Comments on: Would You Rather Your Club Had a Billionaire Owner or a Good Manager?

By: JP

JP — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:33:32 +0000

HI Daryl,

After past few years of observation and being full agent spectator, I would said both billionaire owner and good manager are important in their different aspect.

A “good” manager can be determined as a person who able to manage his team well,team player problems solving,motivation etc and finally able to “direct” his kick-off players well to be attrative “actor” ! It’s no arguement that majority of the games are manipulated !!

Most of the audience and spectators already knew about this fact! They won’t quit watching the game mostly for 2 reasons:
1. They are betting on the game; they want a good game
2. If they’re not bet, they want a good game most.
But spectators would definately quit if the game was “directed” in the way that “too ugly” or fake obviously ! Even they have put on money for that game, once they found too obviously fake, “AHSS…no need to watch la, too ugly …” they rather check on their instant messager (SMS) goal alert for rapid growth of high efficiency message available at-one-click nowaday!
These are the point why a FC need a good manager.
He is super maniard ~ and golden award winning Director ! …..(to be continued in part II)

By: frem

frem — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 05:18:30 +0000

well a good manager can only get you so far. Everton are at their peak since many of the team are getting older and finding replacements is getting hard.
Chelsea got into the CL before roman took over and that was partly because ranieri did a decent job putting together a decent team, they spent quite a bit and had huge debt and thats why roman was able to take over.
When roman came he gave ranieri a shot at getting either CL or PL(ranieri nearly got there but like grant he was a nearly man). Roman then got mourinho who had just won the CL with porto, gave him an unlimited transfer budget and asked for a winning side. Drogba, makelele, essien, carvalho, cech, ferriera and robben all came in. And over two years he changed chelsea from a decent team like everton to a winning team, mourinho bought players that won not just fancy pants attackers with no backbone(real madrid). Mourinho also bought alot of wasteful players like bhoulahrouz who isnt that bad but not CL level. The problem is roman had other idea’s he needed to make chelsea a name so sheva and ballack came in, ballack was able to cement a spot but sheva was never the same at the faster paced league. Romans advisers also are not bad scouts they are the ones getting all the youngsters and bought in alex, kalou, mikel and plenty of youth players.
ManCity is slightly different, they are kind of the dubai of PL now, they have more money then sense and want to make ManCity known and admired as quickly as possible. Expect many players to come in that hughes doesnt want, i think what will happen is the abidabi group will choose the forwards and AM’s while hughes needs to get the defenders.

By: mele419

mele419 — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:57:30 +0000

Good manager.
A good manager can work with a small budget, make smart transactions and coach good football.

By: Ak

Ak — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:38:35 +0000

Not much of a choice in theory: the billionaire. Having a good manager will only take you so far, unfortunately. Although, I suppose it all depends on how stupid that billionaire is (does Mike Ashley fully comprehend the consequences of sacking Keegan? He’d need a whole SAS regiment armed with tanks and attack helicopters as bodyguards).

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:29:57 +0000

Daryl, it’s not just the end of the manager, it’s the end of the idea of expertise in football. Notice how this is happening on both ends of the spectrum: regular fans are leaving their clubs to form their own tiny alternatives (FCUM) or investing in myfc-like schemes to buy their own clubs and pick the players themselves on the internet; owners are wanting to pick their own players and overrule the manager’s tactics (Abramovich). On both sides you see complete disregard for the old-fashioned notion of the professional football man who knows what he’s doing.

Give me David Moyes or Arsene Wenger any day. They may not win trophies every year, but their clubs seldom go through the ridiculous high-profile flameouts that come along with billionaire owners. Shinawatra was supposed to have deep pockets, too, and he was in the process of sinking the club before the Abu Dhabi group bailed him out.

By: Abby

Abby — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:08:27 +0000

And the success train derailed when the manager was undermined…

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:49:35 +0000

But you could also argue that they won the title under Jose Mourinho (a great manager) and not under Ranieri or Grant (good managers) which is a good argument for good managers.

By: McTalian

McTalian — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:22:15 +0000

Chelsea pre-Abramovich (oodles of decades): 1955 title. Few FA Cups. Lots of back-slapping for nice football.

Chelsea with Abramovich (few years): Consecutive titles. CL contender every year. FA Cups.

Kinda makes the argument for billionaires over brilliant managers.

By: j

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:23:56 +0000

Rob – I have to agree with you but also think most have short memories, don’t recall the pre 1992 era and certainly don’t support the game on the regional level.

This is a massive business now and unfortunately support in lower leagues isn’t what it should be. There is a sad irony that we have Millwall, Leicester City and Leeds, amongst other great clubs in League One and it is barely discussed. To me one of the big stories of Football (in England right now), on the pitch, is the return of Leicester but how many will hear?

This also relates to Man City as I didn’t hear a signal comment (other than my own) of how this will impact Ched Evans and Daniel Sturridge. Both of them are superb talents who will flourish on the international scene but effectively must plan on their exits now.

Talk with you soon -

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:57:53 +0000

They don’t need a defender with Richard Dunne back there!

Seriously though, the Prem seems to have got confused as to how to grow – it’s forcing a continental style, but alot of the time they don’t know how to work it. But it can work.

At my club, lowly Bristol Rovers, we have this Director of Football/Manager combination in Lennie Lawrence and Paul Trollope, and since its been implemented, the club has grown, from bottom division relegation fodder, to FA Cup heroes last season. Because Lawerence is the experience that Trollope needs behind him, and they clearly get on, and both have an idea of where to take the club forward.

At Newcastle, its just madness. Wise and Keegan clearly do not get on, cannot work together, and have different ideas of where to take the club. And Keegan, having been at Newcastle under Sir John Hall probably anticipated a Good Old Days syndrome when he went back, but the structure is now different.

I think its going to vary from club to club, but I reckon you can have a good manager and money, they’ll have to co-exist, or you’ll end up with every club being like Real Madrid.