( L - R ) Simoes, Burrell

Many readers have given their full endorsement to the sacking of René Simoes as technical director of the national football programme. Others disagree entirely. Below, we publish two articles giving contrasting positions.

The Editor, Sir:

To some, Captain Horace Burrell's dramatic firing of Professor René Simoes was a display of decisive action in addressing performance. The philosophy here is very simple - you are paid well to achieve an objective and if you do not achieve the objective then there is a parting of ways.

Taken in that context, the firing of René Simoes, before the team has been eliminated, is a bit premature. However, if the Captain, in his wisdom, chooses to exercise his power to terminate, we must now wait and see the results, or consequences, that arise from his act. If the team makes it to the next round, the Captain will choose to take credit for it doing so. If it does not, he no doubt, will say it was the Under-performance of the fired coach that is to be blamed. Rationally, René's successor should not be blamed for failure to resurrect what is perceived as a dead programme. But, to a lesser extent, is it not what René was fired for? He failed to resurrect a programme that was perceived to be dead under the direction of coach Bora Milutinovic.

How many of those, who subscribe to the concept of firing, appreciate the culture that ties job to performance, also give adequate resources and con-dition? Club or country make resources available, not just the salary of the coach. That is what puts them in a position to demand specific performance. The flawed concept of a high-priced coach in an under-funded resource-starved environment is one that has failed and will continue to fail, no matter who the coach may be.

Available resources

Yesterday, it was Milutinovic, today it's René Simoes and tomorrow it will be somebody else. We must wake up to the folly of a policy of a coach, whose salary is disproportionately high, in comparison to the rest of the resources available to the programme.

Many have been critical of the team selection, particularly in the latter stage but what do we know?

Did insufficient resources influence the almost 180-degree turn in squad selection?

Did the Air Jamaica/ Virgin Atlantic deal affect the resource-availability for the participation of the overseas players in the programme?

How punctual has been the delivery of the resources (cash and kind) that were pledged to the programme?

Is there another team in the World Cup programme that has no training facility that can be called base, where the availability of training facility to the team is subject to the convenience of some other party?

Assuming the salary commitment to the coach and his staff was being dutifully met how much resource remains in the programme to deal with all the other things that a successful programme requires?

Something must be said about the sense of priorities and values of a society where neither the national administration nor any of the clubs has income comparable to the national coach's salary. And, to put the icing on the cake, the coach's salary exceeds that of the prime minister and the governor of the central bank combined. If that is not madness, please tell me, what is?

I am, etc.,

LUCIUS C. WHITE

Kingston