailing regime ?

 

No idea about the 'compensation mitigation' clause but I can't see how it would be anything other than pretty costly financially to remnove him, plus all his staff as would probably happen. And surely if we are an 'arguably ailing regime' (which is in any case stretching things a bit, given how well we did last year) then that is in no small part due to there not having been funds made available. If there are funds there now that weren't before, then I think morally and rationally Benitez ought to be given first crack at spending them correctly - his record hasn't been too bad in the past when he's been backed.

 

3) Standing by Rafa remains a logical stance only if parameters for him staying are considered. Do we stand by him if this level of form and results continues for another 10 matches ? Regardless of the grace we think he deserves, is there a point at which confidence ebbs so low that we go into an uncorrectable freefall and then have to change for changes sake ? What is that point. Even if improvement comes soon, we are still on the backfoot in the race for a top 4 position. What would we accept as a minimum from the manager this season. 5th place? 7th ? Does 10th equate to 'he has to go'?

 

Tough one to answer. Clearly nobody is fireproof but it is very difficult - given the conditions he's worked under - to say what would constitute unmitigated and inexcusable failure. I'm not sure either that 'change for the sake of change' is the way to go and it certainly isn't a long term fix because whoever came in would in all likelihood face all the same problems. it would be a sticking plaster on a broken leg.

 

4) What are the real stats on the fortune of clubs who chop and change managers vs those that are patient ? Is patience more often rewarded or is it a myth based on a couple of high profile examples (e.g. Ferguson at Man Utd).

 

No idea to be honest. I think looking for any sort of 'formula' or pattern is a blind alley really. Judge the situation on its merits. I still have faith in Benitez to turn it around, but he has to be backed properly. Without that backing, no manger on earth could get us to where we want to be in my opinion.

 

I will no doubt be accused of having an agenda for even posing these questions, but for those willing to really debate and explore this stuff I can assure that I am genuinely looking for answers here.

[David Hodgson]

Still not seeing anybody going near any names.

 

Hiddink is clearly an interesting possibility. Who else ? There was a tabloid rumour that the Mancs favoured Laurent Blanc as Ferguson's successor. Is he any cop ?

[Leo No.8]

I'll move my contribution over from the other thread...

 

1) Is there really not a viable managerial alternative to Rafa out there ? In Houllier's last months no one was throwing up Rafa's name. Who are people ruling out as not good enough or not available ?

 

I think there are some very good managers out there, but this would be a tough job with limited funds and I think the very best around (the likes of Mourinho) would want a hell of a lot of money both in their own bank account and in terms of transfer market spending power to even consider the job. I think Mourinho would love the job here and I think he'd do it well but finance would be a major issue, and I'm not ready to give up on Rafa yet.

 

2) What's the real cost of changing manager ? Is there some sort of compensation mitigation clause in rafa's contract as Henry Winter recently suggested. Might money be available for a new man given recent commercial advances and would it be better in the hands of a 'new broom' than in an arguably ailing regime ?

 

DH, I think its abundently clear our owners aren't going to be forthcoming with much in the way of transfer funding. A payoff to Rafa would be a drop in the ocean compared to what would be needed to finance a new manager coming in and making the changes he wanted to in personnel as a 'new broom'.

 

3) Standing by Rafa remains a logical stance only if parameters for him staying are considered. Do we stand by him if this level of form and results continues for another 10 matches ? Regardless of the grace we think he deserves, is there a point at which confidence ebbs so low that we go into an uncorrectable freefall and then have to change for changes sake ? What is that point. Even if improvement comes soon, we are still on the backfoot in the race for a top 4 position. What would we accept as a minimum from the manager this season. 5th place? 7th ? Does 10th equate to 'he has to go'?

 

From a personal point of view, I'm willing to write this season off even if we did finish tenth and give him next season as a fresh start with hopefully less injuries and some wheeling and dealing to pad the squad out a bit. As I've said above, I don't feel we have the money available to make bringing a new manager in viable regardless of what people think of Rafa. I think his track record has earned him one write off, I'm confident with a bit of luck he'd turn it round

 

4) What are the real stats on the fortune of clubs who chop and change managers vs those that are patient ? Is patience more often rewarded or is it a myth based on a couple of high profile examples (e.g. Ferguson at Man Utd).

