Spare us the fake outrage and don't patronise 'little' Leicester for sacking Claudio Ranieri

[davieG]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/spare-fake-outrage-dont-patronise-9942758

 

I winced, then laughed, when a radio show invited me on to discuss 'The People’s Game’s darkest day'. Clubs have to live in the present not the past, no matter how glorious it was

 

BYBRIAN READE

19:00, 1 MAR 2017

UPDATED19:09, 1 MAR 2017

SPORTOPINION

Ranieri's firing less than a year after winning the title gave non-football folk another stick to beat the game with (Photo: Liverpool FC/Plumb e

On this week's edition of philosophical Radio 4 show Moral Maze, they discuss why Claudio Ranieri’s sacking ignited a national debate about loyalty.

The previous Wednesday, the subject was the morality of Fake News.

 

Next week, I suggest they combine the two and ask why football is inspiring such Fake Morality among people who wouldn’t care if the sport was outlawed tomorrow.

When news of Ranieri’s Leicester firing broke, non-footballing talking-heads, news schedulers and commentators went into overdrive, feigning outrage on fans’ behalf, using it as another reason to claim that the game now borders on Satanic-worship.

A radio station rang to ask if I’d talk about “The People’s Game’s darkest day”.

 

I winced, laughed, then told them I didn’t fancy taking part in an angry weep-fest over a story that boiled down to a well-paid man getting sacked because his bosses felt he was no longer up to the job.

Instead, I wrote a piece for the news section of the Mirror saying most footballing fairytales don’t have happy endings and that the only people who matter in this saga are Leicester’s paying fans — most of whom feel sad, and slightly guilty but, having watched their team slide towards relegation for six months, also a sense of relief.

 

I was glad to see at the King Power Stadium on Monday that was the case.

There were a few “Grazie Claudio” signs and a woman held an A4 sheet which politely showed her disgust, but fans also queued to shake the Thai owners’ hands, players who’d been demonised as gutless plotters were applauded during the warm-up and cheered as the team-sheets were read out.

And that was before they smashed Liverpool, 3-1.

Leicester supporters expressed their gratitude for sacked Ranieri at Monday's game... (Photo: REUTERS)

..but on the evidence of that match they are in better shape to stay up without him (Photo: Reuters)

By the end of the game, any bad blood seemed to have vanished and they had moved on from Ranieri to the point where they sang to acting manager Craig Shakespeare: “Shakey! Shakey! Give us a wave!”

But then, the same thing happened — albeit more slowly — at Chelsea last season after Jose Mourinho was sacked.

Will those players, and Roman Abramovich, be vilified for letting down Mourinho if they pick up the Premier League in May? No.

 

The fans seemed to have moved on from Ranieri by the end of the morale-boosting win (Photo: Getty)

 

Leicester will never move on from Ranieri.

He will always be a legend who delivered the impossible dream.

But clubs have to live in the present, and they were in such real danger of relegation that something drastic had to be done.

For outsiders to believe they should have stuck with the genial Italian for sentimental reasons, because they are a small club who got lucky under his guidance, is patronising in the extreme.

 

Almost as patronising as the betting company who sent a hearse to the King Power on Monday carrying a bouquet which spelled out: “RIP

Ranieri won't be the last manager undone by player power, warns PFA chief Taylor

Every day, in every high-pressure industry, managers who oversee a huge dip in their staff’s performance are sacked.

But only in football are the ones doing the sacking accused of acting immorally and killing their industry, because football has been deemed to be operating on some heightened moral plane.

It’s a thinking that allows politicians to drag FA chairmen into the Commons and slaughter them for presiding over falling ethical standards, on the grounds that parents spend £50 on a shirt for their children, so football is in the role model industry. Even though MPs never tire of knifing their leaders or setting sleazy examples.

