BFS - Bristol City (H)

[NewCorkSeth]

I understand. Its how I feel about Clement. 4 wins in 23 games. Even Stam managed more than that.

Edit.. might have been the same. My math is bad.

Edit no.2 oxf*rd. Ignore me. I cant add. Got the number of games wrong. Soz everyone.

[Once upon a time .]

Hi ,
As you know I’m new on here , I’ve submitted 2 notes over the past few days , I am obviously doing something wrong as neither have been shown . Can you please tell me what my mistakes have been ?

[Snowflake Royal]

I think the main issue with Clarke and Fulham was that at the time they were pretty much same level as us. Would have really just been a sideways move, and obvs one whilst we were doing well at the time

rightly or wrongly he was always on borrowed time after that unless we were being very successful. Soon as the opportunity came to bin him he was out of the door

This. At the time we were knocking on the door of automatic promotion, he'd been here about 6 months and he was just trying to jump ship for a bigger pay day. No one would have cared had it been a PL club.

It showed zero commitment or respect.

And at the time we certainly weren't known as a sacking club. Pardew chose to leave after several years Coppell didn't renew his contract after 5 years, Rodgers got a few months, McDermott was here for about 4 years and Adkins got about 2.

For Steve Clarke to talk to Fulham though it would have required the Reading board to approve an approach from them in which case what signal does that send to a manager of a club at the same level other than not really wanted. Or was it all a clandestine meeting somewhere in which case surely Reading would have complained to the FL about an illegal approach at the very least.

My understanding is he pushed to talk to them and we'd learnt there's no point refusing because they'll do it clandestinely and there's nothing we can really do about it.

We may also have had no contractual basis to refuse.

[muirinho]

Yeah, he went to speak with them, then decided that actually Reading were better. But, once you've done that, you've marked your cards as being likely to leave when a better offer does turn up - you're not staying because you have a project you believe in, you're staying because something better hasn't come along.

Why should football managers be 'loyal' to their club? This is a role that in many cases will see them sacked on a whim (although not in Clarke's case), and yet we demand they commit to the 'Reading project'?

Of course he would leave if a better offer came along. Why on earth wouldn't he?

But that's my point - manager of a football club is not a normal job. In a normal job, if you get sacked, that's it. As a football manager, you get sacked, you get paid for the rest of your contract. Getting "sacked on a whim" is neither here nor there, you're guaranteed your 2 years pay, regardless of whether you have to work for it. So the unwritten part of the contract is that in return for paying you for the full contract even if you're useless, club owners expect you to commit for the full contract, as long as they want you.

Nobody comes out and puts it like that, but it's true nonetheless.

Clarke broke the unwritten contract by pushing to see another club. As others have said, if he'd been successful it would have been overlooked, and eventually forgotten about. But he wasn't.

It's also true of footballers. they get paid for the full length of their contract, even if they're useless. As a result they're expected to be loyal for the full length of that contract, unless they're sold.

[Sanguine]

Yeah, he went to speak with them, then decided that actually Reading were better. But, once you've done that, you've marked your cards as being likely to leave when a better offer does turn up - you're not staying because you have a project you believe in, you're staying because something better hasn't come along.

Why should football managers be 'loyal' to their club? This is a role that in many cases will see them sacked on a whim (although not in Clarke's case), and yet we demand they commit to the 'Reading project'?

Of course he would leave if a better offer came along. Why on earth wouldn't he?

But that's my point - manager of a football club is not a normal job. In a normal job, if you get sacked, that's it. As a football manager, you get sacked, you get paid for the rest of your contract. Getting "sacked on a whim" is neither here nor there, you're guaranteed your 2 years pay, regardless of whether you have to work for it. So the unwritten part of the contract is that in return for paying you for the full contract even if you're useless, club owners expect you to commit for the full contract, as long as they want you.

Nobody comes out and puts it like that, but it's true nonetheless.

Clarke broke the unwritten contract by pushing to see another club. As others have said, if he'd been successful it would have been overlooked, and eventually forgotten about. But he wasn't.

It's also true of footballers. they get paid for the full length of their contract, even if they're useless. As a result they're expected to be loyal for the full length of that contract, unless they're sold.

Just not how I see it. You don't buy loyalty, you earn it and reciprocate it. You want managers to kiss the badge and thump the chest and love the club, but reduce the club's role to a mere provider of contract and cash. Not for me.

[Nameless]

Why should football managers be 'loyal' to their club? This is a role that in many cases will see them sacked on a whim (although not in Clarke's case), and yet we demand they commit to the 'Reading project'?

Of course he would leave if a better offer came along. Why on earth wouldn't he?

But that's my point - manager of a football club is not a normal job. In a normal job, if you get sacked, that's it. As a football manager, you get sacked, you get paid for the rest of your contract. Getting "sacked on a whim" is neither here nor there, you're guaranteed your 2 years pay, regardless of whether you have to work for it. So the unwritten part of the contract is that in return for paying you for the full contract even if you're useless, club owners expect you to commit for the full contract, as long as they want you.