 

I think the only examples of teams changing managers successfully is in terms of avoiding relegation. Sometimes a new man can galvanize an ailing side in the lower reaches the way Redknapp has a few times through the years at the likes of West Ham and Portsmouth. However I struggle to think of an example of a team aiming to win the league which has done so by changing the manager half way through a poor season. In fact teams don't win the league with a new manager unless he has massive funds at his disposal, which clearly any prospective new man wouldn't.

 

I will no doubt be accused of having an agenda for even posing these questions, but for those willing to really debate and explore this stuff I can assure that I am genuinely looking for answers here.

 

I can't see why - although as you know I am strongly in the keep Rafa camp, I don't see why there shouldn't be a reasonable debate about it and the questions you ask are fair.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Leo No.8

[redjersey]

Long-term managers get better results, say researchers.

 

Experts at Loughborough University's Business School have produced research which proves that Premier League clubs who have long-term managers are more successful than those who change their managers on a frequent basis. The study, which uses data from the inception of the Premier League in 1992 until 2004, focuses on the short-term and long-term impact of manager change in the top flight of English football.

 

The research has been produced alongside academics from the Business School at the University of Nottingham, along with the University of Sheffield and UWE in Bristol.

 

The average tenure for a Premiership manager is now 1.38 years, compared to 3.12 years in 2002, with many departures attributed to the fear of relegation to the Football League Championship. This can create a revenue gap of £56- £70-million, according to figures from Deloitte.

 

Research shows that because of this, there is immense pressure on managers to succeed in the Premier League, with poor results typically resulting in a scapegoating reaction by sacking the manager. Scapegoating theory holds that changing managers will not affect performance and is simply a ritual to apportion blame.

 

Paul Hughes, from Loughborough University's Business School, believes that the research underlines the desire in top-flight football to achieve instant success.

 

"Our research illustrates that alongside the obvious examples of Arsenal and Manchester United, those Premiership clubs who retain the services of their manager for a longer period of time are more likely to have successful results. Sam Allardyce's tenure at Bolton Wanderers is an excellent example of this. More recently, David Moyes' tenure at Everton shows how giving managers sufficient time and allowing them time to address the problems within a club can lead to far greater achievements."

 

Co-researcher and lead author Mat Hughes, from the University of Nottingham, said:

 

"The research leads us to question how effective sacking a manager really is to teams. Getting rid of the manager means clubs lose a lot of tacit knowledge and although the new manager will quickly change things, those changes might not be the best or right ones.

 

"Football managers forever state that they need more time in the post to have an effect and our findings show there is much truth to their arguments. It takes time for the managers to reshape the team, its infrastructure, the scouting network, learn about players and the opposition. One of the dangers is that sacking the manager, and the almost inevitable rotation of the coaching staff that goes with that event, causes a lot of important knowledge about the team's strengths, weaknesses, preferences and capabilities to be lost. While the new manager comes in and will quickly seek to reshape the team's style and tactics to suit the new manager's preferred style and ways of doing things, that initial 'shock' does seem to jolt performance away from the rate of decline seen previously.

 

"Our findings encourage boards and fans to better manage their expectations of the consequences of change. In saying that, we don't dispute that change is often needed - but it should not be a rash response to performance declines."

 

'Vicious circle theory' posits that changing managers can lead to a decline in performance, because change disrupts well-established processes and brings instabilities and tensions which can have a detrimental effect on results.

 

Key findings indicate 'illusion effects', where the illusion of a short-term reprieve—when results typically improve following an appointment of a new manager—makes managers and owners believe that things are improving at the club. However, underlying weaknesses and strategic problems, which have not typically been addressed, dictate that performance typically drops to previous standards until problems have been resolved.

 

The studies suggest that the 'scapegoating approach' of sacking managers early and replacing them in the hope of improved performance is a fallacy, with the Loughborough-research suggesting that manager change may take longer than one year to effect strategic change.

 

Managers should therefore be given time to improve the club, team and address underlying weaknesses, before any decision to sack them is made. Decisions to sack a manager should be based on their ability to correct weaknesses and thus improve long-term performance, rather than analysing the ratio of wins against results.

