The Manager: Inside the Minds of Football's Leaders (3 page)

Roy Hodgson, while acknowledging the shift in nature of the high-profile, high-net-worth owner/chairmen of today, makes two significant observations. First, it remains a relationship game; and
second, the onus – at least initially – is on the owner to get it right. ‘In the past the chairman of a football club would be a local figure, a local businessman who would have
been brought up with that club and had the club in his blood. But he had the capacity to have a good, bad or indifferent relationship with his appointed manager – just like any owner today.
That hasn’t changed. This is all about personalities, the personality of the owner and of the manager/coach. What has changed is the scale of wealth some owners bring. But if they are going
to have success with their club, they must choose their manager very wisely, work with him and give him the support he needs. They will only get success for themselves through success of the team,
and success for the team is going to come through the man who leads and manages the players. He is the one who will mould the team, i.e. bring the right players to the club and coach them to play
in a way that brings success.’

So the powerful owner is very much a part of modern football, and he has a great influence on the game. But to be successful, he needs a manager who can share his vision, convey it with clarity
and passion, take ownership for outcomes and deliver on all his professional responsibilities in the face of enormous expectation.

Agents

The nature of the chairman himself is not the only evolution of the last 20 years. Harry Redknapp believes that, for managers, the rise of the player’s agent is
threatening not only the sacred bond between them and their players, but also the critical stability of their relationship with the chairman. ‘If a player had a problem, he would come and see
the manager and speak to the manager: “Why aren’t I playing, gaffer? I think I should be in the team. What am I doing wrong? Why don’t you give me a chance?” But they
don’t come and see you any more. Instead, the agents ring the chairman and complain that you aren’t picking their player! Very, very few players knock on your door – they all go
through their agent now. So agents build relationships with chairmen, not managers. They aren’t silly, they know that the chairman owns the club and that managers come and go. This can be
very undermining – and it’s happening all the time. More and more chairmen are choosing players in the transfer window. In the past, players were chosen and the chairman wouldn’t
know anything until the player arrived! It’s very different now.’ It’s in this climate that the critical relationship between manager and chairman needs to stay watertight.

When it all works

The owner-manager relationship is absolutely critical and can create or destroy a club’s chances of success. Gérard Houllier tells how it can have a direct impact
on team performance: ‘I remember one specific moment when I came to a club part way through a season. I wondered after a few months if maybe the team was not clicking, or maybe the players
were not playing for me. Particularly in the Barclays Premier League, the players play for the manager in some ways, so I thought that maybe because I had changed a few things they were not playing
for us. So I went to the board and I explained that maybe we have to take some action. One of the board members stood up and said, “Well Mr Houllier. We don’t have the best quality in
the world, but there are two qualities we do have: patience and trust. We are patient and we will trust you do what you have to do.” So when I left the board I went to my staff and I said,
“Now we are going to start winning,” and we won. Because the more the board trusts you, the more assertive and the more strong you will be in your management.’ This is an
excellent example. Martin O’Neill agrees: ‘The owner–manager relationship is of paramount importance and I don’t believe that can be underestimated.’ Above all others,
this relationship can be the most painful one for managers.

Pain

For Neil Warnock, the pain comes most of all from not being understood. ‘I said to Amit Bhatia [QPR Director] when I left, “You don’t really know what
I’ve done at the club.” I don’t think people understand what managers do. Yes, they are managers, but they are also fathers, brothers and friends to everyone at the club. The way
QPR is run I was actually sort of Mother Superior to everybody, the cleaner included. I made everybody feel important and that’s not easy to do. No disrespect, but you don’t get that
from a university. You can’t put what we do behind the scenes into qualifications.’

