1 year contract for managers. Good or bad idea?

[Iforbach]

At the start of the season, we were told that the 1 year contract for Bulut was a mutual decision. My guess is that it was more to do with Tan, not wanting to be stung again. But whatever the truth, do we think think the idea of a 1 year contract is a good or bad idea for club in Cardiff's predicament?

FOR: It certainly protects Cardiff's finances. I genuinely understand Tan's reluctance to give a long term contract when he has been stung in paying out for managers who are failures. Perhaps, the straw that broke the camel's back was when McCarthy was given 2 years only for him to turn into Coco the Clown immediately after signing the contract. Maybe Tan thinks that you have to keep managers hungry?

AGAINST: Most clubs who have made a substantive change to the status and stability have taken a longer term perspective. The success of these clubs has been built on solid foundations. This includes: wise dealings in the transfer market, a clear playing style and philosophy, and a productive academy/youth system (Brentford was an exception to the rule regarding the last point.). This approach demands that a manager's future is secure, except in the most extreme of circumstances. It allows time to embed a style and to build a squad in the managers image. It also demands that there is alignment on, and off, the field.

Arguably, a short term approach leads to unintended consequences: a negative playing style, reluctance to blood youngsters, and even greater impatience from fans. I think all of the above points are true of Bulut's appointment. Our style has become ultra conservative, trying to avoid big defeats rather than take the game to opponents. Bulut has also been reluctant to blood youngsters (he's not alone mind, so was Warnock). I feel he is playing Rubin reluctantly, and given the chance he would drop him like a stone. Colwill junior and Ashford have great potential but even when a game is lost, he will not blood them - perhaps further evidence of a negative approach?

Also, the way Bulut was appointed, led to perhaps unreasonable expectations from the fans. All the mood music was about promotion rather than stability. And the 1 year contract only served to emphasise this.

So. in my view, a one year contract is a bad move. A longer term approach does, however, demand much greater understanding of football than the present regime at CardIff has ever shown. Identifying the right manager is paramount.

Thoughts?

 

[NumberAde]

I guess it is a risk if the manager turns out to be good, because anyone can snatch him. I suspect that is a problem that affects clubs who can spot good managers, rather than ours.

 

[Iforbach]

I guess it is a risk if the manager turns out to be good, because anyone can snatch him. I suspect that is a problem that affects clubs who can spot good managers, rather than ours.

Yes, certainly a risk, but on the upside, you get compensation from the other club. Swansea have lost all of the successful managers to bigger clubs, but between them they did embed a philosophy. It's only since the Yanks takeover that this has changed.

 

[toobluetobeblue]

Yes, certainly a risk, but on the upside, you get compensation from the other club. Swansea have lost all of the successful managers to bigger clubs, but between them they did embed a philosophy. It's only since the Yanks takeover that this has changed.

I think he means if only a 1 yr contract, the manager could get poached at the end of it, should they turn out to be decent, thus losing the chance of compensation as even if there is an option to extend, if a better/bigger club are interested, that manager can still choose not to extend.

 

[Jimmytaff]

Basically all the club need to do is appoint the right person on the right contract.

 

[toobluetobeblue]

My take on it is, it can be a goid idea, but when do the club in question activate the option to extend IF results are decent early on, they could activate then, and things go tits up ala Mccarthy, the club are stuck, or have to pay up a contract to get rid, but for me it is a bit of a hindrance too, as the manager is likely to be more Conservative in their approach, in the hope of solidifying results,in order to activate any said extension clause.bit of a double edged sword really, we do really need someone, even if not bulut, to settle here & put a playing philosophy in place, something we sorely lack, and have as far back as dave Jones imho. Otherwise we just creating a merry go round, of managers and players, which will never bring sustained success, imo.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

Whole thing’s a farce.

If you want to attract a decent manager and show faith in him then you need to show that with a proper length contract. That way you’re essentially showing them that you are willing to give them time to implement their plan. A one year contract just smacks of distrust in that manager.

What we’re seeing now is a manager that knows he’s gone at the end of the season so is already looking for his next job. The players know this too. Of course if he had a three year deal under his belt there’s no guarantees that results would be better but at least he’d be thinking about planning for the summer rather than already packing his bags.,

Look at it this way - if you wanted a player, spoke to him and gave him the sales pitch, then offered him a one year contract he’d probably tell you to stick it and go somewhere else. The only players taking a short term deal are the crap ones that are taking whatever they can get. Quality in demand players and managers know their value and expect more.

Can you imagine come the summer and clubs are looking for a new manager, they approach Steve Cooper or Graham Potter and only offer them a one year deal - they’d probably walk straight back out the door and rightly so.

Offering a one year deal just shows once again how out of touch our owner is, and that’s why we’re in the situation we’re in - because if you haven’t got things working properly off the field then it’ll never be right on it.

 

[Jimmytaff]

Whole thing’s a farce.

