Problem with online discussions about finances especially is that nobody really knows in any details what on earth is said or done except in general terms so they can often go off on tangents.
Basically the board sets the budget (cos that is their job) and sounds like (direct quotes from Redknapp) Harry will pick the targets within budget to try to survive (he still sounds optimistic) as he has been asked to do. That sums up just about every bit of solid ground I can see.
Certainly one area to really make a difference to the side would be to move on some big earners *who do not deliver* and he has strongly hinted that already (caused quite a stir too). But unless the board have told him to do this then it wont be the sole priority and he may replace big earners who flop with big earners who deliver as that is his job.
So if you think reducing the wage bill is the sole priority then your argument is with the board not the manager. In general managers spend their budgets and the board sets the budgets and that is the way business works.
Basically the board sets the budget (cos that is their job) and sounds like (direct quotes from Redknapp) Harry will pick the targets within budget to try to survive (he still sounds optimistic) as he has been asked to do. That sums up just about every bit of solid ground I can see.
Certainly one area to really make a difference to the side would be to move on some big earners *who do not deliver* and he has strongly hinted that already (caused quite a stir too). But unless the board have told him to do this then it wont be the sole priority and he may replace big earners who flop with big earners who deliver as that is his job.
So if you think reducing the wage bill is the sole priority then your argument is with the board not the manager. In general managers spend their budgets and the board sets the budgets and that is the way business works.
Comment