And once the relationship between the manager and the chairman-owner is broken – as with many other relationships – it is hard to rebuild. Warnock says: ‘I always work better
when I work for one person who I trust totally. I have fallen out with a few chairmen in my career, but I only fell out with them when they lied to me. Once I felt that I’d lost trust in
them, then I might as well have left. Once somebody lies to me or I lose trust in them, then I can never be committed to that same person again. When I left Sheffield United, the chairman – a
friend of 17 years, I thought – came out and said on reflection he should have probably changed the manager. I had known this guy for 17 years and I rang him immediately and asked him why he
said it. He said he was misquoted and he didn’t mean to say anything like that. I told him I had heard it on the radio.’

The pain that comes from lack of appreciation and recognition is a significant challenge to managers. Many simply find they have to protect themselves. Sam Allardyce says: ‘What happened
at Blackpool taught me never to be sentimental and always get out when you’re ready. I thought if I can get sacked by losing in the play-offs ... The year I took over, the club had finished
fourth from bottom, just stayed up, the first year we finished 11th, the second year we finished third in the play-offs. We missed out on automatic promotion by a couple of points, we got beaten in
the play-offs and I got sacked. So I said to myself if I got back into management I would never stay when it was the right time for me to leave. I wouldn’t get emotionally involved in the
football club and get talked into staying. And I played that out at Bolton and Notts County.’

So pain doesn’t happen only with the high-profile clubs and their high-profile owners. Allardyce is more concerned about the young managers trying to make it work in the lower leagues:
‘Some of the conflict I have had with owners and chairmen – it made you want to leave as quick as you could. I had to put up with it because I was making my way in management. It was
brutal. Most managers still suffer the same now: the brutality, the bullying, the interference, the threats. It’s a cruel and hard, hard world trying to make your way up as a manager. You
come through that, you generally end up being a good leader.’

As with most high-profile relationships in business, politics or sport, the one between football chairman and manager is at the same time combustible and essential. Many will become strong; some
never will. All require mutual commitment and effort to make them work – and a basic acknowledgement that both parties are human beings, often caught up in the emotion of the game.

Stability ...

Across the domains of club finance, governance and personal experience, the chairman can create either stability or instability for the manager and the club. Tony Pulis speaks
enthusiastically of a relationship that fuelled the unexpected rise of Stoke City: ‘My relationship with owner Peter Coates was paramount to everything that we achieved. He trusted me and I
trusted him. Being a local Stoke businessman Peter was massively important to our progress. He had a dream to put Stoke City back on the map but to do it in a way that also brought the community
closer to the football club.’

Howard Wilkinson contrasts his experiences as manager of Sheffield Wednesday and Leeds. ‘Sheffield Wednesday were fifth or sixth in the First Division when I was approached by Leeds, who
were at the bottom of the second. The board at Sheffield Wednesday had dragged the club from the brink. But we got to the point when I said, “We need to invest now – I can’t keep
squeezing juice out of these oranges. All the juice has gone. They just can’t come back next season and produce it again and again. We need to get better players.” And they said,
“Howard, you know what our policy is – we can’t go down that road.”

‘When Leeds approached me, I met the chairman three or four times. Every time I met him it was a long meeting because I saw at Leeds the opportunity to go to a one-club town, with a
chairman who was backing things with his own money. My message to him was, “I’ll come here if at the end of this long conversation you say yes. So it’s not me that’s going
to say yes – you say yes.” So I put to him what I wanted to do and what I thought they could do. And it sounds ludicrous now, but the first part was five years and the second part was
another five years and included everything – being promoted, winning the league, starting up an academy and so on. So by the time I’d got to that point I was starting to have very clear
ideas about how I thought a successful club could be run. And he said yes. That was the start of an experiment, funded by him, which worked.’ This rare example of a vision set for the long
term and faithfully executed over the long term lent unusual stability to the club.

