NOrmally organisations sack an employee because they would rather save their wages, but they are going to have to pay his wages anyway so the reason must be that they just want someone else to do the job instead. Why don't they just relegate him to assistant manager, and have the new manager just overrule him? They've paid for him so why don't they use him? I mean even if it's only mowing the pitch, he could at least do something.
Question is, is it more economical to stick with a crap manager and possibly go down a few leagues and save yourself a few million in wages?
Why do they need a manager at all - if the players are that good why can't they organise themselves, or without a manager would they refuse to cooperate as team players and instead be every man for himself, all crowding round the ball like a swarm of bees all trying to get it to score the goal themselves? (Which is what footy tended to be like when I was at school.)
He can't be in it for the money as it doesn't appear to make commercial sense, so if Abramovitch is that interested in footy why doesn't HE be the manager himself?
Other point is that once you've got a contract as chelsea's manager, it's in your best interest to deliberately lose, as you'll still get the wages but not have to do any work.
