Is this the end for Madejski?

[Ian Royal]

Whether, or not, Sir John made those comments in the right place, he said what he practiced throughout his time at Reading FC. He always gave the manager, whoever it was, time to build their own team, not sacking them after six months. If Jaap is a success he will be poached by a Premier League club who have sacked their own manager. If he is not a success (and probably won't be, unless he is allowed to build his own team), these owners will start to look around for a replacement. Since SJM became the owner 25 years or so ago, our club has spent less time in the lower two divisions than they spent out of them during the previous 100 years. That is a fact, that seems to have escaped many of the supporters that have only seen Reading play at the Mad. Stad. I remember, when he took over a near bankrupted club, and said he wanted to take the club to the top tier of English football, many, including me, laughed and said "he's in dreamland". After fulfilling that ambition and finding how much it cost to keep us there at the time his wealth dwindled, he became disillusioned with the way football had changed over the years, is it surprising that he decided to sell up? When you are moaning about SJM just remember him and Roger Smee, If it wasn't for those two people, this club would not be in exsistence.

Except Rodgers.

[Ian Royal]

If it was owed to him then he'd have been daft calling it in and destroying his own club !
I think he did it because it meant they had a chance of getting back on an even footing wrt ffp.
In the same way Chelsea have benefitted from having an owner with so much money that he could not care about getting it back, so QPR have benefitted from spending huge sums they didn't have and then just making the debt disappear.
It's not fair on other clubs, but on the other hand if a rich guy wants to blow his fortune on a football club then why not...

Yeah that's what I meant, if he didn't write it off they fell foul of ffp and got in real trouble. Not that that seems to have amounted to anything for anyone (including them) anyway.

[tidus_mi2]

Whether, or not, Sir John made those comments in the right place, he said what he practiced throughout his time at Reading FC. He always gave the manager, whoever it was, time to build their own team, not sacking them after six months.

Brendan Rodgers would disagree

[Nameless]

Genuine question.
How long should a club give a manager before sacking him ?
Should there be an unbreakable 2 year contract ?
If a manager is clearly not up to the job, players becoming demoralised, results appalling should he keep his job if he has been in it less than a year ?
If clubs must keep managers for 2 years does it mean managers can't quit if they want to move clubs ?
I sympathise with the belief that sometimes managers are sacked too soon and (like Ferguson, like Pardew, like Coppell) sticking with them pays dividends. But I suspect more struggling managers would just struggle more given another 12 months in the job.
So is there an actual practical solution or is the cry that 'he needed more time' just one of the hollow cliches that don't bear any examination ?

[RoyalBlue]

To answer the title of the thread; now that Howe (whatever his motives) has sided very firmly with his new employers (and that is what any sensible person in that position would do), I would think the end is nigh for Madejski.

[The Royal Forester]

Ian and Tidus, yes, you are right about Rodgers, I somehow forgot about him! Is there anyone else I forgot though? How many managers did SJM have during his ownership? Only one in twenty five years not being given enough time to build a team is a lot better than three in two years, isn't it?

[Nameless]

Burns had 18 months. Is that long enough ?
Bullivant had less than a year

So not every Madejski manager got a testimonial.....

[Ian Royal]

Genuine question.
How long should a club give a manager before sacking him ?
Should there be an unbreakable 2 year contract ?
If a manager is clearly not up to the job, players becoming demoralised, results appalling should he keep his job if he has been in it less than a year ?
If clubs must keep managers for 2 years does it mean managers can't quit if they want to move clubs ?
I sympathise with the belief that sometimes managers are sacked too soon and (like Ferguson, like Pardew, like Coppell) sticking with them pays dividends. But I suspect more struggling managers would just struggle more given another 12 months in the job.
So is there an actual practical solution or is the cry that 'he needed more time' just one of the hollow cliches that don't bear any examination ?

Hired pre August:
Safe until 1 December and from then on:
If expectations are top third, sacked if in bottom third and not moving upwards any time soon.
If expectations are mid-table, sacked if in bottom 5/6 if no sign of improvement.
if expectations are survival, sacked if adrift in the bottom two with no sign of improvement.

Hired during the season, post November:
Safe until 1 December next season as per above, unless relegated in which case review

Special circumstances of sacking for prolonged runs of terrible form - say 6+ defeats in a row, winless in 10.