Sharing a long-term vision is a sure-fire way to secure a long-term relationship – and, with it, stability for your organisation or team. Former Newcastle United and Manchester City
manager Kevin Keegan will never forget the inspirational phone call he took in Marbella from Sir John Hall at Newcastle United, who said: ‘The two men who can save this club are talking to
each other now.’ Pulis found similar inspiration. ‘I had just finished the season managing Plymouth Argyle and was really enjoying it there. I was on holiday with my family when Peter
Coates phoned me. He said to me, “I’m going to buy Stoke, but I will only buy it on one condition ... if you come back with me.” He described his vision for Stoke to me and what
he thought the club could achieve if it was run properly throughout. A good few years before I was at the club the first time around, Peter hadn’t been treated very well by certain sections
when he had been chairman. So I thought if he’s got the guts to do this then I should have the guts as well. In reality we were two really unpopular figures returning to the club – but
I felt what he had outlined to me as the way forward made so much sense.’

Clarity of understanding and clear lines of responsibility make a big difference too. Allardyce’s successful relationship with the chairman at Bolton was founded on clarity. In 1999 when
his long-standing friend and peer Brett Warburton became vice chairman and Phil Gartside became chairman, they established some clear ground rules. ‘Phil looked after the new stadium build
and infrastructure; I looked after the football side. This wasn’t as easy as it sounds. The club had got into severe debt, so the business needed major restructuring and a new board. They
recreated the business; I recreated the football. And I learned to speak their business language – which was important when it came to getting across my requests for investment. It was about
making a business case based on success and working within budgets. If I could show I’d added an extra £2.5 million of value in a year, then I expected them to reinvest in the
football.’

... and instability

By contrast, instability at the top creates anxiety and additional challenges that a highly operational leader does not need. Walter Smith joined Everton from Rangers in 1998
but, pretty soon after, it all began to get tough. ‘The owner-chairman, Peter Johnson, had one or two problems just avoiding relegation the year before I arrived. He told me up front there
would be money to invest in the team when, in fact, the reverse was true. After about two and a half months he sold a player without consulting me. Shortly after, he put the club up for sale and
then effectively walked away. Only then did we all realise what a chaotic financial situation the club was in.

‘After he left, we had to sell nearly all the players that we had brought in. There was no transfer window then, so it was back and forward, bringing in players to cover for ones who were
leaving. Then there was a new ownership. That new ownership was done on the back of a deal with NTL Communications. That fell through after two months, and we entered an unstable financial
environment. That was where a little bit of anxiety crept in. I didn’t really have the confidence to say it’ll be OK in six months. I was there for three and a half years and it was
pretty much a constant battle. Looking back on it just now I can say that I enjoyed it – more than I did at the time!’

Football stirs deep emotions for everyone involved. Players, staff and fans all feel pride and despair, strong attachment and overwhelming joy. They can also feel anger, resentment and pain.
Allardyce recognises that owners and business leaders are susceptible to all of these feelings and more – and sometimes with difficult consequences: ‘They get the bug as much as we get
it. They get the adrenalin rush, love it, can’t leave it alone, have to have it. High-powered businessmen find a new form that they have never experienced before in their life – and
they can lose sight of where they were originally heading.’ Maintaining clarity of thought, perspective and long-term vision with such emotions at play is a challenge for a leader in any
field.

Living on the edge

When the relationship between owner and manager is working, life is good. But success can be fleeting. In his second full season at the City of Manchester Stadium, Roberto
Mancini’s Manchester City were in the Premier League’s pole position for much of the season. In late March his team slipped up and the pressure on him – real or perceived –
increased significantly. It’s at moments like these that the relationship is truly tested. Speaking at that time, Ancelotti understood the pressure Mancini was under: ‘Everyone says
that Mancini has to win; if he doesn’t win this year it could be big problems. But the owner one week ago said he is happy with the performance of the team. The problem is in football that
only one team wins.’ He himself has had his tougher experiences. At Chelsea – unlike at PSG – he inherited a team that was ‘fully ready’. He was sacked after two
seasons, despite winning the league and cup double. He is philosophical, while admitting the pain of the experience. ‘I didn’t feel good. I think that I did my best, but I had a problem
with the owner because the owner wanted more. This is normal, but I cannot do anything more.’ Successful leadership under such intense personal pressure is no mean feat.