I didn't read beyond your opening line .... but congratulations ... you have managed to write the stupidist comment I have read in almost 70 years ... and that is no mean feat .. you have strong competition ...
But in the interest of fairness .... and just to clarify your comment ... are you seriously stating that an owner of a football franchise would knowingly and deliberately disadvantage his team simply on the basis of his coach not "having earned" his stripes .... FMD ...
No what i am saying is that people in charge are less likely going to outlay more funds on someone they are not confident in or hasn't better represented a case to convince the owners it is going to significantly improve the situation/performance.
Barrett was signed on because he was seen as a Coach with potential, a cheaper alternative to an established option and more in line with the financial resources the club could afford (staying within our budget.)
The hope was as Barrett improved so would the performances along with improved crowds, sponsorship, membership etc which in turn hopefully would lead to a better financial position to outlay more in the future---at best we stagnated.
The same scenario was the case when Manly signed on Hasler (Manly was an opportunity club at the bottom, Hasler was a cheap option)---as the years went by the owners could see Hasler's potential was being realized and there was more confidence to outlay more.
Eventually though Hasler's requirements were probably way over what Manly could afford---this is one of the main reasons we couldn't retain or really wanted to retain Hasler because it got to the point where there was diminishing returns and going backwards keeping up with Dessies requests.
I'm not totally in disagreement with your point of view---really the end goal for any business is to make money/remain viable---no point winning comps/performing well if the returns are not worth it.
In the business world there are risky business models such as, invest big, except the losses to gain traction in the market or large market share, in the hope of either future returns or having some kind of monopoly that can be leveraged as a good reason to sell---even if the company is not making money. You don't have that luxury in the business of owning a sporting team.
I think the Penn's were trying hard to stay within budget in not trying to retain Hasler originally, trying to stay within budget signing on Barrett and also eventually/maybe even suddenly not convinced increasing the funds under Barrett's coaching would make much difference.
Now Manly are in the stage of probably bleeding money again, with Hasler on less than he was at the Dogs, in the hope of good returns within 3yrs---if not Manly are in big trouble.
Manly need to get the front office in order and new stadium built to show progress from the stagnant 1990's feel of the club to look like a professional modern club with a future.