the 'cheap option'

[bingo70]

Just mentioned this on the new manager mega thread but thought i'd give it a thread on it's own to get peoples thoughts...

I've heard Petrie being criticised for going for the cheap option, however, considering we're losing a rake money every year excluding player sales i'd have thought thats all we could afford?

I realise that if we pay big money for a good manager then it could end up paying for itself but is that not a gamble similar to what Dundee did and are now being slated for?

So what would people rather do, get a manager we can actually afford or gamble and spend outwith our means?

[Beefster]

I'd rather they cut the playing squad budget by a few grand a week to pay the right man, if that's what it takes.

[bingo70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'd rather they cut the playing squad budget by a few grand a week to pay the right man, if that's what it takes.

In theory, i agree, my only concern with that would be that if we were to go for an expensive manager i'm no sure he'd be happy with the playing budget being cut.

[blackpoolhibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In theory, i agree, my only concern with that would be that if we were to go for an expensive manager i'm no sure he'd be happy with the playing budget being cut.

[bawheid]

My view is that no player at the club should be paid more than the manager. If that means re-jigging the player budget so be it.

[Stevie Reid]

The "cheap option" refers to someone who will be paid handsomely yet within our means. The term agitates me almost as much as the Jamboesque "show some ambition" chat.