Stuart Pearce and Chris Coleman are two of the more recent casualties, but it's happened before.I'm talking about clubs sacking their managers for "underachieving" and "not pressing enough" when they've in fact had no money to spend on new players—only to then give the new manager an open invitation to run up the overdraft limit.
In Pearce's case, there was a board change at Manchester City, and perhaps it's fair that they'd want a new man in charge.
Still, it seems harsh that, aside from Georgios Samaras, Pearce was forced to sign players on loan or as free transfers—or by selling his other squad members.
Coleman, meanwhile, kept Fulham in the Premiership for four seasons with little to spend—but that still wasn't good enough. New manager Lawrie Sanchez, a man with no experience at the top level, was given a war-chest with which to land the likes of David Healy, Chris Baird, and Diomansy Kamara—for millions of pounds a pop.
None of them have managed to set the league alight thus far.
I have a lot of admiration for clubs who manage to stay in the Premiership despite spending little or no extra money on players each year—but is it really wise, much less fair, to dispense with a manager who achieves the feat and then offer his successor €20 million to do with as he wishes in one transfer window?
23 comments Last one added about 1 year ago — Leave a Comment
Mark Syrett about 1 year ago
Fantastic article my friend.
Edit Comment Cancel
Simon Martin about 1 year ago
I have to disagree - why is it that it always boils down to money? Redknapp didn't spend that much in the transfer window compared to teams like, say, TOTTENHAM, and his team lies seven or so places above in them in the top ten!!!
Sometimes it really is all about the coaching and the confidence factor. Arsenal hardly ever spend anything, instead picking up bargains and training them to be better footballers! And they happen to be top of the table.
I think money is the easy way out when a severe lack of coaching or managerial ability is discovered. Jose got found out - who will be next?!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Brad Simkulet about 1 year ago
I'm with you, Simon. Money is an excuse. The only factor I see when if it comes to transfers is prestige. It is not how much money a team has to spend, but the quality a team can attract. Portsmouth, Man City, you name the team, are simply not able to attract the players Chelsea, Arsenal, Man Utd and Liverpool can. And rightly so. It is not just Champs League Football. It is winning tradition, history, fan following, and the chance to play for a "great" team that attract players. The answers for the lesser teams are to breed more Alan Shearers and create a long term goal of making their teams world renowned.
Edit Comment Cancel
Karl Matchett about 1 year ago
but simon :) my article states clearly that the likes off fulham hardly ever spent anything and did well enough to be a solid premiership team, even finished 9th? i think one season? then they decide to change manager and immediately make funds available to him!
whether or not a team chooses to spend money in a window is entirely dependant on their circumstances, what i was musing over what why they suddenly changed policy after getting rid of a manager who wasnt achieving their ambitions but had had no money and then the new guy gets a load to spend!
i dont think chris coleman "got found out" at all, ninth and four years of safety after spending little money is a great achievement and the one who is getting found out is sanchez, despite spending oodles.
just seems to me u seem to have missed the point of the article a little simon/brad.
Edit Comment Cancel
Simon Martin about 1 year ago
Karl, I'm with you on Chris Coleman - he did not deserve the sack, and where are Fulham now? As you have rightly said, languishing under Sanchez (who I never rated as a good coach or as a manager before he joined Fulham), and yes it is always dependent on circumstances.
But why do we have all these football academies if we are simply going to buy other players in? It's the classic money VS training scenario, and Portsmouth, while certainly having brought in players, have not had to spend substantial amounts of cash to build a good cohesive team.
The great example at the moment shall be Ramos - will he get money to spend that a) he doesn't need b) the squad does need, but in defense not attack (and will he buy for the defense or bring one of spurs promising youngsters through?)
Edit Comment Cancel
Karl Matchett about 1 year ago
agreed. im actually very curious to see what ramos does, living in spain as i do ive seen a lot of his team and play style and my house mates here is a spurs fan, so i take more than a passing interest in them too anyway.
ive been impressed with the cameos of jamie o'hara in the last couple weeks and looks as if they have a good acadamy lad on their hands there. rumours have it that tainio is gone in january, and ramos has always used two if not exactly defensive at least holding midfielders, who can tackle and spray the ball around and above all are very fit. jenas seems like he'll get a starring role in their centre, which leaves room for one from zokora, huddlestone and someone else like o'hara or a new guy - renato would be my guess for them. but with players like boateng and taarabt being very capable young attacking midfielders id be surprised if they bought any attacking players at all to be honest.
theres been talk about defoe and/or bent leaving and who'll come in as replacement, but in terry dixon and tomas pekhart spurs have two great young prospects who play up front. if anyone doesnt know them yet im sure they will within a year or two.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brad Simkulet about 1 year ago
I thought about all of this more last night, and I think that I have to revise some of what I was saying. As my brain wrapped itself around what I was saying about the need to attract players rather than just pay oodles for them, I slammed into the problem of how one creates that sort of attraction. And I think that you were initially implying the answer, Karl.
