Who is going down...

[useless]

Apparently they were already fined in December but the league kept it quiet for some reason.

[MrDuck]

It's lucky Fulham, Cardiff, Sunderland and West Brom replaced their managers, else they'd still be in relegation trouble.

[Rovers13]

To be fair, 3 of those teams managers were doing a dreadful job

[Isa]

It's lucky Fulham, Cardiff, Sunderland and West Brom replaced their managers, else they'd still be in relegation trouble.

Crystal Palace and Tony Pulis say hi.

[MrDuck]

 

It's lucky Fulham, Cardiff, Sunderland and West Brom replaced their managers, else they'd still be in relegation trouble.

Crystal Palace and Tony Pulis say hi.

 

 

Gamble though isn't it? And they're the only team it's really worked for this season. And Pulis I think was the only manager that came in that actually had a record of doing well in the Premier League. Lesson to be learned perhaps.

[Rovers13]

It's lucky Fulham, Cardiff, Sunderland and West Brom replaced their managers, else they'd still be in relegation trouble.

Crystal Palace and Tony Pulis say hi.

Gamble though isn't it? And they're the only team it's really worked for this season. And Pulis I think was the only manager that came in that actually had a record of doing well in the Premier League. Lesson to be learned perhaps.

Not really. Sunderland have improved a lot under poyet compared to di canio, and Fulham and Cardiff were horrible under their previous managers, who both did an awful job putting together a squad. West brom was the only stupid sacking, as Clarke wasn't doing a bad job, and not surprisingly that's the one that's proven to be the dumbest.

I'm all for giving managers time if they have a pretty successful past or have worked in tough circumstances and haven't done that poor considering the corcumstances (lambert fits this criteria), but mackay and jol were just doing an awful job.

Jol always had money to spend on both players and wages, and had a few years there to work, but still managed to allow the squad to decay in quality and made it older. They also played a woeful style, and had a terrible record under him this season. They had to make a change.

Cardiff is interesting, because if tan never made crazy statements, people would've seen that mackay was doing a really poor job. He got them promoted, but cardiff had a record spend for the championship, so his "achievement" was winning the league with the biggest budget. Then in the summer cardiff set a spending record for new players, but he spent the bulk on 3 players, one of whom is already back in Denmark, and left the squad poor. They played a very negative style as well, and were on a dreadful run when he left.

It might be a gamble, because you never know if sacking a manager will improve things, but it's a gamble that needed to be taken because the status quo would've seen them down almost surely.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Rovers13

[MrDuck]

I think Mackay would argue that he did alright getting Cardiff to a cup final and then winning the championship... certainly not an "awful job". They'd been spending a lot of money for years with no joy, it took Mackay to take them up. And ultimately, Cardiff were not in the relegation zone when they sacked Mackay.

 

Fulham had 10 pts from 13 under Jol, and since he's gone they've taken 14 pts from 19. West Brom had 15pts from 16 under Clarke, and managed 14pts from 15 since he left.

 

Only Sunderland could be said to have actually improved, but not very much and they're still deep in the shit. 

 

It's a gamble, and I think more often than not it doesn't work. West Ham were in the shit, stood by Allardyce and they won 4 or 5 on the bounce, now look safe. Something to be said for sticking with your manager through the rough times I think.

[Rovers13]

I meant he had done an awful job this year. Just pointing out that getting them promoted with the budget he had was nothing special with the point about previous seasons. They were also really struggling, after the early season high of being promoted. With a dreadful style.

Jol, he had had a couple years to put together his own team like I said, and had allowed it to regress. They were also on a five game losing steak when he was sacked, and he was actually sacked before a pretty tough run of games, so it might've looked worse for him, as there early season schedule was soft.

I agree about west brom, and for Sunderland, saying they haven't improved very much just isn't true. They had 1 point from eight games before poyet got there, and have 24 from 22 since. That's a massive improvement.

I agree that it frequently doesn't pay off, but that's because usually the sacked manager had put together a poor squad that would be tough for anyone to succeed with, and for Fulham and Cardiff this was the case.

[MrDuck]

Fair enough re Sunderland. I'd forgotten they only had 1 point when they sacked PDC!

 

Interesting that the other clubs sacking their managers - Tottenham and Swansea - have also failed to improve. Palace were the only club who sacked someone then hired a proven premier league manager, and they're the only club who it's really worked for. So often these days it seems a panic decision and so often it compounds the problem rather than helps. Unless the situation is irreparable - see DiCanio - then sticking with what you have seems a better option.

[Rovers13]

I generally agree, but if the managers have a good prior record. I think in this case mackay and jol had each had over 2 years at their club, so they had already been given time, and so by that point it was their team. Also, my views on jol are certainly being influenced by this article, well worth a read.

http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/bundesliga/id/159?cc=5901

Edited April 4, 2014 by Rovers13

[Isa]

Even Swansea have only really had one bad result under Monk though. Now that they've gotten lots of the tougher teams out of the way, they have quite a decent run-in which you'd expect them to pick up a few points from.

Ultimately, there should be no generalisation when it comes to analysing managerial sackings. Each one should be judged in the context of the circumstances at the club in question. Also, just because a team may replace an underperforming manager with a not much better or even a worse successor, that doesn't then mean that the fault lies with the sacking but rather the following appointment. For example, I don't think Steve Clarke was unjustly sacked given Albion's woeful 2013 form. However, they should only have made the sacking if they had the replacement lined up to take over straight away and perhaps should've targeted somebody who wasn't just sacked weeks earlier for leaving Betis bottom of La Liga.

For every club who hasn't benefitted from sacking their manager mid-season, I can point to clubs who have benefitted from doing so. Not to mention the examples of those who stuck with their manager and it costing them dearly.

[Rovers13]

Rovers are a case of all 3. They stayed with Kean, went down. They sacked ince in 2008 after a woeful start, and big Sam righted the ship. In '99, they sacked Hodgson, appointed Brian Kidd and went down. So it had more to do with the managers themselves than the decision to sack or stay with their manager.

[Isa]

Rovers are a case of all 3. They stayed with Kean, went down. They sacked ince in 2008 after a woeful start, and big Sam righted the ship. In '99, they sacked Hodgson, appointed Brian Kidd and went down. So it had more to do with the managers themselves than the decision to sack or stay with their manager.

Yes, the example (in both cases) at Rovers was among those that came to mind.

[TrentVilla]

They've been fined and no point deduction.

[chappy]

The bottom three as it is will suite me just fine thanks.

Sofa, so good

[Jimzk5]

They've been fined and no point deduction.

its all that was ever going to happen after the tevez case.

[useless]

They were fined back in December, I think the bigger story is that the League kept it quiet. They lost all the games he played in apart from against Southampton where they got 1 point and in that match they were losing until they took him off and they beat MK Dons in one of the cups but were losing whilst he was on the pitch.

[TrentVilla]

They've been fined and no point deduction.

its all that was ever going to happen after the tevez case.

Indeed, my thoughts exactly.

[VillaChris]

Surprised the other clubs kicked up little fuss over this although  I suppose it helps Sunderland themselves pointed their error to the league rather than trying to cover it up like West Ham did.

 

Whenever this happens in Europe Uefa always award the game as 3-0 to the other team. Now this is where it could get interesting. Say at the end of the season Fulham and Sunderland are level on points but Sunderland stay up on goal difference by two goals or something. To me Fulham would have a case of asking why they weren't awarded a 3 nil win due to Sunderland playing ineligible players against them.

[useless]

This article in the Telegraph says that Albion may consider action.