What Ranieri, Jamie Vardy and co did last season... (Photo: Plumb Images/Leicester City FC via Getty)

...will always be cherished by the Leicester crowd... (Photo: Reuters)

...but keeping him out of sentiment could well have brought relegation(Photo: Getty)

 

Why Claudio Ranieri's Leicester firing was FAIR, by ex-Arsenal boss George Graham

Leicester may still be relegated, but a week on from Ranieri’s sacking they look in a better shape to survive.

How much worse could it have been for everyone, including Ranieri, if they’d stuck with him out of sentiment, dropped into the Championship, lost top players and struggled amid a very public blame game?

Would the same outsiders, and Ranieri’s cheerleaders inside football who voiced disgust at his sacking, be sending sympathy messages and “RIP Leicester” wreaths?

Or would they be accusing the club of arrogantly living off last season’s glories and shying away from the tough decisions needed to survive?

A moral maze indeed.

[foxinsocks]

This raise a few points - I will put them all in one post:-

 

Football is a game where those who take part are subjected to regular assessments based on their  form (in comparison with other options).  If a player is off form then he is dropped.  If a manger is not solving the problems and taking the team forwards (meaning that results are poor and not upturn in sight) then the owners must "drop him" - though given that no club has a squad of coaches it is a more permanent firing.  Thus managers taking a job must by now be aware of the transient nature of their support.

 

So how much slack should an owner give his manager - well it depend if he believed the manager can turn it around.  When that belief goes the logical next step is to ask if there are otehr options  or even if the club would be better off without that manager than with him.  If the answer align then the manager is fired.

 

So it should not be about loyalty (every manager knows this) it is about confidence (that a manger can turn thing around - and when that is gone there is a need to act.

 

Given the answers that have been forth coming it seems obvious that the owners at lcfc did consulted some players.  fanny Murphy related how AL Fayed  consulted him when he was at Fulham... twice.  Frankly it would be mad for an owner to take a big decision with soliciting views. I am sure Al Fayed was able to decided which views to ignore (or to take with a pinch of salt owing the baggage etc).  IN busines there are lots of review systems that involve 180 feedback or skipping tiers for feedback - other wise the high ups will never have an ear to the ground.   I am sure this might be uncomfortable or embarrassing for players - but they should just be honest and let the owner collect the views and make the decisions.

 

However, what has been poor is the way the whole thing was handled.  They had nearly 2 weeks from making the decision.  It didn't need much imagination to see how this would play out... e.g. lcfc sack the guy who made them champions - what ungrateful rotters who have no loyalty... and should accept that their rightful place is in a relegation scrap.... etc etc

 

The owners hid in seville and left Rudkin to fire Claudio at and airport hotel!  The statements put out where not gracious enough.. Claudio words made the club look worse.  What didn't they properly manage both  dismissal and the media.  Even now they left Craig to face the media and have still not had the club discuss it decisions:  e.g.  they could explain that they have lost belief ... however much they want claudio to succeed... that they are ambitions for the club to performance at a better level. That they regret the way the club managed the dismissal etc etc.  By remaining silent it will blow away - but heyr have allowed theri brand and that of king power to be trashed.  They could still actto save it.

 

IMO they should have explained to Claudio that it was the end and dissuaded with him how  best to manage things - they are going to pay him off anyway... and while he would be disappointed he simply has to acknowledge that to make such a decision is the owner s right  (and duty) and to wish all well.

 

So Leicester are no worse or no better than any  other ambitious club...  but right now the whole word is sad for claudio... and would happily see Leicester relegated... we are no longer everyone's favorite club... and I think with a bit of foresight and thought the owner could have mitigated this brand pr disaster.

 

 

 

 

 

[Free Falling Foxes]

Just read this myself and was about to post it. There are more balanced articles appearing now. There was also a good one by George Graham in the Mirror.

What has also helped was the crowds excellent, measured and sincere appreciation of Claudio on Monday but then got behind thr team.

I don't think we are hated quite so much now. I hope the players retain the backs against the wall mentality however and play as though 'no one likes us but we don't care'.

