Plan B

Quoted from Tommy

I didn't/don't have inside information on our or other teams budgets, but I would imagine we had a top 5 budget every year we were in the conference. Admittedly not the biggest budget (there was usually a Crawley/Fleetwood/Luton chucking money at it) but surely consistently a top 5/top 6 budget?

So therefore the expectancy would be to finish in the play-offs every year. Good managers achieve over and above expectations that are dictated by budgets or status - hence why league tables dont always just finish top-to-bottom exactly in line with budgets.

A competent manager, which I would've classed Hurst as until the last few months, would achieve around about where your budget dictates you should be. If we go down again, I'd rather have someone who will be able to over-achieve and win that division. Or at least threaten to.

One final point and one not specifically aimed at you Garth, as its a common cliche, but the play offs are not a lottery. The team who performs best and is more effective throughout the play off competition wins promotion. Labelling them as a lottery is what managers who aren't successful in them do.

Refereeing decisions are beyond the control of a manger. First time in the play offs, we were rubbish and soundly beaten by Newport. Second time, it all went t1ts up at Gateshead when Neilson was sent off, which if I remember was a bit soft. Third time, their keeper. should have been sent off against Rovers but wasn't. When we finally made it fourth time, there was luck along the way. The Braintree defender losing the plot, giving away a pen and then getting sent off. The first goal at Wembley was also a fluke. Luck plays a big part in play offs.

Quoted from kafunanapar140909

I think that reply means you've run out of "logical" arguments  

You're obviously on Hurst's Christmas card list. So if sacking a man who players he brought in can only win 1 game, draw 1 game and lose 8 is illogical, what is logical in you mind.

I'll restate my old theory about Hurst's tenure in Non league.
He and Scott were in their mid 30's when they took over and it was their big chance, having had a very successful track record. They'd started pretty reasonably and then suddenly Scott threw his wobbly and Hurst is left holding the baby
He was on his own, for the first time in his career, at the biggest club he'd ever managed. get it wrong and the likelihood is that he'd never get another professional managerial job. He's still got a wife and family plus a mortgage to pay & the kids to get through uni. So i think he deliberately played the percentages game.
yes we had one of the biggest budgets, and so he made damn sure that he did everything he could do to get the team into the play offs. And if that meant doggedly scrapping for narrow 1-0 away wins, then so be it. Just imagine if he'd tried to play attacking, flowing footie and it didn't bring the results.He'd have been sacked within a few months, be jobless , unable to pay the bills and mortgage and with no chance of getting a job in the only industry he's ever been involved with.
Eventually it came good ,and not unreasonably, having worked for a boss like Fenty, he took the first chance he had at a better club with a bigger salary. The stints at Shrews, Ipshit and the Scunts will have left him comfortably off, and with the experience and knowledge which will allow him to get further managerial stints.
So, in conclusion, i'd say that the Hurst we have now is a different man to what we had 6 years ago, and his footballing outlook has probably changed accordingly. IMHO we won't get many better managers for the non league life that awaits and i'd certainly give him next season. if it doesn't work then, yes, he will have to go, but i think (& most importantly Mr Stockwood seems to think) that he deserves a chance