Does the boss really know best?

HITTING the luxury goods market with the force of a tabloid newspaper laying into a pair of sad-eyed teenage parents, the credit crunch — otherwise variously known as the recession, the depression or the end of the universe as we know it — has had a number of other knock-on effects in the lives of regular folk.

For example, no longer can the working man afford to lazily splash out on an overpriced three-course meal in a packed, sweaty and crushingly mediocre Italian restaurant for himself and the lady on Valentine’s night.

Across the country this weekend, such venues remained as sparsely populated as Spotland during a Rochdale Hornets home game (one for the Roughyeds fans there), as couples instead feasted on all-day-breakfasts from tins, washed down with supermarket own-brand beer, in front of Ant and Dec’s Saturday Night Takeaway. Or at least, we did.

Still, there is an upside to this new-found penury. Now, more than ever before, the people of Great Britain appear ready to question authority figures — like those bankers who assured us that massive debt was a good thing, as long as it was bunched up and hidden away from prying eyes.

Fancy a bonus this year, Mr London City type? Here’s your money. You can have it as soon as you get past that torch-wielding mob that have set up camp right outside your swanky office block.

It is a bit strange, though, that while the public feel they have the right to have a pop at the various bank bosses who have cost the taxpayer millions upon millions of pounds in bail-out cash, the same right to protest isn’t extended to footballers who don’t view their managers as being the best custodians of similar amounts of transfer kitty moolah and talent.

The papers treat ‘player power’ as absolutely a bad thing. But why shouldn’t footballers voice doubts over the competence of their bosses, particularly when so many of them appear to be resolutely terrible at their jobs?

Portsmouth got rid of Tony Adams amid reports of unrest in the dressing room. The former England captain was a leader of men on the field, but has been a disaster zone worthy of a broadcastable aid appeal off it.

“I don’t actually like people,” he said, amid a run of two league wins from 16 games. “I’m a loner and if I had my way I’d just walk my dogs every day, never talk to anyone and then die.”

At Chelsea, Big Phil Scolari allegedly wasn’t well liked by many of the players and no wonder. His team selections were awful and his clueless tactics more so.

That a squad containing so much talent lies in fourth is bizarre, particularly given that last season under Avram Grant the Blues players virtually managed themselves to a Champions’ League final.

Then there is Mark Hughes at Manchester City. Yes, the signing of Robinho and the whole Kaka circus wasn’t his doing. But he presumably sanctioned paying Wayne Bridge a supposed £95,000 a week (yes, I have mentioned this before, but I still can’t quite get it to sink in).

And looking at the City team which lost 2-0 to Pompey on Saturday, it is full of good players who should be performing at a much higher level. The players themselves, none of whom set out to intentionally under-perform, surely know this too.

The League Managers’ Association, that vital body responsible for making sure its members get their huge pay-outs in exchange for failing to do their jobs properly, would no doubt disagree.

But sometimes, it is right that under-performing managers are posed serious questions, no matter who is doing the asking.

mattchambers@oldham-chronicle.co.uk