Originally Posted by
Timmy58
Mike, you really do need to drag yourself out of the 1950s/1960s. The size of these operations could not be managed by one person. The first team manager is responsible for the first team and nothing more. The various teams in the unders are managed separately by managers appointed by the board of directors and they are expected to work in a similar way to the first team manager to maintain continuity. Maybe you would prefer one man doing everything, but how sustainable do you think that would be? And where do you draw the line? Manager cutting the grass on the pitch every week? Serving the tea/coffee at the kiosk?
You say we have gone with the policy of appointing the same old faces. Well, I think it is the right way to go. Never mind the salary of the individual contrasted with bringing in an experienced lower league manager with no guarantee of success.
It would not surprise me if the Academy has saved us more than it has cost us over the duration of its existence because we will have had fewer players on (relatively) big wages, which will have given us a n element of freedom to bring in some decent quality players on a slightly higher wage.
Because of the way we do things I am confident we will have a club to support for the remainder of my lifetime and beyond. It may not ever be challenging for the Premiership (no bad thing in my opinion), we may struggle to even get to the championship. But that doesn't mean we won't see some good football and some good times.