Originally Posted by
Lullapie
Lets face it, since the Brothers took control, none of their managerial appointments have high profile/high cost. No, I can't prove that they aren't high cost, but in the realms of reasonableness surely nobody would believe that keeping Ardley on (if they initially sacked him, there would be compensation) or appointing Burchnall, Williams or Maynard broke the budget.
Ardley was sacked in the third year of his contract, so again, a lesser payout.
I'm not saying what is right or wrong as I don't know what the owners position or aim is, but they don't go for battle hardened managers and to me, that means that they want to retain full control.
I also don't believe many old school managers would just just accept who is brought in and have to make the most of them - not long term anyway.