Basically have patience and give someone a chance to turn things around unless there is a clear and imminent threat to the club. Or other issues happen, like the manager undermines their position making it untenable.

[Forbury Lion]

Whether, or not, Sir John made those comments in the right place, he said what he practiced throughout his time at Reading FC. He always gave the manager, whoever it was, time to build their own team, not sacking them after six months. If Jaap is a success he will be poached by a Premier League club who have sacked their own manager. If he is not a success (and probably won't be, unless he is allowed to build his own team), these owners will start to look around for a replacement. Since SJM became the owner 25 years or so ago, our club has spent less time in the lower two divisions than they spent out of them during the previous 100 years. That is a fact, that seems to have escaped many of the supporters that have only seen Reading play at the Mad. Stad. I remember, when he took over a near bankrupted club, and said he wanted to take the club to the top tier of English football, many, including me, laughed and said "he's in dreamland". After fulfilling that ambition and finding how much it cost to keep us there at the time his wealth dwindled, he became disillusioned with the way football had changed over the years, is it surprising that he decided to sell up? When you are moaning about SJM just remember him and Roger Smee, If it wasn't for those two people, this club would not be in exsistence.

Except Rodgers.

To be fair, SJM was reluctant to sack Rogers and gave him a glowing send off but knew he had to take action as we were heading for relegation. That wasn't the case with McDermot.

[Uke]

Whether, or not, Sir John made those comments in the right place, he said what he practiced throughout his time at Reading FC. He always gave the manager, whoever it was, time to build their own team, not sacking them after six months. If Jaap is a success he will be poached by a Premier League club who have sacked their own manager. If he is not a success (and probably won't be, unless he is allowed to build his own team), these owners will start to look around for a replacement. Since SJM became the owner 25 years or so ago, our club has spent less time in the lower two divisions than they spent out of them during the previous 100 years. That is a fact, that seems to have escaped many of the supporters that have only seen Reading play at the Mad. Stad. I remember, when he took over a near bankrupted club, and said he wanted to take the club to the top tier of English football, many, including me, laughed and said "he's in dreamland". After fulfilling that ambition and finding how much it cost to keep us there at the time his wealth dwindled, he became disillusioned with the way football had changed over the years, is it surprising that he decided to sell up? When you are moaning about SJM just remember him and Roger Smee, If it wasn't for those two people, this club would not be in exsistence.

[Nameless]

Genuine question.
How long should a club give a manager before sacking him ?
Should there be an unbreakable 2 year contract ?
If a manager is clearly not up to the job, players becoming demoralised, results appalling should he keep his job if he has been in it less than a year ?
If clubs must keep managers for 2 years does it mean managers can't quit if they want to move clubs ?
I sympathise with the belief that sometimes managers are sacked too soon and (like Ferguson, like Pardew, like Coppell) sticking with them pays dividends. But I suspect more struggling managers would just struggle more given another 12 months in the job.
So is there an actual practical solution or is the cry that 'he needed more time' just one of the hollow cliches that don't bear any examination ?

Hired pre August:
Safe until 1 December and from then on:
If expectations are top third, sacked if in bottom third and not moving upwards any time soon.
If expectations are mid-table, sacked if in bottom 5/6 if no sign of improvement.
if expectations are survival, sacked if adrift in the bottom two with no sign of improvement.

Hired during the season, post November:
Safe until 1 December next season as per above, unless relegated in which case review

Special circumstances of sacking for prolonged runs of terrible form - say 6+ defeats in a row, winless in 10.

Basically have patience and give someone a chance to turn things around unless there is a clear and imminent threat to the club. Or other issues happen, like the manager undermines their position making it untenable.

So sacking someone after 4 months is patient ? That seems a very, very quick firing. At most patient you are saying manages have 12 months before questions start getting asked.
I was expecting 18 months to be the start point, 3 transfer windows with a complete season including a full preseason.

