Quote
sanfRAM
>>"What that clearly says is that they planned for Fisher to return after his 5th season, not that Fisher's job was dependent on the results of his 5th season"<<
Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
It's obvious what this means.
It means they planned on him returning after his fifth season - presumably because they figured most or all of the pieces were in place for success, and they expected him to succeed.
And what success means to them might be different from what it means to any of us.
But in no way does that mean he was definitely staying, no matter WHAT the results were!
So - you can expect someone to succeed - and then show faith in them and reward them with a contract extension as a vote of confidence...
But if they fail in spectacular fashion, shatter your expectations, and perform much worse than anticipated - they can STILL be fired.
Ya know - JUST LIKE WITH ANY OTHER JOB, LOL.
Was it a dumb business move to extend him? Maybe. I think so. (And obviously to me, it was also a completely idiotic football move).
But it doesn't mean anything is written in stone, or absolutely decided, or that his job is 100% secure no matter what.
sanfRAM
I did not say those things were mutually exclusive. I said it was a clear indicator of something. Not a binary condition, but a likely condition.
As I believe I spelled out in pretty clear English throughout the fullness of my post, they left a breaker in there to protect against catastrophic failure this season, but it's a minimum standard that makes the plan easy to maintain. I didn't argue from the premise it was written in stone, so can only guess at why you'd chose to respond as if I did.
