Best pound for pound manager

[Fabio]

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?

We get it, you're a fucking don in retail

 

[Oncy]

We get it, you're a fucking don in retail

Ha not really.

 

[Molbystwin]

Ferguson

Yep.

fuck it.

 

[Delinquent]

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.

Thing is, he's got all those great players because he dragged the team out of the doldrums and made them champions. Of course Utd were a big club when he took over, but they're throwing their weight around financially because they've been hugely successful, and in the modern era, a large part of that is down to Ferguson. I'm not denying that Moyes has done an admirable job at Everton, but what have they actually won?

As with any post about Ferguson, it's worth throwing in the caveat that he's a despicable, conceited, hypocritical, whiskey-nosed bastard, but nevertheless he's quite good at what he does.

 

[Insignificance]

It must be Rodgers? Got Swansea to play like Barcelona on limited resources!!!!

 

[Ryan]

Ferguson or Pulis.

 

[Hansern]

Ferguson, Moyes and Pulis should all be up there.

Paisley is probably the best if you're not just talking about current managers.

 

[Judge Jules]

Thing is, he's got all those great players because he dragged the team out of the doldrums and made them champions. Of course Utd were a big club when he took over, but they're throwing their weight around financially because they've been hugely successful, and in the modern era, a large part of that is down to Ferguson. I'm not denying that Moyes has done an admirable job at Everton, but what have they actually won?

As with any post about Ferguson, it's worth throwing in the caveat that he's a despicable, conceited, hypocritical, whiskey-nosed bastard, but nevertheless he's quite good at what he does.

I don't think that last question is actually relevant TBH, not to the "pound for pound" calculation. That calculation centres on which manager has exceeded expectations with the squad he's had to the greatest extent, and in that respect I'm sticking with Moyes.

 

[Dreambeliever]

Pulis hands down.

 

[the_khl]

Pulis is not even close.

 

[Dreambeliever]

Pulis is not even close.

Quietly keeping Stoke in the safety zone year in year out.

 

[Oncy]

Allardyce did that with Bolton for a decade. You can stay in the league if you play shit football and defend like heros.
Pullis is an awful choice.
Hes also spent good money on players, a lot more than most.

 

[the_khl]

Quietly keeping Stoke in the safety zone year in year out.

Decent manager. Not pound for pound the best one around mind. He's got a plan and it works but he's hardly been pulling up trees.

 

[iseered]

Pulis deserves a mention, but he is obviously miles behind everyone else mentioned.

 

[StevieM]

Stokes net spend on transfers over the hast few years is only dwarfed by Man City, Chelsea. Aston Villa are up there as well.

 

[redhorizon2]

Neil Warnock - because he is a promotion specialist!