The only way to build a reputation is through stability. I am still baffled by Coleman's release, and I think he'd have done even better this year with Sanchez's funds. And there is even evidence that Coleman was creating that reputation and tradition needed to eventually bring in great players (although it would have taken a very long time to get the truly great players). After all, Coleman made Fulham the home away from home for United States international players, and his reputation led to Clint Dempsey's signing. A very good signing for Fulham.
Good article, Karl. Thanks for getting me thinking.
Edit Comment Cancel
Karl Matchett about 1 year ago
no problem, been a good bit of banter on this one!! thats what we want!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Simon Martin about 1 year ago
Exactly - this has been a great, thoughtful article, with some great questions posed and some good answers made.
Nicely done lads!
Edit Comment Cancel
Sheikh Zakaria about 1 year ago
Success is a must for a club manager at the expense of whatever resources he has- let it be money or his current crop of players. You don't necessarily need big money players to turn the tie around (like Arsenal), but sometimes things don't exactly work out even if u have many world class players in ur team (like Liverpool and Real Madrid 2 yrs back)
For some clubs money might be an excuse, but the well established classy clubs shudn make any excuse for that
Edit Comment Cancel
Tim Yu about 1 year ago
I'll have to meet you two half way on this issue. A lot of the success for a manager does rely on resources and when your playing in a league such as the Premier League--money is a must. Whether it be the millions at Liverpool or Chelsea or the small amounts at clubs say like Derby, they all need money to bring players in--that's a given.
Having said that, it's even more crucial to have a strong manager and coaching staff that can work with what he has at his disposal and do it effectively. Of course, that's easier said than done.
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt S about 1 year ago
I totally agree about Pearce and Coleman, for some reason the board did not fancy them as managers after appointing them (fair enough with Man City’s takeover as you said, they wanted to bring in their own man). What’s the point of having Coleman in charge and not backing him in the transfer market? With no money to spend you cannot surely expect any progress? I certainly find it strange how Sanchez has been backed straight away with around £20m – and it’s not looking too good at the moment although you have to give him time to get his team together.
But to say, as some have above, that Redknapp hasn’t spent a “substanstial” amount at Portsmouth is surely taking it too far – the guy spent around £25m this summer alone! His team’s performing but surely you’d expect it when he’s spent that much.
And for Simon to say that Jose got found out – found out how exactly?! The guy won five domestic titles in three years in English football! More than half of what was available!
Edit Comment Cancel
Mark Syrett about 1 year ago
You have to remember Pearce and Coleman had no actual experience and it is brilliant they were given a chance, but to give them 20 million would be a problem, and in Pearce's case the money came in with the new owner. Southgate currently had to sell Yakubu, and will sell Downing soon, but has had none to spend. Please do not bring Ramos into this because Jol had loads of cash.
Money is not everything in football but it is a major part, if there was no money in the game then Sky wouldn't spend what they do getting the games. A gr8 manager + Lots of money will equal success just ask chelsea. A great manager with less money may equal success, look at Arsenal and Barcelona. Loads of money and a not so good manager and ur in financial trouble just ask leeds.
So in short in answer to your title, the boards do not trust these bosses, they must prove themselves. both to the fans and the board. If you have already proved yourself, Curbishly, Errickson, Ramos, ect then you will get the money. Same as every job more experience equals more trust and money. SIMPLE
Edit Comment Cancel
Karl Matchett about 1 year ago
but then mark.... why has sanchez been given loads? coleman when he left had 4 yrs experience at prem club, sanchez has none!
also arsenal everyone keeps saying havent spent money, but reyes was something between 17-22m, van persie about 7 or 8, hleb 6, rosicky 5 or 6, eduardo 11, walcott 15.... not exactly miniscule budgets!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Mark Syrett about 1 year ago
but wenger always breaks even my friend. it aint the same as spending what dont come in. eduardo cost 8 btw, and henry had just gone for 16. hleb nd rosicky were bought with the 14 for vieira nd 10 for reyes when he went, reyes was paid for by the departure of several youngsters such as lupoli, nd jeffers. Arsenal always break even and pay sensible, so do barcelona. this year being an exception for them.