 

Paul added: "Clubs who chop and change their managers – often with no opportunity for the manager to implement real change – tend to experience a long-term downturn in results, even if they have initially experienced success following the appointment of a new manager.

 

"Our findings suggest that sacking a manager often deflects from the real underlying issues at clubs, which need to be addressed before continuity and success will be achieved."

[johngibo YPC]

1) Is there really not a viable managerial alternative to Rafa out there ? In Houllier's last months no one was throwing up Rafa's name. Who are people ruling out as not good enough or not available ?

 

Houlliers last year was a strange one for me. In that its the only season i have ever spent out the country. So i felt very removed from the situation. But i do remember feeling a little unsure about sacking Ged, but then feeling a hell of alot better when we got Rafa. This is why i don't totally buy into the whole notion of having to 'say who would be better and available if you want Rafa to go'. If people decide that Rafa can't take the club forward anymore they should be able to say so, without having to know exactly who the best man to do that would be. Bearing in mind they won't be sitting in on the interviewing process anyway.

 

2) What's the real cost of changing manager ? Is there some sort of compensation mitigation clause in rafa's contract as Henry Winter recently suggested. Might money be available for a new man given recent commercial advances and would it be better in the hands of a 'new broom' than in an arguably ailing regime ?

 

I have no idea how much it would cost to replace Rafa. But as someone else said before it cost 12m to get rid of Ged and his backroom staff. And i think he only had 1 year left? Two max. Rafa on his own might cost that. Plus the same again for all his backroom staff the new manager wouldn't want. I personally think we are much better off giving Rafa the 30m (idea stolrn from Knox)

 

3) Standing by Rafa remains a logical stance only if parameters for him staying are considered. Do we stand by him if this level of form and results continues for another 10 matches ? Regardless of the grace we think he deserves, is there a point at which confidence ebbs so low that we go into an uncorrectable freefall and then have to change for changes sake ? What is that point. Even if improvement comes soon, we are still on the backfoot in the race for a top 4 position. What would we accept as a minimum from the manager this season. 5th place? 7th ? Does 10th equate to 'he has to go'?

I just wouldn't sack him this year. Whatever. But anyway i think just picking a place is too hard anyway. There are lots of factors. What if Gerrard and Torress break their legs? What if Man City spend 100m in January and Spurs and Villa spend 20m?

 

4) What are the real stats on the fortune of clubs who chop and change managers vs those that are patient ? Is patience more often rewarded or is it a myth based on a couple of high profile examples (e.g. Ferguson at Man Utd).

 

I think that would be impossible to compile. You are essentially dealing with counter-factual history trying to judge it

[Rich Gobey]

This "5 year plan" mantra that we seem to have adopted, holds us back. we always seem to be a year or two away from it, always buying for the future. I think we need to be more short sighted in our outlook. Have a one year plan. try and win the thing. if we dont, look for immediate improvement and try and win it again the following year

 

Isn't that the old Newcastle model?

[stressederic]

I think both simply 'wanting Rafa out' or wanting to 'stick by him because he's the best option available' are not advancing the debate on the real issue here. It's about what's best for this club, not about listing Rafa's errors or about listing his past achievements.

 

Sounds good to me.

 

I'm at a crossroads in my own position, and would like to see the following issues seriously discussed :

 

1) Is there really not a viable managerial alternative to Rafa out there ? In Houllier's last months no one was throwing up Rafa's name. Who are people ruling out as not good enough or not available ?

 

To replace Rafa I think you'd need to be looking at the top table so that's people like Cappello, Mourinho, Hiddink etc. If we (for the moment) ignore the owner situation, those 3 could well do a good job (though I still loathe Mourniho in every conceivable way). The questions are; 1) Would they be interested in joining us anyway? 2) Would they be interested in joining us under the current owners? 3) Would WE actually want THEM?

 

You would have to say the answer to the 1st question should be 'yes', we're clearly a big name club with a long history and the 1st person to win the league again for us becomes an instant legend. Big managers have big egos so who wouldn't want to be that guy?

 

The thing about big managers and big egos (moving on to the 2nd question) though is that they will want control and they will want funding and at the moment I don't see how the club under G&H could offer them either of those things. Yes we're still appealing as a club under them, but likewise any of them could go to, say, Milan and try and win the league under them and be seen as a genius. Or try their hand under the intense pressure of Madrid, in the knowledge that money will still be spent.

