Why was that a stupid mistake, I keep seeing that quoted?
The longevity of the contract might be irrelevant depending on the clauses within it for early termination. Potter is supposedly amoung the lowest paid PL managers. Scott Parker is supposedly on over 3x as much. Even if there wasn't a protective termination clause, paying out the rest of Potter's contract would only cost you the same as 1 year of Scott Parker.
I'm with you on the managerial changes though. Too much emphasis is put on what influence they can in reality have. Year on year the table reflects salary levels and transfer fees. You get the odd anomaly, and sometimes a manager does produce a kick, but the truth of it is they can only achieve with the tools they have. Look at Wilder, hero to zero. But he hasn't gone from great manager to poor one. It's what is on the pitch that delivers.
Given we have no idea re clauses it is an assumption, although not unreasonable.
Perhaps re Parker, but why extend after ?13 games. Any extension costs additional money if you were to pay a manager off, not to mention the staff.
To me it was a silly decision based on little evidence.
Always easier when it’s not your money [emoji6][emoji2]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk