2019/20 Marco Silva

[ToffeeTim]

They should have already acted this season.

Even a point on Saturday shouldn't make any difference.

His start is poorer than Koeman in far easier fixtures.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

You mean exactly what happened with Koeman? Yeah, that.

It's not exactly what happened with Koeman though is it?

Koeman was sacked 23 October. That season we'd played 17 games by the point Koeman was sacked.

Also - Marcel Brands wasn't here then.

 

[blueblue]

If the club are making decisions on a manager on a game by game basis, then they're clowns.

Every decisions ultimately comes down to a game by game review.
I can't imagine a situation where a club has ten bad results with no consideration whatsoever for the future but after the eleventh bad result they suddenly decide to act.

I would expect that Moshiri/Kenwright/Brands are looking very closely at performances and results at the moment.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

I agree, but I think they think about overall PR and "how it looks" too.

I think they'd rather sack when the position is publically untenable rather than just internally untenable. Of course, if we had competency at boardroom level, they'd simply act as they thought best and just do it. But we have Moshiri who bangs on about James McCarthy being family, so we have to curb our expectations.

That's my point.

The boardroom's decision making is rotten if they're acting that way.

I think they fell trap to that last season - a little run of results after the season was a write off shouldn't have been so conclusive.

 

[ToffeeTim]

It's not exactly what happened with Koeman though is it?

Koeman was sacked 23 October. That season we'd played 17 games by the point Koeman was sacked.

Also - Marcel Brands wasn't here then.

Very few people in any walk of life are fired on the basis that their boss doesn't think they will prove a success in their role. They get fired once they prove they are unfit for the role either over time or by an outright event which proves their unsuitability.

I'm not sure why you expect football to be any different? We've reached the crunch here where either there's an immediate upturn in performance or he will be replaced. It's last chance saloon. If we lose this weekend it becomes untenable and he's gone.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Every decisions ultimately comes down to a game by game review.
I can't imagine a situation where a club has ten bad results with no consideration whatsoever for the future but after the eleventh bad result they suddenly decide to act.

I would expect that Moshiri/Kenwright/Brands are looking very closely at performances and results at the moment.

If the club are seriously thinking "lose to Burnley and he's sacked" as people think on here, then the club have lost confidence and surely should instead be thinking "who are we getting to replace him?"

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Very few people in any walk of life are fired on the basis that their boss doesn't think they will prove a success in their role. They get fired once they prove they are unfit for the role either over time or by an outright event which proves their unsuitability.

I'm not sure why you expect football to be any different? We've reached the crunch here where either there's an immediate upturn in performance or he will be replaced. It's last chance saloon. If we lose this weekend it becomes untenable and he's gone.

It's cute that you compare football (as a business!) to most walks of life mate.

 

[Thomasc]

That's my point.

The boardroom's decision making is rotten if they're acting that way.

I think they fell trap to that last season - a little run of results after the season was a write off shouldn't have been so conclusive.

But as I have already said, it bought him a bit more time perhaps. If they had pulled the trigger then it would have looked semi harsh to most PR wise.

Now we are approaching 10 games in it’s not a bad time to make that call if it’s going wrong again.

 

[ToffeeTim]

It's cute that you compare football (as a business!) to most walks of life mate.

I wouldn't normally. But I think the same premise applies.

Plenty of bosses have doubts but it's rare someone is sacked purely on the concern of failure. 99% of the time the sacking comes after the failure actually plays out.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

But as I have already said, it bought him a bit more time perhaps. If they had pulled the trigger then it would have looked semi harsh to most PR wise.

Now we are approaching 10 games in it’s not a bad time to make that call if it’s going wrong again.

Poor from Marcel Brands if that's the case.

As I said last week;

I don't think we should always wait until the abyss, when things are catastrophic.

Do that, and there's a short window of opportunity to replace the manager.

It's short term thinking, he's either the right man, or he isn't. If Brands thinks he isn't then he should bring in a replacement when he can, doesnt matter if we've won or lost the previous 3-5 games on the spin.

 

[Lanolin]

If the club are seriously thinking "lose to Burnley and he's sacked" as people think on here, then the club have lost confidence and surely should instead be thinking "who are we getting to replace him?"

I don't really see where you're going with this. Obviously there will always be a tipping point when things go from 'bad' to 'unacceptable'. I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about that tipping point being a poor result in a football game, when you're in the business of getting good results in football games.

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

"culmination of many things"

Based on Everton thinking he was the right man in August, a "culmination of many things" being 8 games then.



My point is a very simple one.

If Marcel Brands is at a point when one result determines whether the manager stays or goes, then the manager should already be going and it should just be a matter of time/getting his replacement in.

The club shouldn't need to justify sacking him, they either have confidence in him or they don't. One game doesn't, or at least shouldn't change that.

Yep, it shouldn't be let's see if he gets beat at Burnley, if he wins, does it become a case lets see how he gets on against West Ham etc. It should be a case of him being the man good enough to take us forward, if Brands and Moshiri don't see it that way, then he should be gone.

 

[blueblue]

If the club are seriously thinking "lose to Burnley and he's sacked" as people think on here, then the club have lost confidence and surely should instead be thinking "who are we getting to replace him?"

I would be very surprised if that conversation has not already happened. It would be prudent to do so.

However, the manager could still be given time to improve results and to get some needed points.
We have seen managers in the past who were on the brink of being sacked before they steadied the ship and became successful.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

I wouldn't normally. But I think the same premise applies.

Plenty of bosses have doubts but it's rare someone is sacked purely on the concern of failure. 99% of the time the sacking comes after the failure actually plays out.

What's failure?

2 different results and we'd be sitting 4th. Are the margins that small?

If the club thought he was the right man last month, then to be looking to sack him after 7 games is bonkers to me.

I mean, I wanted him gone after Millwall but the club made their decision to stick. To twist so soon is worrying.

And I still actually wanted him gone at the end of last season - when he had a 94.7% approval rating from Evertonians.

 

[MikeH72]

It's not exactly what happened with Koeman though is it?

Koeman was sacked 23 October. That season we'd played 17 games by the point Koeman was sacked.

Also - Marcel Brands wasn't here then.

Koeman was sacked the day after a 5-2 defeat against Arsenal. That was the trigger point.