[One8Seven1*]

Whether, or not, Sir John made those comments in the right place, he said what he practiced throughout his time at Reading FC. He always gave the manager, whoever it was, time to build their own team, not sacking them after six months. If Jaap is a success he will be poached by a Premier League club who have sacked their own manager. If he is not a success (and probably won't be, unless he is allowed to build his own team), these owners will start to look around for a replacement. Since SJM became the owner 25 years or so ago, our club has spent less time in the lower two divisions than they spent out of them during the previous 100 years. That is a fact, that seems to have escaped many of the supporters that have only seen Reading play at the Mad. Stad. I remember, when he took over a near bankrupted club, and said he wanted to take the club to the top tier of English football, many, including me, laughed and said "he's in dreamland". After fulfilling that ambition and finding how much it cost to keep us there at the time his wealth dwindled, he became disillusioned with the way football had changed over the years, is it surprising that he decided to sell up? When you are moaning about SJM just remember him and Roger Smee, If it wasn't for those two people, this club would not be in exsistence.

Except Rodgers.

That was Nigel Howe who wanted him sacked. Rodgers and Howe didn't get on. Howe felt Rodgers was cutting him out, Howe sulked off to SJM's office demanding he be sacked, and he was.

I don't have the greatest sympathy for Rodgers though. He came close to be sacked as a coach here a couple of times due to liking a drink too much. His personal life would make front page news as well.

[Nameless]

There are other versions of that story though.
Relating to how much money Brendan said he needed for the team on top of what he had spent and then not used well.
Not convinced that Rodgers could cut Howe out, Hammond would be more at risk but the manager and chief exec are not really competing for power.

[Ian Royal]

Genuine question.
How long should a club give a manager before sacking him ?
Should there be an unbreakable 2 year contract ?
If a manager is clearly not up to the job, players becoming demoralised, results appalling should he keep his job if he has been in it less than a year ?
If clubs must keep managers for 2 years does it mean managers can't quit if they want to move clubs ?
I sympathise with the belief that sometimes managers are sacked too soon and (like Ferguson, like Pardew, like Coppell) sticking with them pays dividends. But I suspect more struggling managers would just struggle more given another 12 months in the job.
So is there an actual practical solution or is the cry that 'he needed more time' just one of the hollow cliches that don't bear any examination ?

Hired pre August:
Safe until 1 December and from then on:
If expectations are top third, sacked if in bottom third and not moving upwards any time soon.
If expectations are mid-table, sacked if in bottom 5/6 if no sign of improvement.
if expectations are survival, sacked if adrift in the bottom two with no sign of improvement.

Hired during the season, post November:
Safe until 1 December next season as per above, unless relegated in which case review

Special circumstances of sacking for prolonged runs of terrible form - say 6+ defeats in a row, winless in 10.

Basically have patience and give someone a chance to turn things around unless there is a clear and imminent threat to the club. Or other issues happen, like the manager undermines their position making it untenable.

So sacking someone after 4 months is patient ? That seems a very, very quick firing. At most patient you are saying manages have 12 months before questions start getting asked.
I was expecting 18 months to be the start point, 3 transfer windows with a complete season including a full preseason.

The key things are:
(reasonable) Expectations for performance compared to actual performance
Club's recent performance and management status
Clear threat to divisional status

There's no point keeping a manager who's really under-performing at the real risk of relegation. It's not unreasonable to pull the trigger fairly quickly, but that should be exceptional circumstances. You can't just guarantee someone 18 months no matter how badly they are doing.

I think you can afford to be more trigger happy when you're coming out of a period of success and stability, whereas you need to suck it up and show more patience when you've been struggling and had several management changes recently.

Rodgers for example, came in when the club was still successful and had been very stable. He had a good squad, which had recently performed to a high level. He took the team from the top few, to hovering above relegation in just 3-4 months. Nowhere near expectations, nowhere near recent performance, clear threat to divisional status = sacked and not unreasonably, despite the speed. He also didn't have a particularly impressive track record at that point.

Clarke going when he did was only really acceptable because of the way he'd made his position untenable. Otherwise he probably would have got at least another couple of months, because despite the awful form, we were still mid-table (roughly where expectations for the season had started) and doing better than the previous season, with no definite threat of relegation at that point. If we'd kept him longer I think it would have done more damage, but no one would have been calling for his head, but for talking to Fulham.

I think if you stuck to my suggestion across the FL, you'd see an increase in the average managerial period of at least 3 - 6 months

Think of it as at least 18 months except for emergency situations.

[From Despair To Where?]

