Contract for New Manager

[northbankboy68]

After the fiasco of the contracts given to Pellegrini, Lopetegui and Potter would anyone like to bet on Sullivan spending a couple of grand on getting a fit for purpose contract for Potter's replacement that includes a break clause for piss poor results and remuneration based on success?  Nah - I think he'll spaff more millions up the wall.  Businessman, my arse.

[Fauxstralian]

Maybe if we had owners who knew anything about football we’d do what SUPERIOR clubs like Bournemouth, Brighton , Palace & Fulham do 
Have a strategy
Identify a talented manager
Back the talented manager & keep morons out of football decisions 

Those smaller clubs have identified Iraola, Huertzler Glasner & Silva why we have appointed dullards like Avram Grant & Moyes incompetents like Pellegrini Lopetegui  & CockPissPotter 
So now we are looking for someone til the end of the season so it’ll be the desperate types who have been out of work for ages because they got binned off for failing

[El Scorchio]

Put loads of non standard clauses in which aren't favourable for a manager and he simply won't sign it. Why would he when he wouldn't have to put up with it anywhere else? With a club like ours, unless we are doing a manager a huge favour like plucking someone from the conference who we can basically bend over, we are never in a position to demand anything much at all. Particularly as has been pointed out, it's always US who are the desperate ones. And if we are seeking a top manager he'll just laugh and walk away. All you'll do is attract desperate, shit managers with fuck all to lose.

Only a club like Madrid could hope to do things like that just because they are the golden seat and they know at least some people will crawl over glass to take that job. But even then a top manager would likely think it's not worth the hassle and simply trot off to PSG or Bayern or Barcelona. 

Essentially you're making an already unattractive job that more unattractive by doing this. Particularly as most managers know Sullivan is unlikely to hold up his end of the bargain anyway in giving a manager what they need to be successful. Why should the manager sign up to loads of unusual performance clauses when he knows his employer likely is going to do nowhere near what's required to actually allow the manager to meet them.

Even in the case of Potter, he's been an absolute disaster, but Sullivan has NOT in any way given him ALL the tools he needs. (Some, granted, but no way all) We are bereft at CB and CF. Igor Julio the only recruit to the worst centre back trio in the league? Do me a fucking favour. Callum hopalong Wilson the only recruit to an already woefully undertooled front line? Do me another one. Why on earth is a manager going to agree to a load of strict performance clauses when he knows he's not going to get the tools to do his job properly. It's like a cycling team signing a rider and telling him he's got to place top 5 at the tour de france or whatever to retain his seat and earn his wages, then giving him a fucking child's three speed bike with a flat tyre from cash converters while the others are all on their 15k carbon fibre speed machines.

[honky cat]

I think theyre praying moyes fucks up at Everton before next summer and he can come back.

So it will be a short term contract. Maybe a bit of 'temping' for someone between jobs. Or how about zero hours . . 

But FFS they need to find someone decent and give them at least 3 years, like every other club does.



 

[northbankboy68]

I think part of the problem is manager's generally know they don't have to take those contracts.

I mean, we should be thinking:

• 3 year contract
• Option to sack for nothing if in bottom 3 with ten games to go 25/26 (last role of dice)
• Option to sack for nothing if relegated
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 5 at Xmas 25/26
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 7 at End of Season 25/26
• Buy out clause of 15m if any club in the top 10 at time of asking seeks to hire

 

All well and good in theory but you won't attract the best talent with such clauses, unless all clubs signed up to the same paradigm.

We ain't attracting the best managers WITHOUT those clauses.  Those clauses protect WH against abject failure when it comes to appointing a manager.

[threesixty]

The thing is, when you don’t actually know what you’re doing anything you do is sort of doomed to failure no matter how well intentioned. If you do seem to get it right it’s by accident. I feel like Sullivan really thinks he’s had great intentions and its more just bad luck than anything else as to why he always finds himself in this situation. 

