Should managers, like players, only be allowed to move during the transfer window?

[Ric]

Pretty much as the title suggests.

Me? I can see the the justification, after all players are restricted in their movement, and you could argue that a new manager will have more of an impact than a single player.

There are issues, of course, if you want to remove a player you can drop them to training with the youths as you'll have other players to replace them. You really don't have that option regarding managers. That said, there are a pool of out of contract players that can be brought in, so it makes sense that's also what would happen if your club sacked a manager mid season and weren't able to poach a manager from another club.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

I've thought this for a while. Could be some laugh. 

Clubs can always bump up a youth coach or get an experienced player to take over and managers can enjoy gardening leave until the January transfer window. 

[AJF]

I've voted no, mainly based on the second point you touched on.

Players have competition in the squad for their places and if they are not performing they can be dropped and someone else takes their place in the team. That's not realistically feasible with a manager and would force clubs to persevere with a manager without being able to replace them (until a transfer window).

[Ric]

8 minutes ago, AJF said:

That's not realistically feasible with a manager and would force clubs to persevere with a manager without being able to replace them (until a transfer window).

Happy to accept your No vote, but I'm not sure that justification holds up, they aren't forced to do anything, they can sack them and bring in a manager not under contract. We've seen from both Aberdeen and Dundee that there are a plethora of them about.

It is true you are unlikely to have a "reserve manager" waiting to step up (although we've seen numerous assistants take over caretaker roles and push for the job themselves, it's not always the case that the manager and assistant are one homogenous entity).

9 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

I've thought this for a while. Could be some laugh.

It could potentially give transfer windows a touch of mayhem, which would definitely be fun. Personally I think it would offer some stability to the post of manager, clubs have to abide by their decisions and so you'd expect them to see managers as an investment rather than a commodity that can be dispensed with at any time.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Ric

[btb]

No

• Players are never sacked solely abruptly for poor performance.
• Would you trust a manager who had signed a pre-contract withh another club to be 100% focussed on yours, even if that just meant looking for other jobs?
• The scope for confusion re the above point woud be immense especially if a chain was established..

Edited to clarify for @Ric

 

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by btb

[craigkillie]

Players are allowed to move between windows, banning them from doing so would be a restriction of trade. They simply aren't allowed to be registered to play until the next window opens. I'm not sure the concept of registration exists for managers.

[Ric]

Just now, craigkillie said:

Players are allowed to move between windows, banning them from doing so would be a restriction of trade. They simply aren't allowed to be registered to play until the next window opens. I'm not sure the concept of registration exists for managers.

Yeah, that is the stumbling block, employment law. As you rightly say, it's a restriction put in place by the league not by employment law and it's done is such a way that it doesn't contradict that law. I am going to go on the presumption there is nothing to stop that being expanded to managers, essentially they are just employees working for a company that abides by the rules of the governing organisation (SFA?/FIFA?). Why should similar restrictions not exist?

I could go on some nationalist rant about how employment law is a reserved power and even if Scotland wanted to amend it, they couldn't, but for now I'll just mention that is a problem if Scotland wanted to do this alone.

 

[AJF]

7 minutes ago, Ric said:

Happy to accept your No vote, but I'm not sure that justification holds up, they aren't forced to do anything, they can sack them and bring in a manager not under contract. We've seen from both Aberdeen and Dundee that there are a plethora of them about.

It is true you are unlikely to have a "reserve manager" waiting to step up (although we've seen numerous assistants take over caretaker roles and push for the job themselves, it's not always the case that the manager and assistant are one homogenous entity).

It could potentially give transfer windows a touch of mayhem, which would definitely be fun. Personally I think it would offer some stability to the post of manager, clubs have to abide by their decisions and so you'd expect them to see managers as an investment rather than a commodity that can be dispensed with at any time.

But you are restricted to managers out of contract, and generally, they are out of contract for a reason. You will be unlikely able to bring in your preferred candidate and it will no doubt lead to an even larger manager merry-go-round where they are signed for a couple of months at a time until they club can get someone they actually want. Why would that be appealing to any manager or club?

[Ric]

 

6 minutes ago, btb said:

No

• Players are never sacked solely for poor performance.
• Would you trust a manager who had signed a pre-contract withh another club to be 100% focussed on yours, even if that just meant looking for other jobs?
• The scope for confusion re the above point woud be immense.

Going to be honest I don't agree with any of that.

- Players are sacked all the time for poor performance, the only difference is they get dropped to the youths then sold in the next window. It's a de facto sacking.

