Yesterday Michael Laudrup was sacked as manager of Swansea after six defeats in their last eight Premier League games. So far this season we have seen six sackings in the Premier League:
- Paulo Di Canio - Replaced by Mauricio Pochettino
- Martin Jol - Replaced by Rene Meulensteen
- Steve Clarke - Replaced by Pepe Mel
- Andre Villas Boas - Replaced by Tim Sherwood
- Malky Mackay - Replaced by Ole Gunnar Solskjaer
- Michael Laudrup - Replaced by Gary Monk
These have all been due to either bad results or a disagreement with the directors/owners of the club. So has this paid off? The bookies are tipping Rene Meulensteen to be the next manager to be sacked which clearly suggests that Fulham's decision to sack Martin Jol hasn't gone their way, yet Sunderland's sacking of Paolo Di Canio has seemed to pay off with Sunderland now in 14th place after achieving only 1 point this season under Di Canio.
So do you believe it's better to sack the manager quickly rather than wait for more bad results, or is it better to stick with the manager in the hope they can turn things around? Let us know on Twitter using the hash tag #dfsacked-If you believe it's better to sack the manager swiftly or #dfsave - if you believe it's better to stand by the manager and give him more time.