KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum Some open thoughts on managers terms of engagement

I was thinking about De Matteo today at Chelsea they are saying should he get the job full time after some short term success. But then if he did get the full time job and he had a poor year they might want him sacked next year. Not dissimilar to Dalglish situation. The traditional approach is to give a manager a 5 year contract he brings in his own men and they get 5 year contracts and then normally 2 to 3 years on things go wrong and they want him sacked with huge pay off’s and the whole process starts again. The argument for this approach is that it leads to continuity and allows the manager to plan for the long term. I am not sure this holds water in today’s world nor do I think it ever did lead to continuity in the past. Certainly there is no reason why a manager on a short term contract cannot plan for the long term and indeed you could argue getting the short / medium / long term joined up would give you a strong personal incentive to ensure your contract is renewed. There are 1.6 million interim managers in the UK in the private and public sectors many of these work with the same client for decades on short term contracts, increasingly the distinction between interim and permanent is increasingly opaque. To some extent clubs have recognised this by appointing directors of football distinct from the coach allowing some continuity should the coach move on. Increasingly we as supporters are different from 10 to 15 years ago with the sky high prices and change in society generally we demand success much more quickly than we used to do. So is it now the time we should think of managers of short term contractors maybe on 12 month revolving contracts? If the manager performs the contract is renewed if not the natural process is to engage another manager? This goes on in business today could it work in football?

i suppose the benefit of a contract, in theory at least, is that it serves both parties. It is a commitment from both parties.

Definitely. The long term contract only seems to serve as a deterent to other clubs poaching the manager as there would be compensation issues. With the amount of money in football today, is an outlay of a few million in compensation 'really' any kind of deterrent? I don't think so. It cost Chelsea £15m to get AVB away from Porto - far greater sums have been wasted on far less successul players without anyone blinking an eye. As with player contracts, they aren't truly enforceable - if someone wants to leave they will.
But whilst a contract protects your employee to an extent it also means you can be lumbered with them if you do want to get rid. I think shorter contracts are a much better idea and are probably just around the corner.

I think the other advantage to shorter term contracts is you and pick and mix expertise as needed. For example year A & B you need someone who can make good of low resources such as say a Moyes type manager for year C you need say a manager more used to european football etc. Clubs will of course chop and change managers very regularly but that happens in other sports now such as rugby league.

Isnt there a fundamental relationship though between a managers style/strengths and the sort of players he buys? ie longer term building towards something?

Possibly Mike there are pro and cons obviously

The way i interpret what you are saying is that football managers become coaches, directors of football decide the long term strategy and the sorts of players to purchase for that stage of the club's growth?

I don't really undestand what I director of football is. I have always assumed its someone who sets the strategy for player purchases and decides what to pay for them. The coach will input to the individual player choice to meet that strategy. But the ultimate decision is with the DOF the coach decides the team and tactics. I was thinking primariliy the coach on this thread and the sugggestion is we give coaches 12 months contracts and renew each close season.

ok. i suppose the point i am making is that i think if there is a relationship between the style of the manager and the type of players purchased, and you are talking about appointing managers in a more diposable way where you get a manager of one set of skills to take the club to one level, then another with another set of skills to take them to the next, then you actually need a 'director of football' to make that work and ensure a continuity of vision, otherwise you just end up with a totally new team every time you change manager.

my own view is that the best managers end up at the best clubs, so i think they should be given time to build their 'project', like rafa did with us. I am of the view that a manager needs to be given control to oversee a strategy of their own.

I am unfamiliar with how short term contracts have been used in other sports as you mentioned earlier. what are the reasons for this, and what have been the results?

Sure look at Pep Guardiola at Barcelona. Never signed a long-term management deal in his life. The only downside is that Barca will have to let him go at the end of the season if he wishes