Best pound for pound manager
- Thread starter Rosco
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Who cares. Managers aren't important.
Rosco, can you explain what you mean by pound for pound?
Up until a few years ago everyone would have said Wenger or Pellegrini. Frankly I don't know enough about other leagues, I expect there are far better managers in most of the European big leagues than we (people like me) know about. Moyes is a good shout in England.
If you interpret pound for pound as amount recouped against amount spent then it could be Wenger (CL revenue being so astronomical) but could still possibly be Moyes.
If it's results based on amount spent then has to be Moyes.
If it's results based on amount spent then has to be Moyes.
T
the_khl
Guest
Ferguson
There's a column in "The Times" on Saturdays which looks at this sort of thing and tries to pin such judgments down in specific numerical terms. As far as I remember Moyes was top of their list last time they did one.
Behave chris fucking hughton ross lol
Has to be that old ginsoak bastard I guess. Took a team of nobody's to champions, and pretty much kept them there. The cunt. Has won everything.
Surely "pound for pound" means getting the best from your resources, not just winning the most trophies. Ferguson's record is so good that he must be in the running, but he's had a heck of a lot more talent to work with than Moyes has at that junkyard club.
Ok. Lets say you own a company. Lets say a retail organisation.
Lets say you have 130 branches.
Those branches will be ranked according to a few criteria such as footfall, conversion, profit, volume etc.
The UNFAIREST is to measure based upon volume. Because it will always be the (eg) city shops that win as opposed to town or village stores.
So lets say that you have a manager who runs one of the city stores, the store with the highest footfall and all the resources in the world, and that he also has all the talented sales people at his proposal as he company owner has allowed him to pay more than anyone else. so he keeps them in the top 2 stores in the company. Hes done a great job, amazing. But should the richest, biggest, busiest store NOT be top 2? Should it not EXPECT to be store of the year every year?
On the flipside you have a manager who manages a small store, with half as little footfall, he isnt allowed to hire any of the top talent and isnt permitted to pay the equivalent wages to the best people he has, IN FACT his very best sales person has gone to work in the other guys store. Lets say that there are 35 stores that pay more wages than his store, 20 that have bigger foofall, there are other factors (that mean you have to ignore the fact this is all one company) that mean this branch has been poorly run for years and has little or no capital for advertising or promotion or any other such thing that could positively influence his sales. In fact the only positive this store has is this manager who finds top talent at a premium and manages them to the absolute peak of their ability. He manages to keep this store in the top 10 and consistently top 6 in the country outperforming bigger, richer, better run stores. Whereas manager 1 has no bigger, richer, better run stores to compete with. Does that make manager 1 better? or manager 2?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