 

On the 3rd point personality should be a consideration. I would say that though as I hate Mourinho. However I also think it's worth noting that he's never stuck it out at a job for very long. A part of me is unsettled at the thought of Liverpool as a stepping stone for someone's career but I imagine winning the league would assuage that. But under the current financial restrictions I don't see how Mourinho (or the others) would achieve anymore than Rafa has.

 

 

2) What's the real cost of changing manager ? Is there some sort of compensation mitigation clause in rafa's contract as Henry Winter recently suggested. Might money be available for a new man given recent commercial advances and would it be better in the hands of a 'new broom' than in an arguably ailing regime ?

 

I think there are various aspects to the idea of 'cost'. I imagine that Rafa does have a clause in his contract where, if he's sacked, he gets his contract paid up. I imagine most managers do. Rafa is probably on a decent wedge, so that's going to be a costly act to sack him and the money will have to come from somewhere. Worst case is that we have to sell players to sack the manager, therefore depleting the squad further and becoming less attractive to a replacement manager.

 

The other 'cost' would be to the squad itself. Players like Torres and Reina are clearly very close to the manager and if we lost Rafa it isn't outside the realms of possibility that those two, and others, would want to leave. But there are other players to consider. Would Gerrard really want to stick around for another few years whilst a new manager comes in a reorganises everything?

 

There's always the argument that 'if people don't want to play for us they can leave' and it's a good point, but given the choice I'd still rather we keep our best players where possible and avoid situations where players might decide o jump ship.

 

3) Standing by Rafa remains a logical stance only if parameters for him staying are considered. Do we stand by him if this level of form and results continues for another 10 matches ? Regardless of the grace we think he deserves, is there a point at which confidence ebbs so low that we go into an uncorrectable freefall and then have to change for changes sake ? What is that point. Even if improvement comes soon, we are still on the backfoot in the race for a top 4 position. What would we accept as a minimum from the manager this season. 5th place? 7th ? Does 10th equate to 'he has to go'?

 

Obviously we all hope that our league form picks up and I believe that once we have a full squad to pick from again it will do. But if it doesn't then we face deeper problems. I think there's difference between a squad with low confidence and a squad with low confidence in the manager. There might be a fine line between them but it is there. At the moment it still looks, to me, that the players have low confidence but still have faith in Rafa.

 

That can change though and in the end the club has to come first. Though there are disclaimers in that and the players have to take their share of responsibility.

 

For example lets look at Babel. He, apparently, has no faith in Rafa. I'd argue that he's a lazy coward and it's his fault that he's rubbish and not Rafa's.

 

IOf players like Gerrard, Carragher or Torres (for example) start to come out with similar quotes, then that situation is clearly different because you can't fault their loyalty or their application.

 

4) What are the real stats on the fortune of clubs who chop and change managers vs those that are patient ? Is patience more often rewarded or is it a myth based on a couple of high profile examples (e.g. Ferguson at Man Utd).

 

Difficult one to quanitfy really because both Ferguson and Wenger have been in jobs for ages. Chelsea are a good example though. They've been chopping and changing managers for the past 2 seasons and attimes (particularly under Grant and Scolari) the squad sort of carried them onwards but there was a definite malaise and disillusionment about the players.

 

Is that because they kept changing the manager or because the managers they had were rubbish? Difficult to tell. They look good this season and looked good under Hiddink but if Ancelotti has a wobble he still might lose his job and that could be the end of Chelsea's season again.

[Knox_Harrington]

I think the key thing here is the expectation. We'd think Benitez should move on because he isn't delivering what? The title? A challenge? Or top four? The economics of the situation define the reality - wages and transfer fees. Top four remains very much achievable this season so if that's the breaker then if we are having this conversation, we are having this conversation way too early. There are those who would let the manager have a below-par (presuming par is fourth) season due to previous successes.

 

If we think we should be challenging, well, I had high hopes for this season but we aren't paying the money Chelsea and United are paying and haven't been able to improve our side with investment for two seasons. Could money have been spent better? Yes. Have we made strides towards them though? Possibly. But the marker is that the sides best able to invest in their playing squad and best able to pay good players big money will be those who will be there and have the right to expect a challenge, not enjoy one.