 

 

[FLAN]

6 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

This raise a few points - I will put them all in one post:-

 

Football is a game where those who take part are subjected to regular assessments based on their  form (in comparison with other options).  If a player is off form then he is dropped.  If a manger is not solving the problems and taking the team forwards (meaning that results are poor and not upturn in sight) then the owners must "drop him" - though given that no club has a squad of coaches it is a more permanent firing.  Thus managers taking a job must by now be aware of the transient nature of their support.

 

So how much slack should an owner give his manager - well it depend if he believed the manager can turn it around.  When that belief goes the logical next step is to ask if there are otehr options  or even if the club would be better off without that manager than with him.  If the answer align then the manager is fired.

 

So it should not be about loyalty (every manager knows this) it is about confidence (that a manger can turn thing around - and when that is gone there is a need to act.

 

Given the answers that have been forth coming it seems obvious that the owners at lcfc did consulted some players.  fanny Murphy related how AL Fayed  consulted him when he was at Fulham... twice.  Frankly it would be mad for an owner to take a big decision with soliciting views. I am sure Al Fayed was able to decided which views to ignore (or to take with a pinch of salt owing the baggage etc).  IN busines there are lots of review systems that involve 180 feedback or skipping tiers for feedback - other wise the high ups will never have an ear to the ground.   I am sure this might be uncomfortable or embarrassing for players - but they should just be honest and let the owner collect the views and make the decisions.

 

However, what has been poor is the way the whole thing was handled.  They had nearly 2 weeks from making the decision.  It didn't need much imagination to see how this would play out... e.g. lcfc sack the guy who made them champions - what ungrateful rotters who have no loyalty... and should accept that their rightful place is in a relegation scrap.... etc etc

 

The owners hid in seville and left Rudkin to fire Claudio at and airport hotel!  The statements put out where not gracious enough.. Claudio words made the club look worse.  What didn't they properly manage both  dismissal and the media.  Even now they left Craig to face the media and have still not had the club discuss it decisions:  e.g.  they could explain that they have lost belief ... however much they want claudio to succeed... that they are ambitions for the club to performance at a better level. That they regret the way the club managed the dismissal etc etc.  By remaining silent it will blow away - but heyr have allowed theri brand and that of king power to be trashed.  They could still actto save it.

 

IMO they should have explained to Claudio that it was the end and dissuaded with him how  best to manage things - they are going to pay him off anyway... and while he would be disappointed he simply has to acknowledge that to make such a decision is the owner s right  (and duty) and to wish all well.

 

So Leicester are no worse or no better than any  other ambitious club...  but right now the whole word is sad for claudio... and would happily see Leicester relegated... we are no longer everyone's favorite club... and I think with a bit of foresight and thought the owner could have mitigated this brand pr disaster.

 

 

 

 

 

Having a nightmare in life at the moment and the fact Danny Murphy is referred to as fanny just gave me a real welcome moment of relief 

[davieG]

5 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

This raise a few points - I will put them all in one post:-

 

Football is a game where those who take part are subjected to regular assessments based on their  form (in comparison with other options).  If a player is off form then he is dropped.  If a manger is not solving the problems and taking the team forwards (meaning that results are poor and not upturn in sight) then the owners must "drop him" - though given that no club has a squad of coaches it is a more permanent firing.  Thus managers taking a job must by now be aware of the transient nature of their support.

 

So how much slack should an owner give his manager - well it depend if he believed the manager can turn it around.  When that belief goes the logical next step is to ask if there are otehr options  or even if the club would be better off without that manager than with him.  If the answer align then the manager is fired.

 

So it should not be about loyalty (every manager knows this) it is about confidence (that a manger can turn thing around - and when that is gone there is a need to act.

 

Given the answers that have been forth coming it seems obvious that the owners at lcfc did consulted some players.  fanny Murphy related how AL Fayed  consulted him when he was at Fulham... twice.  Frankly it would be mad for an owner to take a big decision with soliciting views. I am sure Al Fayed was able to decided which views to ignore (or to take with a pinch of salt owing the baggage etc).  IN busines there are lots of review systems that involve 180 feedback or skipping tiers for feedback - other wise the high ups will never have an ear to the ground.   I am sure this might be uncomfortable or embarrassing for players - but they should just be honest and let the owner collect the views and make the decisions.

