I know as a manager you have to abide by the chairman's decisions. But his decisions were this team, that team, this player, that player. The chairman is a control freak.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The only thing I believe is this: A player does not have to like a manager and he does not have to respect a manager. All he has to do is obey the rules.
If a chairman sacks the manager he initially appointed, he should go as well.
Teams buy players and change managers if they feel they need change at the club.
The manager is to be blamed who distributes parts to his players which they are unable to act.
My main regret about my years in football was keeping my mouth shut like a little mouse, not daring to speak out because I was told you left the managers to get on with the job and that the chairman must never interfere with the manager's decisions or the performance of his team.
Namely the manager will assess what he believes a player is worth and he will discuss that with the board and then we will go after that target. If we can achieve it at that target, great, but if we can't we will have to move on to the next player.
People always think the coach is the strongest person at a club, the boss, but in truth, he's the weakest link. We're there, vulnerable, undermined by those who don't play, by the media, by the fans. They all have the same objective: to undermine the manager.
Managing can be more discouraging than playing, especially when you're losing because when you're a player, there are at least individual goals you can shoot for. When you're a manager all the worries of the team become your worries.
I think every manager is different in their own way.
The players make the manager, it's never the other way.