Money Matters: Why Do Some EPL Managers Get Nothing to Spend?

Stuart Pearce and Chris Coleman are two of the more recent casualties, but it's happened before.

I'm talking about clubs sacking their managers for "underachieving" and "not pressing enough" when they've in fact had no money to spend on new players—only to then give the new manager an open invitation to run up the overdraft limit.

In Pearce's case, there was a board change at Manchester City, and perhaps it's fair that they'd want a new man in charge.

Still, it seems harsh that, aside from Georgios Samaras, Pearce was forced to sign players on loan or as free transfers—or by selling his other squad members.

Coleman, meanwhile, kept Fulham in the Premiership for four seasons with little to spend—but that still wasn't good enough. New manager Lawrie Sanchez, a man with no experience at the top level, was given a war-chest with which to land the likes of David Healy, Chris Baird, and Diomansy Kamara—for millions of pounds a pop.

None of them have managed to set the league alight thus far.

I have a lot of admiration for clubs who manage to stay in the Premiership despite spending little or no extra money on players each year—but is it really wise, much less fair, to dispense with a manager who achieves the feat and then offer his successor €20 million to do with as he wishes in one transfer window?

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?