The SUFC buzzword ‘Sustainability’ by definition means we are only spending the equivalent of what comes in (or less whilst we clear the debts) which ultimately means it’s the fans and sponsors who are paying the wages of the staff and players. I’ve seen a few comments across social media of fans who feel affronted by the somewhat hasty decision to extend Butlers contract and comments that the fans and sponsors will wind up paying for it, presumably by a pay off to the manager or via enduring the turgid football for another 2 seasons.
Maybe it would have been prudent to take a ‘see how it goes’ approach with the manager and staff, much like we have with the players who have in the most part signed 1 year deals. Extending now in light of the reaction to the Guiseley defeat feels like abit of a ‘stuff you’ to the fans and seems that the board will do what they want regardless of fan opinion. Wasn’t the tag line this time last year ‘it’s OUR club’? Doesn’t feel like it at the moment. The only rational explanation for an extension at this point would be to provide some security to Butler in the hope that the vote of confidence improves his performance. Thats a big risk and does have the feel of ‘jobs for the boys’, handing out contracts to people who are liked rather than for their achievements.
The timing was wrong IMO and has divided the fan base and fanned the flames. First big mistake from Michelle and the board. I’m hoping after getting our fingers burned with Dean’s extension last year that we might have had the foresight to have some performance related break clause. I.e if we do not achieve top 4 this year we are able to cancel the contract in the summer without having to pay him off. But I’m no expert in contract matters so not even sure if that would be legal.
