Because:
a) If a manager feels secure in his job he has much more freedom to try things and express himself, instead of playing it safe. For example, Hughes was always looking over his shoulder knowing that he wasn't the choice of the owners, consequently he bought a load of players he knew and trusted or though were safe bets for performing immediately - his top priority. We're still struggling to get rid of some of them. Mancini also, i'd love to see him feel that he has the leeway maybe top introduce some more younger players, give them gametime, but the fact is he doesn't.
b) If you get a reputation of sacking managers on a whim (eg Abramovich) eventually you'll start to struggle to attract your preferred targets, depending on who the targets are. For example Chelsea i'm pretty sure want Guardiola, but does he want to work with Abramovich? I doubt it. Obviously some managers don't mind getting a big contract then quickly followed by a big pay-off.
c) When a manager arrives, he wants his own players, own style of play, own backroom staff, he wants the facilities to be to his liking etc all of this takes time, costs lots of money and results in general upheaval
d) It´s bad for finacial fair play, not apart from the costs of hiring and sacking, bringing in players, staff etc, it seems to me the general plan now, is to try and create some sort of footballing identity that will be taught to younger players so that the team will play the same way all through their youth development, making intergration much easier into the first team squad. If we want to keep replacing managers, pretty soon we'll ruyn out of reasonable candidates who want to play the game the way the folk who run the club want us to play it.
e) It's generally bad for our image, something which already isn't great, We want new sponsors, new fans etc, having a board which seems primarily concerned with short-termism isn't a good image for us
f) we now look to be going down the route of having a technical director and a manager, for that set-up to be successful, a good relationship between the manager and technical director is absolutely essential to making the system run smoothly to the long-term benefit of the club, keeping chopping and changing the manager makes the whole set-up a lot more fractuious and makes the development of that relationship difficult.
....however, to reap the benefits of stability, you obviously need to have the right man in the first place, whether Mancini is the best guy with a view to the long-term future of the club, i'm a little unconvinced. But i don't know how much of that is down to the constant threat of the sack and his obviously previous conflicting interests with Marwood.
Ultimately if you have the right man, i think it definitely pays to stick with him even through rocky patches or a relatively unsuccessful season or 2, but the big if, is if you have the right man.
a) If a manager feels secure in his job he has much more freedom to try things and express himself, instead of playing it safe. For example, Hughes was always looking over his shoulder knowing that he wasn't the choice of the owners, consequently he bought a load of players he knew and trusted or though were safe bets for performing immediately - his top priority. We're still struggling to get rid of some of them. Mancini also, i'd love to see him feel that he has the leeway maybe top introduce some more younger players, give them gametime, but the fact is he doesn't.
b) If you get a reputation of sacking managers on a whim (eg Abramovich) eventually you'll start to struggle to attract your preferred targets, depending on who the targets are. For example Chelsea i'm pretty sure want Guardiola, but does he want to work with Abramovich? I doubt it. Obviously some managers don't mind getting a big contract then quickly followed by a big pay-off.
c) When a manager arrives, he wants his own players, own style of play, own backroom staff, he wants the facilities to be to his liking etc all of this takes time, costs lots of money and results in general upheaval
d) It´s bad for finacial fair play, not apart from the costs of hiring and sacking, bringing in players, staff etc, it seems to me the general plan now, is to try and create some sort of footballing identity that will be taught to younger players so that the team will play the same way all through their youth development, making intergration much easier into the first team squad. If we want to keep replacing managers, pretty soon we'll ruyn out of reasonable candidates who want to play the game the way the folk who run the club want us to play it.
e) It's generally bad for our image, something which already isn't great, We want new sponsors, new fans etc, having a board which seems primarily concerned with short-termism isn't a good image for us
f) we now look to be going down the route of having a technical director and a manager, for that set-up to be successful, a good relationship between the manager and technical director is absolutely essential to making the system run smoothly to the long-term benefit of the club, keeping chopping and changing the manager makes the whole set-up a lot more fractuious and makes the development of that relationship difficult.
....however, to reap the benefits of stability, you obviously need to have the right man in the first place, whether Mancini is the best guy with a view to the long-term future of the club, i'm a little unconvinced. But i don't know how much of that is down to the constant threat of the sack and his obviously previous conflicting interests with Marwood.
Ultimately if you have the right man, i think it definitely pays to stick with him even through rocky patches or a relatively unsuccessful season or 2, but the big if, is if you have the right man.