There has been a lot of comment on here and the other board about doing the decent thing and giving up the top job if the team is failing to reach the required level of performance.
Today the Director General of the BBC has been awarded a year's salary of £450,000 for resigning after only 54 days in post.
I appreciate him doing 'the decent thing' when Newsnight created such a cock-up, but was it really justifiable for him to take the blame? And is it acceptable for the BBC to pay out such a huge sum for his 'gardening leave'?
More to the point, our city's two Scots have had a great deal more than 54 days in post and a far greater responsibility for the failing football standards in Bristol.
I actually believe that the two incumbants are probably pretty decent characters, but their lack of footballing achievement is another matter.
So if they are as decent as it would appear, are either of them liable to do the 'decent thing'?
If they do resign, is it likely that they will reject acceptance of the pay for 'gardening leave' as it is probable that the ex-Director General of the BBC is likely to do?
Today the Director General of the BBC has been awarded a year's salary of £450,000 for resigning after only 54 days in post.
I appreciate him doing 'the decent thing' when Newsnight created such a cock-up, but was it really justifiable for him to take the blame? And is it acceptable for the BBC to pay out such a huge sum for his 'gardening leave'?
More to the point, our city's two Scots have had a great deal more than 54 days in post and a far greater responsibility for the failing football standards in Bristol.
I actually believe that the two incumbants are probably pretty decent characters, but their lack of footballing achievement is another matter.
So if they are as decent as it would appear, are either of them liable to do the 'decent thing'?
If they do resign, is it likely that they will reject acceptance of the pay for 'gardening leave' as it is probable that the ex-Director General of the BBC is likely to do?
