Next Villa manager

[Richard E]

Why would a manager agree to come in on the basis that if he successfully achieves his objective he'll be sacked?

[Richard E]

Fcuk me folks, let's get a bit of perspective here. We need to focus on winning more than we lose before anything else. That in itself is massive progress.

Winning at all would be a start.

[PaulWinch again]

Why would a manager agree to come in on the basis that if he successfully achieves his objective he'll be sacked?

Well I imagine you don't position it like that.

[Richard E]

Why would a manager agree to come in on the basis that if he successfully achieves his objective he'll be sacked?

Well I imagine you don't position it like that.

So you'd have to give him a longer contract than you wanted him to have, and then pay him over the odds to leave. Just strikes me as a very odd strategy.

[Phil from the upper holte]

All this debate and it'll be Clarke

[PaulWinch again]

Why would a manager agree to come in on the basis that if he successfully achieves his objective he'll be sacked?

Well I imagine you don't position it like that.

So you'd have to give him a longer contract than you wanted him to have, and then pay him over the odds to leave. Just strikes me as a very odd strategy.

Or you give him a one and a half year or two year deal so it's easy to reassess.

[olaftab]

Fcuk me folks, let's get a bit of perspective here. We need to focus on winning more than we lose before anything else. That in itself is massive progress.

So the answer is appoint a manager  with 36% win ratio?

[sickbeggar]

i hope mr. potato head isn't reading this.

[olaftab]

Why would a manager agree to come in on the basis that if he successfully achieves his objective he'll be sacked?

So it's not going to be on that basis I assume? Any manager would sign a normal 3 year deal and we have to be prepared to pay off remaining term if we sack him.

[PeterWithesShin]

Fcuk me folks, let's get a bit of perspective here. We need to focus on winning more than we lose before anything else. That in itself is massive progress.

So the answer is appoint a manager  with 36% win ratio?

Playing the old devil's advocate role.

Or we hire a manager that won 24 league games last season. Which is the same amount as we've won in the last 125 games.

[paul_e]

Fcuk me folks, let's get a bit of perspective here. We need to focus on winning more than we lose before anything else. That in itself is massive progress.

this is the point though, why does shit out of date hoofball = wins but decent football built on a plan for how to make the club 'successful' = risk?

[PaulWinch again]

I'm not sure Bruce's football is that bad is it? It's not like Hull won all their games 1-0 last year.

[wittonwarrior]

It's different for the manager though. If Bruce gets us up he can easily be replaced and we'll be in a much better position to get someone we all want.

Paul, we need to get back up there first.  Just hope Bruce is given some slack when he comes in.  He has an almighty job in my eyes in every aspect. 

[PeterWithesShin]

Dyche = Exciting. Bruce = Boring.

Last season Burnley scored 72 and conceded 35. Hull scored 69 and conceded 35.

[PaulWinch again]

It's different for the manager though. If Bruce gets us up he can easily be replaced and we'll be in a much better position to get someone we all want.

Paul, we need to get back up there first.  Just hope Bruce is given some slack when he comes in.  He has an almighty job in my eyes in every aspect. 

I know and that's what I'm saying. Lot's of people are saying he won't cut it in top flight etc and frankly that is completely irrelevant until we actually get there.