Sacking staff vs results - long term

The forum has been littered with threads in the past few months about sacking Mladen, Clarke, Flatman, the board...and anyone else for that matter. I just wonder whether the fans who are asking for staff to be sacked have reflected on whether previous sackings have had the desired impact?

In general, teams who have had mid-long term success (relative to their size) have kept managers for longer. Similarly, clubs that have stable backroom teams, including recruitment teams, DOF, CEO, Board, academy staff, physios etc generally do better. Why do you think that is?

In my opinion, teams that keep managers/staff for longer do better because fewer things are changing at any one time. That means that the teams can make incremental improvements over a period of time. Instead of selling players and getting a brand new squad (at great cost), those clubs are using multiple transfer windows to get incrementally better. Now the results might not always be immediate, I have a feeling our recent windows have been focused on signing players who are good value for money, have potential to be championship standard, and are on significantly lower wages (due to our year-on-year operational losses). But over time they move us closer to our medium term goals (getting to the Championship and staying there).

So why have we not kept our good managers for longer? Quite obviously, it's because those who do well are poached from higher up the food chain. For me, that was one of the main reasons to keep Clarke. He's done OK, albeit not always inspiring, he isn't fashionable - so unlikely to be poached from higher up, and he was working with a squad that is heavily in transition. I genuinely believe that a few better windows would have seen him shown incremental improvements.

Now he's gone, I think the club need to focus on a period of stability. We need to sign players and treat them well (too many players have slated us after leaving). Keeping good players for longer will make us better. We need to develop ourselves on and off the pitch. Hopefully the fanzone and other initiatives (like the boxing) will help us there. We need clear, stable progression from the academy into the first team - so someone who appreciates the opinions of those who work in it. And finally, we need a manager who will stick around. To me that points to an internal candidate - someone who is respected internally but unfashionable enough to not be poached.

In short, stop sacking everyone and we might find that stability (on and off the pitch) begins to create results. We've hired and fired for years - there has to come a time we question whether making the same decision again will help (in the medium term).

 

So do we need to sack Mladen for sacking managers that shouldn't be sacked

 

Well he's only sacked two so far!

I'd question whether Mladen intends to stay here in the long term (I suspect not). If that's the case, we'd be justified in sacking him and appointing someone with a long term affinity for the club, who recognises the value of our recruitment method, promotes youth, and knows how to deal with transfers. Again, could be an internal candidate.

 

You touch on the other issue we have. We have the issue of sacking lots of people, but we also have the flipside that lots of people leave of their own choice.

It's hard to get stability when only one is happening, just about impossible when both are. And all through the club too. Media, analysis, fitness, coaching, executive. Doesn't feel a happy floating vessel, the not so good ship, 'all's well at oakwell'.

 

Because they made good appointments rather than bad ones. I think it's as simple as that.

**** analogy time. People in long term relationships tend to be happier and more successful family wise. They get married and have kids together. Why? Because they met the right person and got with them. It doesn't mean that Sarah should stay with the workshy slob of a boyfriend she's got now just for the sake of continuity even though they constantly argue.