Money is no excuse for not sacking him

Just noticed this comment from the pinkun article from Delia:
"We have debated this and the conclusion is that, as a football club with few resources, the best way forward is through continuity."
This does tend to sound like we are keeping him because we can't afford to sack him. But how can they even try to claim this since we have just spent 3m on a striker and brought in 2 loans from the premiership, even when we knew that the play-offs were out of our reach?
As well as being in the prem and having the biggest home gates, they still try to claim that we have no money. Fair enough we aren't rolling in it but surely if Derby, Leicester, Walsall and Sunderland can afford it, then so can we?

Posted By: hound, Mar 9, 12:06:04