This is what I am talking about. I'm getting on a bit, but there's obviously quite a few on here who, whether or not they are older than me, are reverting back to a long time ago.
My whole point is that we cannot compare the role of Head Coaches today at Notts to the time when we had 'managers'. Owners were expected to pump their money in and keep out of the playing side of the club.
The world has moved on from that. Many clubs and businesses set their structure up today, where if the Head Coach or the COO departs, the system remains the same under the new incumbent.
Neither LW or SM it seems bought/buys the players. None of us know this for certain (although a few infer that they might have inside knowledge of something different), but my proof is players that been brought into the club, but have hardly ever played.
Some also have very short term memories. LW did very well for Notts in the NL, but was beginning to fail in L1 once the other teams sussed out how Notts played - in my opinion the 'decline' started before Notts got promotion. There was no Plan B - possibly similar to SM. Again, Williams did have some middle stage success with Swansea, but once his tactics were sussed out, Swansea began to fail. You can't keep blaming the quality of playing staff at every club, but then again, I'm not solely blaming the coach either.
If it's purely down to motivation, you often find that the best motivators, Warnock and Allardyce have been named, would NEVER have been employed by the current owners.
My point is, I believe SM, like LW had been employed to 'coach' the players that they have at their disposal. They don't recruit, they don't even have the opportunity to employ their own tactics. In return, they are promised nearly unlimited support by the owners.