|
Post by wnm on Oct 2, 2021 16:21:15 GMT
Guess it depends what their definition of a catastrophe is then. Surprised that the bar is so low to be honest.
It's surely driven by contracting him until 2024, paying off those future years is such an expensive decision so we'd have to be in a bit of a catastrophe for that to be the best business decision. Factor in also that his boss would lose face, so would want to avoid that decision and cling as long as possible to the hope Rusk can turn things round.
The fans' reaction to the sacking of Jim mangifies that last point too, they know they absolutely had to get this right. It's still arguably a grey area while Rusk remains in post with hopes of promotion, however slim, but sacking him just 20% into his contract term is a tacit admission of having cocked that one up.
So far we’ve paid up Jim, Maynard, Bennett and Williams. If Rusk stays it’s not a financial decision especially as you’ll be wasting more money on players and not achieving the end goal of promotion.
|
|
|
Post by canterbury on Oct 2, 2021 16:57:09 GMT
It's surely driven by contracting him until 2024, paying off those future years is such an expensive decision so we'd have to be in a bit of a catastrophe for that to be the best business decision. Factor in also that his boss would lose face, so would want to avoid that decision and cling as long as possible to the hope Rusk can turn things round.
The fans' reaction to the sacking of Jim mangifies that last point too, they know they absolutely had to get this right. It's still arguably a grey area while Rusk remains in post with hopes of promotion, however slim, but sacking him just 20% into his contract term is a tacit admission of having cocked that one up.
So far we’ve paid up Jim, Maynard, Bennett and Williams. If Rusk stays it’s not a financial decision especially as you’ll be wasting more money on players and not achieving the end goal of promotion.
What is it then, a footballing decision?
Can't see how finance doesn't play a significant part, I don't know what those other payoffs were but they weren't even close to having 80% of a 3.5 year deal remaining were they?
|
|
|
Post by wnm on Oct 2, 2021 17:03:00 GMT
So far we’ve paid up Jim, Maynard, Bennett and Williams. If Rusk stays it’s not a financial decision especially as you’ll be wasting more money on players and not achieving the end goal of promotion.
What is it then, a footballing decision?
Can't see how finance doesn't play a significant part, I don't know what those other payoffs were but they weren't even close to having 80% of a 3.5 year deal remaining were they? Yep I believe so. Jim had a 18 months the others all a year I think. Either way if you don’t believe he’s the man for the job it’s going to cost you more money in the long run. Only an absolute idiot would give an completely unproven manager a three and a half year deal. Another Wilson masterstroke there.
|
|
|
Post by canterbury on Oct 2, 2021 17:53:18 GMT
What is it then, a footballing decision?
Can't see how finance doesn't play a significant part, I don't know what those other payoffs were but they weren't even close to having 80% of a 3.5 year deal remaining were they? Yep I believe so. Jim had a 18 months the others all a year I think. Either way if you don’t believe he’s the man for the job it’s going to cost you more money in the long run. Only an absolute idiot would give an completely unproven manager a three and a half year deal. Another Wilson masterstroke there.
I'm sceptical about it being for football reasons as that seven year target is very bold, dropping half a division in year two and sticking to the same path because we've avoided catastrophe is incongruous and means other factors must be coming into play. If his contract was two years shorter we'd have paid Rusk off after the 0-3 at Halifax, IMHO. Yes the cost to sack is much less than the revenue that comes from promotion, but this is where Wilson's reputation comes in, it's now inexorably tied in with this whole daft 'new culture'. Twist might work better than stick but he has a lot to lose personally from it. The best thing for him might be just to say he's got itchy again.
|
|