 

The reality is that top four is good enough for the ownership and therefore it has to be good enough for us. They aren't budgeting for any achievement beyond top four. It is us, the supporters, the manager and the players who want to achieve beyond that. I believe if the situation remains as is, ownership and manager, then the next three seasons we'll have sporadic challenges in random competitions, our own momentum and injuries at certain times being the defining factor in the top three competitions.

 

In the short term we need to improve. We need to play with some confidence and we need to get as many players functioning through ninety minutes at the level required (fitness, quality and attitude) as possible.

[David Hodgson]

I'll move my contribution over from the other thread...

 

QUOTE(David Hodgson @ Nov 25 2009, 17:03)

I think both simply 'wanting Rafa out' or wanting to 'stick by him because he's the best option available' are not advancing the debate on the real issue here. It's about what's best for this club, not about listing Rafa's errors or about listing his past achievements.

 

I'm at a crossroads in my own position, and would like to see the following issues seriously discussed :

 

1) Is there really not a viable managerial alternative to Rafa out there ? In Houllier's last months no one was throwing up Rafa's name. Who are people ruling out as not good enough or not available ?

 

I think there are some very good managers out there, but this would be a tough job with limited funds and I think the very best around (the likes of Mourinho) would want a hell of a lot of money both in their own bank account and in terms of transfer market spending power to even consider the job. I think Mourinho would love the job here and I think he'd do it well but finance would be a major issue, and I'm not ready to give up on Rafa yet.

 

2) What's the real cost of changing manager ? Is there some sort of compensation mitigation clause in rafa's contract as Henry Winter recently suggested. Might money be available for a new man given recent commercial advances and would it be better in the hands of a 'new broom' than in an arguably ailing regime ?

 

DH, I think its abundently clear our owners aren't going to be forthcoming with much in the way of transfer funding. A payoff to Rafa would be a drop in the ocean compared to what would be needed to finance a new manager coming in and making the changes he wanted to in personnel as a 'new broom'.

 

3) Standing by Rafa remains a logical stance only if parameters for him staying are considered. Do we stand by him if this level of form and results continues for another 10 matches ? Regardless of the grace we think he deserves, is there a point at which confidence ebbs so low that we go into an uncorrectable freefall and then have to change for changes sake ? What is that point. Even if improvement comes soon, we are still on the backfoot in the race for a top 4 position. What would we accept as a minimum from the manager this season. 5th place? 7th ? Does 10th equate to 'he has to go'?

 

From a personal point of view, I'm willing to write this season off even if we did finish tenth and give him next season as a fresh start with hopefully less injuries and some wheeling and dealing to pad the squad out a bit. As I've said above, I don't feel we have the money available to make bringing a new manager in viable regardless of what people think of Rafa. I think his track record has earned him one write off, and I'm confident with a bit of luck he'd turn it round

 

4) What are the real stats on the fortune of clubs who chop and change managers vs those that are patient ? Is patience more often rewarded or is it a myth based on a couple of high profile examples (e.g. Ferguson at Man Utd).

 

I think the only examples of teams changing managers successfully is in terms of avoiding relegation. Sometimes a new man can galvanize an ailing side in the lower reaches the way Redknapp has a few times through the years at the likes of West Ham and Portsmouth. However I struggle to think of an example of a team aiming to win the league which has done so by changing the manager half way through a poor season. In fact teams don't win the league with a new manager unless he has massive funds at his disposal, which clearly any prospective new man wouldn't.

 

I will no doubt be accused of having an agenda for even posing these questions, but for those willing to really debate and explore this stuff I can assure that I am genuinely looking for answers here.

 

I can't see why - although as you know I am strongly in the keep Rafa camp, I don't see why there shouldn't be a reasonable debate about it and the questions you ask are fair.

 

That saved me the copy and paste. Thanks for answering as well.

 

I'm not sure it's so QED on the costs of changing manager issue as you suggest. If Winter's right and the fact that Rafa would get a new job soonish would mitigate the compensation claim then that's one cost dramatically cut ( a big 'if' I concede). Also Mourinho reportedly has two years left at Inter including this one, not the longest contract buy out in history.

