Quote Originally Posted by WBA123 View Post
I don't see it that way. They are allowed to manage, but they have to manage within the model.

So if we play a particular formation, any manager who we speak with will need to be on board with that. We also want a manager who is going to give our younger players exposure, because the more they play and perform - the more resale value we have.

At times recently, we've dropped Fellows and played Diangana or Swift. Why? They are leaving for nothing at the end of the season. Its not like they really added anything anyway, but Fellows could have got another 2, 3, 4 assists and his stats look even more appealing to a buyer. If we sell Fellows for 15m, it gives us an option to reinvest that money on other players.

Had Wildsmith not been so mistake prone, he would likely still be in goal instead of Griffiths...again, which one has more resale value? This is common sense, and we need a manager on board with it. Maybe we could put up with it if we were winning games, but we haven't been. So TM failed that test miserably.

I also notice he made similar comments when he left Sunderland, who wanted a manager to develop younger players. They have the same idea as us. The club has to be on the same page as the manager, and we clearly weren't with TM.
Time will tell. Next season with the new person on board will provide an indication if this formula works. If we find ourselves in a similar situation then it may need a rethink.

The game itself is simple, this at least to me appears complicated and restrictive.