Edit Comment Cancel
Craig Watts about 1 year ago
its not just the board. sometimes managers don't do themselves any favour (spending loads for a top player) veron, shevchenko, marlet etc.. all flops total spend £68.2 million (or near that figure)
it has little to do with the money, great managers spot great players for cheap. arsene wenger spends high very rarely, mark hughes has a great eye for talent look at mccarthy and santa cruz. harry redknapp as mentioned before. my verdict... spend less on players, More on scouts.
Edit Comment Cancel
Craig Watts about 1 year ago
of course it depends on what people rate as a 'high figure'
Edit Comment Cancel
Simon Williams about 1 year ago
I think Fulham just recognised that if they didn't overhaul the squad they were going down, they just didn't think Coleman was the man to spend the money (wrongly, in my view), They chose Sanchez, which so far looks like an error, but its still early days. If they stay up this season then they might be better next year, after all the new players are fully settled in. Thats a big if though!
Portsmouth have spent plenty of money (a net £20m gone this summer alone). One of the biggest overachievers in terms of spending and position was always Sam Allardyce at Bolton, who managed to spend virtually nothing on transfer fees but challenged for Europe every year. Of course, this doesn't tell the full story, because Bolton do pay big wages, which allowed them to get the likes of Campo, Diouf, Anelka etc. Spending money is not just about fees.
And this is where Arsenal come into their own. Their net spend on transfer fees is usually nothing, or even profit, but how much are they spending on their academy? They have a squad of 40 plus professionals (about 10 larger than any other EPL team, as seen in the Carling Cup) so must have a huge wage bill, even if many of those players are young. Afterall, the likes of Fran Merida, Carlos Vela, Fabregas, don't leave their home countries (and huge clubs) at 17 for the British weather and Fish & Chips. Arsene Wenger is a brilliant manager with a unique and successful strategy, but lets not pretend he is working on a shoestring budget. Arsenal are one of the richest clubs in the world, and it is mainly because of this that Wenger is able to buy up all of the best young talent from around the globe at a young age.
Edit Comment Cancel
Simon Martin about 1 year ago
Take into account: Television revenue, Licensing money, merchandise, international support (then add TV revenue/licensing money and merchandise again), season ticket costs, and at the end of it, PRIZE MONEY for competing, and there's a good reason that Arsenal that can afford to invest so heavily in their world renowned academy: it's called being a successful business and a wise football club.
Edit Comment Cancel
Simon Williams about 1 year ago
I wasn't criticising Arsenal at any point, so no need to go on the defensive. I was merely pointing out that they are not the paupers in the spending stakes that many Arsenal fans like to make out when they are eulogising about Monsieur Wenger.
Claims such as 'Arsenal hardly ever spend anything', for example.
Edit Comment Cancel
Karl Matchett about 1 year ago
exactly - as i put above "also arsenal everyone keeps saying havent spent money, but reyes was something between 17-22m, van persie about 7 or 8, hleb 6, rosicky 5 or 6, eduardo 11, walcott 15.... not exactly miniscule budgets!!"
signing on fees play a large part in the likes of bolton's transfer strategies too, they have bought players like campo, speed, hierro, davies and others without paying what would be a normal price of say, 3m? for some of them, but then pay overly inflated signing on fees, say 1m or so, to convince the players to sign for them ahead of other sides. he did also spend 8m or so on anelka and 5m on diouf, so he did have SOME money at bolton as well!
Edit Comment Cancel
Simon Williams about 1 year ago
True about Allardyce, Karl, but he did have a pretty healthy net record on money out and in, they only generally spent what they made in terms of transfer fees, Anelka being the real exception to the rule.
Very true about the signing on fees though. Its easy to look just at the fees we see in the paper and forget about the rest. Mark Hughes for example gets alot of praise (some of it rightly as he is a good manager) for buying relatively cheap, but players like Benni McCarthy and Roque Santa Cruz don't leave Champions League clubs to go to Blackburn so they can watch Coronation Street. They must be on huge money, with big signing on fees to match.
Edit Comment Cancel
Karl Matchett about 1 year ago
point in case maybe proved today.... fulham sacking sanchez after letting him spend all that cash! maybe they shouldve stuck with coleman and let him play with the money, couldnt be in any worse position than now anyway!
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.