If you want to attract a decent manager and show faith in him then you need to show that with a proper length contract. That way you’re essentially showing them that you are willing to give them time to implement their plan. A one year contract just smacks of distrust in that manager.

What we’re seeing now is a manager that knows he’s gone at the end of the season so is already looking for his next job. The players know this too. Of course if he had a three year deal under his belt there’s no guarantees that results would be better but at least he’d be thinking about planning for the summer rather than already packing his bags.,

Look at it this way - if you wanted a player, spoke to him and gave him the sales pitch, then offered him a one year contract he’d probably tell you to stick it and go somewhere else. The only players taking a short term deal are the crap ones that are taking whatever they can get. Quality in demand players and managers know their value and expect more.

Can you imagine come the summer and clubs are looking for a new manager, they approach Steve Cooper or Graham Potter and only offer them a one year deal - they’d probably walk straight back out the door and rightly so.

Offering a one year deal just shows once again how out of touch our owner is, and that’s why we’re in the situation we’re in - because if you haven’t got things working properly off the field then it’ll never be right on it.

Yup just smacks of I've fucked up loads of longer term contracts so the answer is to give a shorter term one

 

[toobluetobeblue]

Whole thing’s a farce.

If you want to attract a decent manager and show faith in him then you need to show that with a proper length contract. That way you’re essentially showing them that you are willing to give them time to implement their plan. A one year contract just smacks of distrust in that manager.

What we’re seeing now is a manager that knows he’s gone at the end of the season so is already looking for his next job. The players know this too. Of course if he had a three year deal under his belt there’s no guarantees that results would be better but at least he’d be thinking about planning for the summer rather than already packing his bags.,

Look at it this way - if you wanted a player, spoke to him and gave him the sales pitch, then offered him a one year contract he’d probably tell you to stick it and go somewhere else. The only players taking a short term deal are the crap ones that are taking whatever they can get. Quality in demand players and managers know their value and expect more.

Can you imagine come the summer and clubs are looking for a new manager, they approach Steve Cooper or Graham Potter and only offer them a one year deal - they’d probably walk straight back out the door and rightly so.

Offering a one year deal just shows once again how out of touch our owner is, and that’s why we’re in the situation we’re in - because if you haven’t got things working properly off the field then it’ll never be right on it.

I think our manager was easy to persuade, as in Turkey, the average length of contract is two yrs, or less, so to him nothing was different about it.

Your last paragraph is absolutely why we are where we are.

 

[SloopJB]

At the start of the season, we were told that the 1 year contract for Bulut was a mutual decision. My guess is that it was more to do with Tan, not wanting to be stung again. But whatever the truth, do we think think the idea of a 1 year contract is a good or bad idea for club in Cardiff's predicament?

FOR: It certainly protects Cardiff's finances. I genuinely understand Tan's reluctance to give a long term contract when he has been stung in paying out for managers who are failures. Perhaps, the straw that broke the camel's back was when McCarthy was given 2 years only for him to turn into Coco the Clown immediately after signing the contract. Maybe Tan thinks that you have to keep managers hungry?

AGAINST: Most clubs who have made a substantive change to the status and stability have taken a longer term perspective. The success of these clubs has been built on solid foundations. This includes: wise dealings in the transfer market, a clear playing style and philosophy, and a productive academy/youth system (Brentford was an exception to the rule regarding the last point.). This approach demands that a manager's future is secure, except in the most extreme of circumstances. It allows time to embed a style and to build a squad in the managers image. It also demands that there is alignment on, and off, the field.

Arguably, a short term approach leads to unintended consequences: a negative playing style, reluctance to blood youngsters, and even greater impatience from fans. I think all of the above points are true of Bulut's appointment. Our style has become ultra conservative, trying to avoid big defeats rather than take the game to opponents. Bulut has also been reluctant to blood youngsters (he's not alone mind, so was Warnock). I feel he is playing Rubin reluctantly, and given the chance he would drop him like a stone. Colwill junior and Ashford have great potential but even when a game is lost, he will not blood them - perhaps further evidence of a negative approach?

Also, the way Bulut was appointed, led to perhaps unreasonable expectations from the fans. All the mood music was about promotion rather than stability. And the 1 year contract only served to emphasise this.

So. in my view, a one year contract is a bad move. A longer term approach does, however, demand much greater understanding of football than the present regime at CardIff has ever shown. Identifying the right manager is paramount.

Thoughts?

I think the one season contract was the right choice in this case. Like any other contract it can be extended or ripped up by either party whilst it is in being. The crunch of course is if the manager decides to leave at the end of it if he gets poached if he is doing a great job. Or he wants more money to extend. That is the risk.
I think you have mentioned some very good points above.
In this instance i think Bulut needs to steady the ship and prove he is worth a raise and extended contract. From what i can gather though is that the club are happy to continue with him, But the ball is in his court. In past seasons he may have been shown the door already. IMO Morrison and Hudson were moved on for less incompetence than he is presently showing.
SJB