Give them three years and not three months?

A letter in the December edition of When Saturday Comes suggested that, in an ideal world, it should be enshrined in the FA rulebook that Football managers should be given three year contracts and not be sacked in that period, except in exceptional circumstances. It is an interesting idea but sadly it is fundamentally flawed.

It is an idea that sounds like a policy worthy of a place on a Liberal Democrat election manifesto. And just like a few other things that appeared on Nick Clegg’s list of ideas and promises in May 2010, it has a similar chance of success. 

It ignores the fact that an appointment does not guarantee success, or that the manager will deliver improvement. A perfect example of how the idea would not work is evidenced by the fortunes of the club I support. In the last three years, Norwich City have appointed three managers – all on long term contracts – that were all sacked or resigned within 18 months of their appointment. Peter Grant resigned twelve months after being appointed with the club stuck at the bottom of the Championship; at an AGM a few months later, the then Norwich City Chairman remarked that Grant had set the club back by three years. At the time, Norwich looked destined for relegation to League One – which happened less than 18 months later, and arguably it was the responsibility of the person who replaced Grant, Glenn Roeder.

Such examples are rife in Football, and highlight that having to stick with a manager for three years, and not being able to sack him, could be disastrous. However, the reputation of a Football manager is often well-known, so this system could lead to Chairmen taking more care to recruit managers. It would also reduce the number of managers who get sacked every season. However, whilst clubs might change their recruitment process, they would probably be less willing to appoint a young manager taking on their first job. Paul Lambert, who got his first management job at Livingston in 2005, was sacked in February 2006 after winning only two games. 

There will always be a market for a manager with a reputation of producing long term success. Under such a system, the value of managers such as Martin O’Neill, David Moyes and Dave Jones would increase, yet young managers such as Eddie Howe at AFC Bournemouth, who is in his first managerial job, would struggle to find work. However, a club could also appoint a manager with a proven track record and he could fail. 

The concept of a manager “losing the dressing room” would not disappear. Managers will always fall out with players; there are managers with notable track records of “losing the dressing room”, and usually sacking the manager is the solution. Gary Megson is an example; he allegedly fell out with his players at Bolton last season. His replacement, Owen Coyle, is currently having a successful season with the players he inherited.  

Further, suggesting that "players would have to put up or shut up and might actually find that what they’re told works if they do it properly" is absurd. Has anyone forgotten the quality of Phil Neale’s coaching?


Football management and the process of selecting a manager will always be littered with ifs and buts, but one thing people agree on is that managers should be given a chance to do their job. Chris Hughton had his cruelly taken away from him at Newcastle, despite the fact he had recently led the club back into the Premiership, and restored dignity and stability to St James Park. He was not given the chance that he had earned to consolidate Newcastle's position in the Premiership. 


There are a number of baffling and unjust sackings every season, but is it worth sticking with someone when it is painfully obvious that they are failing at their job? No, and clubs should be free from interference to make the decision to remove their managers. 


Idealism will never stand in the way of the harsh reality of being a Football manager, no matter how good a manager is.