 

However, what has been poor is the way the whole thing was handled.  They had nearly 2 weeks from making the decision.  It didn't need much imagination to see how this would play out... e.g. lcfc sack the guy who made them champions - what ungrateful rotters who have no loyalty... and should accept that their rightful place is in a relegation scrap.... etc etc

 

The owners hid in seville and left Rudkin to fire Claudio at and airport hotel!  The statements put out where not gracious enough.. Claudio words made the club look worse.  What didn't they properly manage both  dismissal and the media.  Even now they left Craig to face the media and have still not had the club discuss it decisions:  e.g.  they could explain that they have lost belief ... however much they want claudio to succeed... that they are ambitions for the club to performance at a better level. That they regret the way the club managed the dismissal etc etc.  By remaining silent it will blow away - but heyr have allowed theri brand and that of king power to be trashed.  They could still actto save it.

 

IMO they should have explained to Claudio that it was the end and dissuaded with him how  best to manage things - they are going to pay him off anyway... and while he would be disappointed he simply has to acknowledge that to make such a decision is the owner s right  (and duty) and to wish all well.

 

So Leicester are no worse or no better than any  other ambitious club...  but right now the whole word is sad for claudio... and would happily see Leicester relegated... we are no longer everyone's favorite club... and I think with a bit of foresight and thought the owner could have mitigated this brand pr disaster.

 

 

 

 

 

You rightfully relate this to the world of business but there are plenty of examples  in that circle where people have been sacked without any sort of consideration. I was made  redundant from a Snr management role after 30+ years at a company and all I got was a formal letter notifying me and then a final letter confirming what day I should not bother coming in. Not one single person from the board made any sort of contact. Plenty  of people there thought I'd been sat on but It happens you accept it and move on.

[Mendi]

[foxinsocks]

5 minutes ago, davieG said:

You rightfully relate this to the world of business but there are plenty of examples  in that circle where people have been sacked without any sort of consideration. I was made  redundant from a Snr management role after 30+ years at a company and all I got was a formal letter notifying me and then a final letter confirming what day I should not bother coming in. Not one single person from the board made any sort of contact. Plenty  of people there thought I'd been sat on but It happens you accept it and move on.

I admit I have let people go - it cost nothing to front up, do it right and thank people and offer help int he future...

[Bazly]

This may make you feel better?

 

Ranieri is - well - not very good

[STUHILL]

10 minutes ago, Bazly said:

This may make you feel better?

 

Ranieri is - well - not very good

I do think it is becoming more evident that perhaps the foundation Pearson lay, contributed even more to the success of last season than people first believed. 

 

I think Claudio did play an important part though and added that sprinkle of tactics and Italian charm to the mix.

 

I think we all saw cracks appearing towards the end of last season, and I think this is partly due to Pearson's foundations wearing off and the standards he set slowly but surely starting to slip and unfortunately this has showed up Claudio's weaknesses as a coach. 

 

I still think Claudio is a good manager but I don't think he will ever be able to recreate similar success elsewhere.

 

I don't hope he fails in his next job, but I would not be surprised and I do think that if we stay up now, and he struggles at his next job, then all those who have been so critical of this decision, will be forced to have a bit of a rethink and perhaps give more credit to the foundations that were built before his time here.

[Bazly]

12 minutes ago, STUHILL said:

I think we all saw cracks appearing towards the end of last season, and I think this is partly due to Pearson's foundations wearing off and the standards he set slowly but surely starting to slip and unfortunately this has showed up Claudio's weaknesses as a coach. 

