package that we have ever offered a manager. Does that mean that all other potential managers will now be wanting more money from us?
not really...its all relative isn't it. I imagine Keith was "best package" prior to this or perhaps Harry Bassett, but if no one knows their salary I can't see what difference it makes.
That's a very good point. So a manager who knows what we've previously paid people will hold out for more but anyone who doesn't won't because they don't know what the best is. Do you have any idea how many different managers have the same agents or anything like that?
I'd put my life on hill not having the best package ever,,he was brought here on the back of false economy,the board thought he could work miracles without any money..how wrong they were.
It's pretty clear what you were getting at with the question. The board have approached probably the right two men - they've turned it down. The next move is the biggest and most important.
Good point but I don't think so. In any negotiation you should always know your maximum and minimum limits for what specific item(s) you are discussing. I would imagine these numbers are different per candidate? Example being Ince will get more than Keith Hill but probably less than what was on offer for Terry Butcher?
It might be pretty clear in your head but as I wasn't getting at anything then maybe just maybe you're wrong in your assumption? And I actually think that SOD was the correct choice, would have been delighted if we'd got him. Butcher I wasn't over the moon about nor underwhelmed about, mainly because I was ignorant to his managerial success but if we had got him I would have been pretty happy with. I think the club probably went for the right two men, maybe just a little too publically. At the moment there are a few options I'd be quite happy with and two that I'd be really unhappy with.