I assumed he meant it's maybe not the time to stick rigidly to rationality, but maybe take a high risk/high reward decision...
On your earlier post - really good read.
I actually think, though it might surprise you, that what you've said nearly everyone on here agrees with from the comments I've seen over the last couple of days. All the reasons for concern are bang on and I don't remember anyone saying this was anything but risky.
On the other hand, the one thing I think that you haven't covered which I believe is behind a lot of the support, is that this appointment looks organised, thorough and professional. It looks like it's been carefully thought out. It looks like it hasn't been Delia appointing her mate because she doesn't know what she's doing. And that, despite the risks, gives me a lot of comfort.
And anyway, given Adams experience and where we are in the league, I actually think the "high risk" is really only that we don't get promoted and we lose a few players, as it was under Adams. I can't see us getting relegated from here. So the risk at least hasn't been increased. Of course, we could have given ourselves a better chance of getting promoted with an experienced old hand, but that would probably have been more expensive, they might not have liked the system the board have introduced and we still might not get promoted anyway.
As for your comments on Adams - spot on. I don't see how anyone can say that a manager who ranks 10th in our all-time list for win percentages is an unmitigated failure. Yes, in context, he didn't match requirements. But he did an adequate job in difficult circumstances. As I discussed with Supers I think yesterday, I see no reason why a lower league club wouldn't want to take him on as manager given his record. So the only barrier will be whether he wants it, which I don't know.
I want to see you get a good tonking but that wont help us at all! 
