The only reasoned argument I can come up with for appointing him, is that

should the club appoint some other external candidate, whomever that might be, the chances are they will want to get rid of Gunn's coaching staff. Which will cost money, since we know they have contracts that would need to be paid up.

So, by keeping Gunn the club avoid having to pay off Crook and Butterworth's contracts.

Feeble as it might be, that's the only reasoned argument I can come up with. Well, apart from a vague unsubstantiated feeling that Gunn would be a lot cheaper than his alternatives. Whether that's true or not, I've no idea.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the Gunn/Not Gunn question - I don't think it's comparatively significant. The problems at Norwich are not going to be solved by a managerial appointment.

Posted By: Arizona Bay, May 13, 14:11:53