 

Additionally a 'new broom' might well be allowed to sell and keep proceeds more readily than Rafa is at present. Arguably a Mourinho might sell £20m of exisiting deadwood, get the oft promised £20m net on top, and get a further top up based on the owners realising they'd need to do it for a new man, and funding it from new commercial deals. Ironically, from rafa's point of view, it might take the owners sacking him to make them realise that they should have financially backed him more in the first place.

 

I suppose I'm saying the moneywise the cupboard may be barer for Rafa than it would be for a new guy.

[matty]

I think both simply 'wanting Rafa out' or wanting to 'stick by him because he's the best option available' are not advancing the debate on the real issue here. It's about what's best for this club, not about listing Rafa's errors or about listing his past achievements.

 

I'm at a crossroads in my own position, and would like to see the following issues seriously discussed :

 

1) Is there really not a viable managerial alternative to Rafa out there ? In Houllier's last months no one was throwing up Rafa's name. Who are people ruling out as not good enough or not available ?

 

2) What's the real cost of changing manager ? Is there some sort of compensation mitigation clause in rafa's contract as Henry Winter recently suggested. Might money be available for a new man given recent commercial advances and would it be better in the hands of a 'new broom' than in an arguably ailing regime ?

 

3) Standing by Rafa remains a logical stance only if parameters for him staying are considered. Do we stand by him if this level of form and results continues for another 10 matches ? Regardless of the grace we think he deserves, is there a point at which confidence ebbs so low that we go into an uncorrectable freefall and then have to change for changes sake ? What is that point. Even if improvement comes soon, we are still on the backfoot in the race for a top 4 position. What would we accept as a minimum from the manager this season. 5th place? 7th ? Does 10th equate to 'he has to go'?

 

4) What are the real stats on the fortune of clubs who chop and change managers vs those that are patient ? Is patience more often rewarded or is it a myth based on a couple of high profile examples (e.g. Ferguson at Man Utd).

 

I will no doubt be accused of having an agenda for even posing these questions, but for those willing to really debate and explore this stuff I can assure that I am genuinely looking for answers here.

 

My personal view is that a manager's future should not be based on who else is around to replace. If a certain manager was not doing their job well enough, then they go, and you find someone who can do it.

 

I think the cost of sacking the manager is probably that you pay up the rest of their contract, which is now very expensive in Rafa's case.

 

I don't think hypotheticals in terms of 'if we're in X position in the league, would you want him to go?' are either logical or helpful. The question is, are we capable of achieving under this manager the aims that we have as Liverpool FC? You have to remember though that Rafa's ability to manage is impaired by the conditions imposed by the ownership, who are sucking the blood out of the club.

 

It would seem to be self-explanatory that a club that changes manager regularly isn't doing well. When you are doing well, you obviously tend to stick with the winning formula. Liverpool have been pretty good at giving managers a fair crack of the whip over the last 20 seasons, sometimes too much, as Souness and Evans should definitely have gone earlier than they did.

 

The English league is a bit different from most continental leagues as the manager here tends to have far more control over the club's affairs than in Spain and Italy, especially, where a club President often decides who comes and goes on the playing staff. That is probably what attracted Rafa. In England a manager lives and dies by the decisions he makes, whereas in those two countries, he can die by a President's mistakes.

 

What I want as a supporter is that the club backs its manager to the hilt, until it is obvious that he has gone as far as he can. We've seen some brilliance from Rafa over the last few years, and I think there is more to come, given the chance. Just one summer of having the freedom to sign exactly the players he needs - to keep the players he wants to keep and to sell those he doesn't - would be amazing. I know any manager would say that, but for Rafa, I think he would clean up, I really do.

[stressederic]

Additionally a 'new broom' might well be allowed to sell and keep proceeds more readily than Rafa is at present. Arguably a Mourinho might sell £20m of exisiting deadwood, get the oft promised £20m net on top, and get a further top up based on the owners realising they'd need to do it for a new man, and funding it from new commercial deals. Ironically, from rafa's point of view, it might take the owners sacking him to make them realise that they should have financially backed him more in the first place.

