"Can any manager be said to have had a fair chance to turn round a failing club after only 20 games, without, as Saunders himself reminded us regularly, having spent any money?" http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22434940
It's spot on - Flitcroft didn't have a fair chance. But he worked a miracle. His relationship and knowing the players already was a massive factor though.
Fair points. I still think what Flitcroft achieved demonstrated that the answer isn't always to reach for the chequebook, though.
I agree entirely, I think the same goes for players as well. In that interview, Karl Henry says Wolves shouldn't be relegated with the wage bill they have? But as you rightly point out, money doesn't equal success. Many of our players were playing in league 1 when Wolves were in the premier league, there's been such a massive turnaround. I think the issue at Wolves is the number of management changes they've had in such a short period. They should have given one manager a chance, or at least given Saunders time to try and bring them back up next season, rather than constantly changing managers.