There are other versions of that story though.
Relating to how much money Brendan said he needed for the team on top of what he had spent and then not used well.
Not convinced that Rodgers could cut Howe out, Hammond would be more at risk but the manager and chief exec are not really competing for power.

That's what I heard, that having fcuked up the Tommy Smith deal with his big mouth and then spaffed close to £4m in the summer on half a team, he asked for another £5m in January because he didn't have the right type of players. In those circumstances, I think most chairmen would tell him to fcuk off.

[Lower West]

To answer the title of the thread; now that Howe (whatever his motives) has sided very firmly with his new employers (and that is what any sensible person in that position would do), I would think the end is nigh for Madejski.

Howe works for Reading FC and therefore is the voice piece. Noticably no word from the shareholders. The statement suggests that they've already lost interest in the footballing side.

Howe is also connected very closely with SJM in other business interests.

[cavillerarusticana]

I suspect the reality of his position has suddenly hit home, his way of doing things, his control are now all gone and he is no more than a figurehead, a deferential link to the past. I think his frustration and what he sees as not the 'Reading Way' to do things just suddenly go too much and the opportunity to express this was just too iresistible. The Thais will not have appreciated the public remonstration/rebuke and I suspect they will be looking to ease him out of the picture altogether after this. SJM is old school and believes that Brian was treated shabbily, I admire him for that, however, he is no longer owner of the football club, it belongs to the Thais and whether you agree with it or not, it was their decision to make and yesterdays press conference was not the appropriate forum in which to publicly voice his dissent.
It reminded me very much of what kids do when they don't get what they want, they find the busiest street, the department store, a restaurant, the one with the most public exposure and then they lie down and start kicking and screaming because they can't have their own way. The parents are like rabbits caught in the headlights, torn between paddling their childs backside or smiling whilst they struggle to drag them away, limiting the public damage. I should imagine that in private they have been quite forthright. I suspect the romance is well and truly over.

[Oilroyal]

I suspect the reality of his position has suddenly hit home, his way of doing things, his control are now all gone and he is no more than a figurehead, a deferential link to the past. I think his frustration and what he sees as not the 'Reading Way' to do things just suddenly go too much and the opportunity to express this was just too iresistible. The Thais will not have appreciated the public remonstration/rebuke and I suspect they will be looking to ease him out of the picture altogether after this. SJM is old school and believes that Brian was treated shabbily, I admire him for that, however, he is no longer owner of the football club, it belongs to the Thais and whether you agree with it or not, it was their decision to make and yesterdays press conference was not the appropriate forum in which to publicly voice his dissent.
It reminded me very much of what kids do when they don't get what they want, they find the busiest street, the department store, a restaurant, the one with the most public exposure and then they lie down and start kicking and screaming because they can't have their own way. The parents are like rabbits caught in the headlights, torn between paddling their childs backside or smiling whilst they struggle to drag them away, limiting the public damage. I should imagine that in private they have been quite forthright. I suspect the romance is well and truly over.

Spot on analysis of the situation. Not forgetting that Sir John was not party to the appointment of Stam or expected/invited to the press conference let alone invited to speak. Sadly Sir John is living in the past, albeit in a penthouse in a stadium with his name over the door.

[cavillerarusticana]

It's obvious he is having a bit of a hard time adjusting and probably not liking what he sees. He has an ego and he has revelled in the public adulation that he has received over the years, I am not saying he has not deserved it but it has been like oxygen to him. He is no longer King and he cannot influence the direction of the club , I think he is petrified that all he achieved over the years is unravelling at an alarming rate. The rot started as soon as the Russian contingent got involved and it has all gone decidedly pear shaped. It remains to be seen whether the Thais do any good for this club in the long term, we have to hope that they will do the right thing by Reading Fc, but it will be very different to what we have been used to and it would appear that there are already signs that they may have bitten off more than they can chew.

[facaldaqui]

Although I agree with Madejski, it was wrong to say it at Stam's press conference. But he is not the only one to have spoken out of turn--Howe has done too. I find Howe's remarks unnecessary and rude towards a man who had employed him for years. But it shows where the power base is. Howe is running the club with the Thais and Sir John is sidelined. So I can't see how Madejski can last much longer. I think this reveals Howe might have been instrumental in Brian's sacking--so he'd better be right about this Stam. If Stam fails, and the Thais fail, Madejski's remarks will not seem so amiss in retrospect.