 

I suppose I'm saying the moneywise the cupboard may be barer for Rafa than it would be for a new guy.

 

I've wondered that at times as well. It might be a case of the owners, not much liking Rafa, deciding to control his funds pretty closely. The two best cases for them then are either he excells spending no money (win-win) or he jumps and they can release the extra cash to their own hand-picked manager.

[Rich Gobey]

Chelsea's situation is different to ours, they are still a stepping stone club, the only manager of our club in my lifetime that has ever been seriously linked to a bigger club is Rafa and he's shown no inclination to leave.

[charlie clown]

1) Is there really not a viable managerial alternative to Rafa out there ? In Houllier's last months no one was throwing up Rafa's name. Who are people ruling out as not good enough or not available ?

 

There may be viable alternatives out there but my huge concern would be that the likelihood of those two clowns ever being able to pick one are less than zero. Given that they were sounding out Klinsmann I think it's fair to day they are absolutely clueless in these matters.

[Jarg Armani]

Chelsea's situation is different to ours, they are still a stepping stone club, the only manager of our club in my lifetime that has ever been seriously linked to a bigger club is Rafa and he's shown no inclination to leave.

 

All our previous managers are, to the best of my knowledge, unemployed or dead.

 

Abandon hope all ye who manage here.

[Knox_Harrington]

That saved me the copy and paste. Thanks for answering as well.

 

I'm not sure it's so QED on the costs of changing manager issue as you suggest. If Winter's right and the fact that Rafa would get a new job soonish would mitigate the compensation claim then that's one cost dramatically cut ( a big 'if' I concede). Also Mourinho reportedly has two years left at Inter including this one, not the longest contract buy out in history.

 

Additionally a 'new broom' might well be allowed to sell and keep proceeds more readily than Rafa is at present. Arguably a Mourinho might sell £20m of exisiting deadwood, get the oft promised £20m net on top, and get a further top up based on the owners realising they'd need to do it for a new man, and funding it from new commercial deals. Ironically, from rafa's point of view, it might take the owners sacking him to make them realise that they should have financially backed him more in the first place.

 

I suppose I'm saying the moneywise the cupboard may be barer for Rafa than it would be for a new guy.

If what you say is true then the football club is being mis-managed beyond our current imaginings. If money could be magicked up for a new manager, paying off the old one and his staff (whatever that costs) and then 20m then f*** me, that money last summer would have been nice wouldn't it? We might have been able to afford Turner rather than The Greek. 4m for a young English prospect versus 1.5m for an aging lad with no sell on value. It makes so much sense that not having been able to do it speaks volumes.

 

I think the 20m net was true. Honestly. I think they thought they could do that and then got the squeeze like you wouldn't believe. Maybe I'm too nice. I just don't think the money you talk about exists, even with the new sponsorship deals. It could come from the owners own pockets but that is their last, last, last option and I think they may sell before they do that.

[Rich Gobey]

All our previous managers are, to the best of my knowledge, unemployed or dead.

 

Abandon hope all ye who manage here.

 

 

They've all been fit and well and in gainfull employment during my liftime.

[David Hodgson]

I've wondered that at times as well. It might be a case of the owners, not much liking Rafa, deciding to control his funds pretty closely. The two best cases for them then are either he excells spending no money (win-win) or he jumps and they can release the extra cash to their own hand-picked manager.

 

Exactly. I don't think he'll ever escape the fact that he wasn't 'their man'. They didn't appoint him so at no stage mentally 'bought into him', and they have also suffered what they perceive as the indignity of enduring public criticism by him. No bosses are ever going to truly forgive and forget that.

 

Also, for all Rafa's recent politicking around Purslow, in particular, it's clear that he has allied himself to the fans in a way that suggests that in the 'them and us' dispute that has raged around the club for the past 2 years that he is definitely not in their camp.

 

In conclusion : they are bound to be more generous with their own appointment, even if it means them raiding personal piggy banks to do so.

[Knox_Harrington]

I've wondered that at times as well. It might be a case of the owners, not much liking Rafa, deciding to control his funds pretty closely. The two best cases for them then are either he excells spending no money (win-win) or he jumps and they can release the extra cash to their own hand-picked manager.

I'd be stunned. Utterly stunned if there was another penny in the coffers after last summer.

