Which is why I made clear it was just a theory...

... And can't possibly be proven. But something ain't right here: how can the club leave the guy in charge for so long in such a crucial season, then fail to back him in the summer all the while whispering to supporters' groups that he was 'on borrowed time' anyway?

As for the motive: it's simple. You must remember the rumours which started circulating midway through last season that he was on a long contract, and we were stuck with him because the club couldn't afford to get rid? If I were the Chief Executive in such a situation, I know what I'd do: I'd put out that my man was on a one-year rolling deal. It'd quash the rumours immediately. But there's actually nothing to stop the club lying: it'd even be in their interests, I'd say.

And of course, sacking him was always going to be expensive. But if I'm right, then ?600,000 for 9 months of a 3-year deal remaining is a heck of a lot different from close to ?1.4m had they got rid when they should've done last November, isn't it?

Posted By: thebigfeller, Dec 1, 18:05:46