Nobody comes out and puts it like that, but it's true nonetheless.

Clarke broke the unwritten contract by pushing to see another club. As others have said, if he'd been successful it would have been overlooked, and eventually forgotten about. But he wasn't.

It's also true of footballers. they get paid for the full length of their contract, even if they're useless. As a result they're expected to be loyal for the full length of that contract, unless they're sold.

Just not how I see it. You don't buy loyalty, you earn it and reciprocate it. You want managers to kiss the badge and thump the chest and love the club, but reduce the club's role to a mere provider of contract and cash. Not for me.

In that case you simply don’t understand the difference between the fixed termmanagerial contract and a ‘normal’ job.
As has been pointed out managers cannot lose. They get paid for the duration of their contract however badly they perform. That is the loyalty they get - a huge amount of money.
On the other hand managers can essentially walk out on a contract because they make it impossible for a club to insist they honour it.
When was the last time a manager came out and said ‘I signed a two year contract and despite being wanted by Barcelona and Chelsea I intend to carry on doing my best here at Wycombe for the duration of that contract’

[Sanguine]

I understand the difference perfectly, but thanks for your concern. My view is that money (i.e. the contract) buys day to day commitment to the role. If you can evidence that Clarke wasn't giving 100% to training, to motivating the players, to his analysis sessions with coaches and the data teams etc, was disinterested during games, or whatever, then I'll change my view. Going to speak to another club is not such evidence.

[Nameless]

I understand the difference perfectly, but thanks for your concern. My view is that money (i.e. the contract) buys day to day commitment to the role. If you can evidence that Clarke wasn't giving 100% to training, to motivating the players, to his analysis sessions with coaches and the data teams etc, was disinterested during games, or whatever, then I'll change my view. Going to speak to another club is not such evidence.

Going to speak to another employer is probably the clearest evidence you could have that someone is not 100% committed to their job !

[Sanguine]

I understand the difference perfectly, but thanks for your concern. My view is that money (i.e. the contract) buys day to day commitment to the role. If you can evidence that Clarke wasn't giving 100% to training, to motivating the players, to his analysis sessions with coaches and the data teams etc, was disinterested during games, or whatever, then I'll change my view. Going to speak to another club is not such evidence.

Going to speak to another employer is probably the clearest evidence you could have that someone is not 100% committed to their job !

I disagree. I'm almost constantly 'networking' with recruitment agents and speaking to other companies. And every morning I set up for work and (apart from the odd minute or ten spent on here, of course) give my absolutely best to the role. You are conflating 'commitment' with a compete lack of aspiration.

[Nameless]

I understand the difference perfectly, but thanks for your concern. My view is that money (i.e. the contract) buys day to day commitment to the role. If you can evidence that Clarke wasn't giving 100% to training, to motivating the players, to his analysis sessions with coaches and the data teams etc, was disinterested during games, or whatever, then I'll change my view. Going to speak to another club is not such evidence.

Going to speak to another employer is probably the clearest evidence you could have that someone is not 100% committed to their job !

I disagree. I'm almost constantly 'networking' with recruitment agents and speaking to other companies. And every morning I set up for work and (apart from the odd minute or ten spent on here, of course) give my absolutely best to the role. You are conflating 'commitment' with a compete lack of aspiration.

[Nameless]

I understand the difference perfectly, but thanks for your concern. My view is that money (i.e. the contract) buys day to day commitment to the role. If you can evidence that Clarke wasn't giving 100% to training, to motivating the players, to his analysis sessions with coaches and the data teams etc, was disinterested during games, or whatever, then I'll change my view. Going to speak to another club is not such evidence.

Going to speak to another employer is probably the clearest evidence you could have that someone is not 100% committed to their job !

I disagree. I'm almost constantly 'networking' with recruitment agents and speaking to other companies. And every morning I set up for work and (apart from the odd minute or ten spent on here, of course) give my absolutely best to the role. You are conflating 'commitment' with a compete lack of aspiration.

I’m not confusing anything.
Clarke was not ‘networking’, he went for an interview for a specific vacancy.
You are comparing utterly different things and not putting any kind of convincing case together !
When you commit to a highly paid fixed term contract you really shouldn’t be actively looking to break it. When your contract is nearly up, or if you are expecting it to be terminated early then looking for your next contract is reasonable.

[Sanguine]

Going to speak to another employer is probably the clearest evidence you could have that someone is not 100% committed to their job !

I disagree. I'm almost constantly 'networking' with recruitment agents and speaking to other companies. And every morning I set up for work and (apart from the odd minute or ten spent on here, of course) give my absolutely best to the role. You are conflating 'commitment' with a compete lack of aspiration.

