I could have added this to the Luton thread but with the meeting tonight coming up I want to get it noticed. Sorry it’s not happy clappy or unreasonably positive, but I think it sums up our situation. There are clubs now playing in the premiership that we once saw ourselves as above, or on a par with, with our ex players in their side. We sold these players for next to nowt in today’s football market and we are no better off. This club needs some continuity. We can’t keep a manager for longer than a season and we pray for a miracle that will get us up without a long term plan. If the business plan is to finish a season and then sell players and managers to just keep our head above water then I do not want to be part of it. I’m not saying Collins is not a good signing, nor am I saying that we won’t have a good crack at promotion this year, but I am asking the question, what happens after that? Where is our Thomas Frank and what will we do to keep him if we get him?
If our coach is good we sell him on. If he's bad we get rid. Either way it's a fresh start every time. And there's your continuity !
I'd like to know if Collins has a release clause in his contract. If there is one it suggests to me that the approach is the same i.e. we are fully prepared to 'sell' to the first club that meets the asking price. I've read many many times that managers wouldn't have come without one but my response to that is that if that's the case then we don't want them anyway. The alternative is to make the release clause so high that it becomes prohibitive to interested clubs but if a manager insists on a clause they will probably place a maximum figure on it anyway. For that reason I'd rather not include a clause at all. I know there's a risk that they resign and go anyway but psychologically it communicates that we expect them to honour their contract and it gives us the opportunity to decline any approach. For me it's the start of demonstrating we exist is to be successful as a football club, not simply to generate a return on investment. Sadly that's exactly the reason I don't think it'll happen.
I think the release clause is based on the head coach's annual salary. Any Club prepared to pay off the remaining term of the contract gets to talk to the head coach.
The question is, why did he want to leave? The popular view is that it's because he was a greedy money grabbing b*****d. My view is that the catalyst was that he was unhappy about the transfer / investment strategy and felt that he wouldn't be able to take the next step and achieve promotion this season. Losing to Wednesday was therefore decisive in making his mind up. What we appear to be seeing in this window is a short term weakening of the team in the hope that the punts on youth will produce a return on investment in the medium term. Despite the statements from the Board saying that putting a team on the pitch that can win games will be the priority, it doesn't seem that's the case based on incomings during this window to date. Managers / coaches won't be satisfied if they don't feel that everything at the club fully supports the team being successful. The window is still open of course and so it might all look very different in a couple of weeks time. But right now this is what the evidence suggests, to me at least.
It's still dependent on a clause being included into their contract though - right i.e. it's not automatic? Edit: Sorry @BreweryStander - I've realised your comment referred to the amount of the release clause? It'd be within our control to amend it though so that a club had to pay 2X / 3X the value of the rest of the contract though wouldn't it?
I don't know I'm not privy to the terms negotiated. I suspect once we acquire a reputation as a selling/sacking club then anyone taking a job at Oakwell will want terms inserting that covers their back.
It’s about being pro active not reactive, we offered him a better deal after the seasons end, we should have offered him the better deal & better assurances around the time we beat Wednesday, when the club was on a high, we all knew he was the best manager we have had at the club for a long time, and he could have taken us to the next level. But instead, as always we dilly dally about. Now look where we are.
I think it's more simple. Duff was offered far more money to manage a team in a higher division with recent experience of playing in the Premier League. Why wouldn't he go? Our only hope is persuading a head coach that their ambitions can at least partly be met and their position improved with Barnsley (I dare say Thomas Franck wasn't on his present salary in League One). But that would take far more investment and long-term vision than BFC seems to possess currently. So it's rinse and repeat, I'm afraid.
I don't have an issue with managers (or players) having release clauses. In many circumstances it is the only way to get them onboard. What I would like to see, for the sake of continuity, is some sort of sliding scale. i.e. year 1: £4M year 2: £2.5M year 3: £1M at least that might give us a chance that a managers might stay for at least a couple of years
That assumes we can attract them with such clauses inserted in their contracts. We're currently on our 16th manager in 17 years and that doesn't include caretakers. If you're on a £4 million release clause you'd want a salary commensurate with that value. Would we pay them that much or, in their eyes, compensate them to that amount if, given our managerial turnover, we decide to sack them?
How did Brentford keep Thomas Frank and why is it different for us? They worked to a plan and hired him to follow the plan. We had a great season last year, but if we knew we were potentially hiring a manager for one season we shouldn’t have done it. I know they tried, but not hard enough to keep him and no apparent long term plan. Brentford we’re selling players on the way, but for ten times what we were getting. They used the money to keep the manager and buy players of quality.
Couldn't agree more. The tactics/vision/priorities of the board are all wrong. Even if their goal is to make money rather than develop the club for the town their attitude is still all wrong. The current owners need to get round a table and discuss how they are actually going to try and strengthen the club in the mid and long-term (I.e after whatever happens this season). Continuing this strategy of selling and taking hopeful punts isn't working
Let’s not kid ourselves about Brentford, Thomas Frank and how they compare to Barnsley, because there is no comparison. Before their owner got involved, they had, and still have, spent more years in the third tier than anywhere else. Yes they’ve done good business getting top money for their players, but if you look at Watkins for example, they paid around £1.8 million for him. You could ask why we don’t pay that much, with a view to making a big profit. The reply is simple - Their owner has stuck over £100m into the club. A hell of a lot to a third division club getting gates of 5 or 6k (ditto Reading, Bournemouth & good old Wigan). No amount of ‘doing things the right way’ gets you into the Premier league from their starting point and turnover - it’s all about the money introduced. Thomas Frank won’t be on a few grand a week. He’ll be minted. He will more likely jump ship when the bubble bursts. when will the bubble burst? See Wigan and Readings plight. Brentford and Bournemouth are only an ownership change away from the same scenario.
