Its all linked this. The running of the football club in general, the idea that we support or abandon the managers and young players, the line management of the manager - i.e. if others are to blame for the team's performance, is it really just the manager who should go, or should the CEO also be held responsible?
I don't understand, with both Martinez and Koeman, why there is nobody above them trying to motivate, convince, change, encourage, manage the manager to run the team better. Dont the managers have a boss who tells them feedback or is it just boom or bust and nothing in between.
I would also love to have seen RM given a bit more time, because now it looks like his 5th place finish and Koeman's 7th place were like the combination of Moyes/Martinez styles and Martinez / Koeman styles - i.e. attacking and solidity. Why can't Martinez, or whoever you call the best hope as manager, be convinced, coached, supported with other coaches, into making the team better? If you say Martinez was attacking and crap on defence and weak tactically, why not convince him to bring on an excellent coach on the team, and replace Denis Lawrence and Graeme whathisname? and also if Big Dunc is not really a great coach we should be honest about that too - if he is, fine, but if he's there just for sentimental reasons we have to be careful too, because tactics have been to blame in both the 11th place finishes and this season, and Big Dunc, Elstone and Kenwright ahve been there for all of those seasons - what do they have to answer?
in short, we need a football strategy from above, which is planned by the club and executed by the manager, not one which is dependent on each different manager that comes in.