[Rimbeux]

I think both simply 'wanting Rafa out' or wanting to 'stick by him because he's the best option available' are not advancing the debate on the real issue here. It's about what's best for this club, not about listing Rafa's errors or about listing his past achievements.

 

I'm at a crossroads in my own position, and would like to see the following issues seriously discussed :

 

1) Is there really not a viable managerial alternative to Rafa out there ? In Houllier's last months no one was throwing up Rafa's name. Who are people ruling out as not good enough or not available ?

It's an attractive job, and I'll stand by that. Names are always open to gnashing and stamping, but I'd see no unique reason why the most capable and elite out there wouldn't be interested in any vacancy

 

 

2) What's the real cost of changing manager ? Is there some sort of compensation mitigation clause in rafa's contract as Henry Winter recently suggested. Might money be available for a new man given recent commercial advances and would it be better in the hands of a 'new broom' than in an arguably ailing regime ?

The idea seems to be that he would on the payroll until such time as he got a new job. I'm of the mind that money could be coming back into the pot when Standard Chartered come on board. The smart idea would clearly to stick with the plan you have unless it really hits the skids rather than bring on a new one that will always cost more.

 

3) Standing by Rafa remains a logical stance only if parameters for him staying are considered. Do we stand by him if this level of form and results continues for another 10 matches ? Regardless of the grace we think he deserves, is there a point at which confidence ebbs so low that we go into an uncorrectable freefall and then have to change for changes sake ? What is that point. Even if improvement comes soon, we are still on the backfoot in the race for a top 4 position. What would we accept as a minimum from the manager this season. 5th place? 7th ? Does 10th equate to 'he has to go'?

If we dont make 4th place I doubt I'd have much confidence in what is going on (I am guessing how I'd feel), and as it would be a massive climb to get back in, it would probably need a lot of change

 

4) What are the real stats on the fortune of clubs who chop and change managers vs those that are patient ? Is patience more often rewarded or is it a myth based on a couple of high profile examples (e.g. Ferguson at Man Utd).

Change is not a bad thing in itself but only if it's a change for the better. You'd have to be clear that your situation is going to be improved, and that means either the fall is so great or the alternative so grand as to make it a simple decision

 

I will no doubt be accused of having an agenda for even posing these questions, but for those willing to really debate and explore this stuff I can assure that I am genuinely looking for answers here.

 

 

To sum up, it aint broken yet. This could easily be recovered ready to go again, but it could also slide of the cliff and I think it's impossible to deny that

[David Hodgson]

If what you say is true then the football club is being mis-managed beyond our current imaginings. If money could be magicked up for a new manager, paying off the old one and his staff (whatever that costs) and then 20m then f*** me, that money last summer would have been nice wouldn't it? We might have been able to afford Turner rather than The Greek. 4m for a young English prospect versus 1.5m for an aging lad with no sell on value. It makes so much sense that not having been able to do it speaks volumes.

 

I think the 20m net was true. Honestly. I think they thought they could do that and then got the squeeze like you wouldn't believe. Maybe I'm too nice. I just don't think the money you talk about exists, even with the new sponsorship deals. It could come from the owners own pockets but that is their last, last, last option and I think they may sell before they do that.

 

You may well be right, but it's hard to know the truth, that's why I suppose to some extent I feel that discussing money in the context of 'to keep Rafa or not' may be something of a red herring, because it's such an unknown factor.

[Jarg Armani]

They've all been fit and well and in gainfull employment during my liftime.

 

show off.

[Knox_Harrington]

Exactly. I don't think he'll ever escape the fact that he wasn't 'their man'. They didn't appoint him so at no stage mentally 'bought into him', and they have also suffered what they perceive as the indignity of enduring public criticism by him. No bosses are ever going to truly forgive and forget that.

 

Also, for all Rafa's recent politicking around Purslow, in particular, it's clear that he has allied himself to the fans in a way that suggests that in the 'them and us' dispute that has raged around the club for the past 2 years that he is definitely not in their camp.

 

In conclusion : they are bound to be more generous with their own appointment, even if it means them raiding personal piggy banks to do so.

I can feel you convincing yourself of this. I'm sitting here and I can feel you doing it.