And because he’s probably a class A narcissist (as most super rich businessmen are), he will never be able to reflect on the fact that the evidence shows, after 15yrs+ in football, he has been the constant in all the problems. 

I dont think any contract clause or arrangement means anything if you have Sullivan ultimately making decisions. Right now it was him that has decided that given Potters win ratio last season, he deserved to start this season. Even if his contract ended in May he likely would have extended it anyway. Unless he thinks a 1 yr pay off for a manager is worth flirting with relegation? (That’s a crazy business decision by anyone’s standard) So it looks like, Sullivan in over 15yrs of football seriously thought that Potter would do well this season. How can you legislate for that type of decision making at the highest level? You just cant.

A fool and his money are soon parted…

[Russ of the BML]

One of West Ham's biggest problems under Sullivan is that he is generally always looking for a new manager because we are in the shit. Thus giving the incoming bloke the upper hand. One of Sulli's many failures is to have never enhanced the brand of 'West Ham' and so we are seen by numerous managers as them doing us a favour. Nuno will be no different.

Had Sullivan done his job properly and instilled a vision, style and ethos way back when he came in, then we would be always searching for a type of manager / coach. That way, you can calculate your compensation / salary costs more efficiently. As it stands, we are a beggar sitting in the road with our cap held out. 

Again, each failure leads back to one culprit. 

[goose]

I would just write WIN SOME FUCKING GAMES at the top.

[stubbo-admin]

I think part of the problem is manager's generally know they don't have to take those contracts.

I mean, we should be thinking:

• 3 year contract
• Option to sack for nothing if in bottom 3 with ten games to go 25/26 (last role of dice)
• Option to sack for nothing if relegated
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 5 at Xmas 25/26
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 7 at End of Season 25/26
• Buy out clause of 15m if any club in the top 10 at time of asking seeks to hire

 

All well and good in theory but you won't attract the best talent with such clauses, unless all clubs signed up to the same paradigm.

Totally agree. That was kind of the point I was making. Something like should be the norm...protect the club, but more than achievable for a manager with self belief.

But the reality is most managers go into these jobs more than likely salivating at the payday to come. There is no real fear of failure.

And as much as the OP says about the contract, the managers will reject anything that looks like this because they know they'll get a deal elsewhere without the risk to their ability to build up some generational wealth.

Take Nuno....apparently wants 100k per week on a 3 year gig. 15m+ across his contract. 

What other job anywhere rewards failure quite so highly than contracts in football?

[Alfs]

I think part of the problem is manager's generally know they don't have to take those contracts.

I mean, we should be thinking:

• 3 year contract
• Option to sack for nothing if in bottom 3 with ten games to go 25/26 (last role of dice)
• Option to sack for nothing if relegated
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 5 at Xmas 25/26
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 7 at End of Season 25/26
• Buy out clause of 15m if any club in the top 10 at time of asking seeks to hire

 

All well and good in theory but you won't attract the best talent with such clauses, unless all clubs signed up to the same paradigm.

[stubbo-admin]

I think part of the problem is manager's generally know they don't have to take those contracts.

I mean, we should be thinking:

• 3 year contract
• Option to sack for nothing if in bottom 3 with ten games to go 25/26 (last role of dice)
• Option to sack for nothing if relegated
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 5 at Xmas 25/26
• Option to sack for 6 months pay if in bottom 7 at End of Season 25/26
• Buy out clause of 15m if any club in the top 10 at time of asking seeks to hire

Or something like that...all emminently achievable for a manager of any real substance amd protects the club.

But the reality is a guy like Nuno knows he doesn't need to take on the risk...and you can bet they LUURRRVVVEE the payout for failure which is frankly baked in.

[northbankboy68]

Why do you describe the contracts as a "fiasco"? What do you know of them?

Last time I looked Potter is still our manager and being paid in spite of the worst win rate in living memory.  Good luck with working stuff out.

[On The Ball]

Why do you describe the contracts as a "fiasco"? What do you know of them?