- That's an argument against transfer windows, not managers in transfer windows. It's irrelevant whether it's your manager, goalkeeper or star striker that has signed a PCA.

- I don't know why you think there would be confusion, is there confusion now when a player signs a PCA? If so, again, that's an argument against the window, not specifically managers.

 

[CambieBud]

No. Two words………..Alan Stubbs

[Ric]

Just now, AJF said:

But you are restricted to managers out of contract, and generally, they are out of contract for a reason. You will be unlikely able to bring in your preferred candidate and it will no doubt lead to an even larger manager merry-go-round where they are signed for a couple of months at a time until they club can get someone they actually want. Why would that be appealing to any manager or club?

What's the difference between this and a player? If your striker is rotten and you want a replacement, you need to find a free agent. If your manager is rotten and you want a replacement, you need to find a free agent.

 

[AJF]

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

What's the difference between this and a player? If your striker is rotten and you want a replacement, you need to find a free agent. If your manager is rotten and you want a replacement, you need to find a free agent.

 

It's different because clubs have the ability to sign multiple strikers and build a squad that is theoretically capable of handling situations where one of them is out of form. You can't sign multiple managers with the purpose of replacing one if they aren't doing well.

A squad of players is vastly different to the sole position of a manager.

Edited February 17, 2022 by AJF

[Ric]

1 minute ago, AJF said:

It's different because clubs have the ability to sign multiple strikers and build a squad that is theoretically capable of handling situations where one of them is out of form. You can't sign multiple managers with the purpose of replacing one if they aren't doing well.

A squad of players is vastly different to the sole position of a manager.

..and yet, many many clubs appoint the assistant or the youth team manager, or even make one of the team a player/manager.

[2426255]

I haven't given it a great deal of thought, but instinctively it seems unfair to apply a set of restrictions to players and not to managers so I voted Yes. It's a good topic which I hadn't really considered before.   

[scottsdad]

Alternatively just get rid of the transfer window concept. Free for all, year round. 

Just like those crazy days before 2002

[AJF]

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

..and yet, many many clubs appoint the assistant or the youth team manager, or even make one of the team a player/manager.

How often does this happen in comparison to a club appointing another, preferred candidate? There is a reason it is not common. Additionally, they are almost always "interim" appointments. Which backs up my theory around the manager merry-go-round.

Edited February 17, 2022 by AJF

[vikingTON]

33 minutes ago, Ric said:

That said, there are a pool of out of contract players that can be brought in, so it makes sense that's also what would happen if your club sacked a manager mid season and weren't able to poach a manager from another club.

^^^ arse collapsing at Goodwin's imminent departure

[invergowrie arab]

8 minutes ago, Ric said:

Yeah, that is the stumbling block, employment law. As you rightly say, it's a restriction put in place by the league not by employment law and it's done is such a way that it doesn't contradict that law. I am going to go on the presumption there is nothing to stop that being expanded to managers, essentially they are just employees working for a company that abides by the rules of the governing organisation (SFA?/FIFA?). Why should similar restrictions not exist?

I could go on some nationalist rant about how employment law is a reserved power and even if Scotland wanted to amend it, they couldn't, but for now I'll just mention that is a problem if Scotland wanted to do this alone.

 

It's nothing to do with employment law it's the registration issue.

Without registration you could sack your manager but employ a new assistant groundsman and let them take training and sit in the dugout.

You could bring in a rule that league managers had to be registered but you would further have to be extremely specific on what that registration allowed.

Registering players is easy. Only a registered player can play in a match.

Defining a manger is harder. You could for example say only the registered manager and a registered assistant are allowed in the technical area. How do you decide who gets to take training etc ?

[Ric]

Just now, scottsdad said:

Alternatively just get rid of the transfer window concept. Free for all, year round. 

Just like those crazy days before 2002

While it's far from perfect, the sheer gulf in the finances throughout this league suggests it's necessary.

Aberdeen, Hibs and/or another team in trouble, without the window they could throw money at the problem within the final month of the league and have a huge advantage over their rivals with less finances/resources.

 

[Ric]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

^^^ arse collapsing at Goodwin's imminent departure

I was wondering who would make the joke. For clarity, I'll point you towards the first line in this post..

2 minutes ago, AJF said:

How often does this happen in comparison to a club appointing another, preferred candidate?

It's all fine and well saying "how often does this happen", until you realise your club did literally this with Murty.