I've seen comments that I happen to agree with that the wheels came off the cart with the Summer signings. It was a tight knit bunch forged in the white heat of a relegation battle with one addition who added to the team; namely one Kante. This summer there was lots of activity around signing strikers and a few midfielders and one defender. CR probably concentrated at the wrong end of the park as a reaction to all the vulture activity around Vardy and Mahrez. None of the new players have added to the team but big money transfers were always going to be potentially unsettling for the band of brothers. Competition for places, pecking orders, ear of the manager, wages comparison etc. So, I recon it was poor signings that probably hampered their integration that led to the wheels coming off the cart. Too many egos bruised and a loss of faith crushing the team spirit to play, fight and prevail.

[jayfox26]

Fantastic piece of journalism. Totally hit the nail on the head and has said what I have been saying to anyone that will listen  but in a much better way haha

[STUHILL]

6 minutes ago, Bazly said:

I've seen comments that I happen to agree with that the wheels came off the cart with the Summer signings. It was a tight knit bunch forged in the white heat of a relegation battle with one addition who added to the team; namely one Kante. This summer there was lots of activity around signing strikers and a few midfielders and one defender. CR probably concentrated at the wrong end of the park as a reaction to all the vulture activity around Vardy and Mahrez. None of the new players have added to the team but big money transfers were always going to be potentially unsettling for the band of brothers. Competition for places, pecking orders, ear of the manager, wages comparison etc. So, I recon it was poor signings that probably hampered their integration that led to the wheels coming off the cart. Too many egos bruised and a loss of faith crushing the team spirit to play, fight and prevail.

I agree. I do think it was a difficult to get the balance right in that summer window though, after such a crazy season of success. 

 

We obviously had a squad of "average" players that far exceeded anything they have ever done before. You could argue, that we didn't need to buy anyone, other than a replacement for Kante and that certainly would have kept the current squad happier, as no one would have had their place challenged. You wonder what Ulloa, Okazaki and Gray have been like seeing their chances limited due to new signings. 

 

I think most of us knew however, that a return to their mortal selves was much more likely and the ageing back 4 especially, needed attention, along with CM. 

 

You look at the signings we made and you can see some sense in all of them. Mendy was brought in for a direct replacement for Kante. Hernandez was to cover CB and RB. Musa was meant to be a like for like for Vardy, in terms of speed and suiting the direct way we played. Slimani and Kaputska were more difficult to understand, although I think Slimani was perhaps signed as an upgrade on Ulloa and Kaputska was simply one that Ranieri took a punt on, with not much thought into how he would fit in. 

 

Still too early to judge some, especially considering they have only had the opportunity to play in a team that has been woefully underperforming. Even so, the recruitment was not good at all, and will rightly go down as a huge part of why our season has turned out like this. 

 

You look at the missed opportunities like Keane and Silva and not getting N'didi in earlier, and you do wonder if we had those options available instead of Hernandez, Mendy, Musa etc, then things may have been different.

 

In terms of unsettling the squad with new signings, you are kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. If we hadn't of signed anyone, would we have kept the whole squad happier and faired better? Or was it just the lack of signings and quality ones that has been the biggest problem? Bit of both maybe, but I think we missed a huge opportunity to jump from a squad of "average" players, to a spine of "top 6" quality players, with 4-5 big money signings, whilst we still had the pull of being Champions and being seen in a different light. 

[Chester Dontlie]

Finally we hear some voices of reason in the media, here and there. Refreshing!

 

I'm only constantly flabberghasted by the polls' results on these sites. 

"Were Leicester City right to sack Claudio Ranieri?" YES: 25% NO: 75%. According to the general public the club isn't allowed to sack underperforming manager even when being on its way to relegation

 

[RonnieTodger]

Probably the best article on the matter so far.

 

"Talking heads" is absolutely right and just because the faux-heartbreak brigade are louder, it doesn't mean that they're right. Morons will calm down and I desperately hope that we stay up to prove them wrong. 

[surrifox]

Loving the way all the articles circumscribe the "betting company" involved in the hearse stunt . Denying them any publicity for their twattery