I’m not confusing anything.
Clarke was not ‘networking’, he went for an interview for a specific vacancy.
You are comparing utterly different things and not putting any kind of convincing case together !
When you commit to a highly paid fixed term contract you really shouldn’t be actively looking to break it. When your contract is nearly up, or if you are expecting it to be terminated early then looking for your next contract is reasonable.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm fully aware that you'll continue to detest Clarke. I'm of course free to point out that its the particularly infantile nature of football 'support' that fans hate managers for being aspirational, whilst at the same time demanding they be sacked for having the temerity to lose a few games. And to your specific point, I've taken plenty of interviews for other roles whilst remaining 100% committed to my day to day job.

[Nameless]

I disagree. I'm almost constantly 'networking' with recruitment agents and speaking to other companies. And every morning I set up for work and (apart from the odd minute or ten spent on here, of course) give my absolutely best to the role. You are conflating 'commitment' with a compete lack of aspiration.

I’m not confusing anything.
Clarke was not ‘networking’, he went for an interview for a specific vacancy.
You are comparing utterly different things and not putting any kind of convincing case together !
When you commit to a highly paid fixed term contract you really shouldn’t be actively looking to break it. When your contract is nearly up, or if you are expecting it to be terminated early then looking for your next contract is reasonable.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm fully aware that you'll continue to detest Clarke. I'm of course free to point out that its the particularly infantile nature of football 'support' that fans hate managers for being aspirational, whilst at the same time demanding they be sacked for having the temerity to lose a few games. And to your specific point, I've taken plenty of interviews for other roles whilst remaining 100% committed to my day to day job.

How can you be ‘aware’ of stuff you’ve simply made up ?
I don’t detest Clarke, not made any comment to even suggest that.
He was clearly wrong in what he did and made his position untenable. His ‘aspiration’ should have been focused on the performances at the club, not moving sideways to a new job mid contract.
And again, your comparing your personal job to a football manager is a hugely false comparison, so let’s bin that one.

[Sanguine]

'Be our manager. We own you, until we decide that you're not wanted.'

[Nameless]

'Be our manager. We own you, until we decide that you're not wanted.'

Be our manager, have lots of money, but feel free to just disappear if you get fed up, or find it a bit tough, or think the grass looks greener elsewhere

Why are you so keen on making it a one sided deal ?
You want the manager to have it all and the club to have nothing, which can’t be right.

[muirinho]

'Be our manager. We own you, until we decide that you're not wanted.'

Slight correction "Be our manager. We own you and will pay you for <insert length of contract>. If we decide we don't want to use you, we will still pay you, but we no longer own you"

I don't know why you find this so strange. Yes, it's not like managing a shop, or a factory, or a call-centre. That's because it's not a shop, a factory, or a call-centre.

[Sanguine]

'Be our manager. We own you, until we decide that you're not wanted.'

Be our manager, have lots of money, but feel free to just disappear if you get fed up, or find it a bit tough, or think the grass looks greener elsewhere

Why are you so keen on making it a one sided deal ?
You want the manager to have it all and the club to have nothing, which can’t be right.

I'm keen for no individual to be tied to the club for any longer than they want to be, and to be free to explore other opportunities. Like in the real world, and like in the real world where I sign a fixed term contract, too.

[Sanguine]

'Be our manager. We own you, until we decide that you're not wanted.'

Slight correction "Be our manager. We own you and will pay you for <insert length of contract>. If we decide we don't want to use you, we will still pay you, but we no longer own you"

I don't know why you find this so strange. Yes, it's not like managing a shop, or a factory, or a call-centre. That's because it's not a shop, a factory, or a call-centre.

I don't agree with the concept of employer ownership of employee. Judge an employee on the work that they do. My view is that a football manager's contract doesn't buy a lack of interest or desire in other roles. It's as simple as that. Everyone is of course free to disagree. I'll continue to find the treatment of Clarke a little silly.

[Nameless]

'Be our manager. We own you, until we decide that you're not wanted.'

Be our manager, have lots of money, but feel free to just disappear if you get fed up, or find it a bit tough, or think the grass looks greener elsewhere

Why are you so keen on making it a one sided deal ?
You want the manager to have it all and the club to have nothing, which can’t be right.

I'm keen for no individual to be tied to the club for any longer than they want to be, and to be free to explore other opportunities. Like in the real world, and like in the real world where I sign a fixed term contract, too.

You’d apply this to players as well ?

[Sanguine]

Be our manager, have lots of money, but feel free to just disappear if you get fed up, or find it a bit tough, or think the grass looks greener elsewhere

Why are you so keen on making it a one sided deal ?
You want the manager to have it all and the club to have nothing, which can’t be right.

I'm keen for no individual to be tied to the club for any longer than they want to be, and to be free to explore other opportunities. Like in the real world, and like in the real world where I sign a fixed term contract, too.

You’d apply this to players as well ?

Yep. And it already applies to players, doesn't it. We just don't whine about it as it isn't done so explicitly. If a player wants out, their agent goes to work behind the scenes. When Clarke and Fulham happened I actually liked that he was plain and up front about it.