How could he have been allowed to strengthen what he had if sacked before the new players brought in had played barely 2 games?
Dowie was handed the job in February '07. He was given the transfer funds and salary flexibility to bring in Dimi, De Zeeuw, Cairo, Simmonds, Best, Hughes, Borrowdale, Simpson, and Gray. This was in addition to a squad including Mifsud, Ward, Stephen Hughes, Tabb, Kyle, Adebola etc. Dann & Fox came in too late to be significant contributors, but to focus on them is to utterly miss the larger point - Dowie had the wages and transfer fees to throw around. Players were not sold from under him, and he was allowed to add to what was already there. Compared to what AT has to deal with now, Dowie was living in the good times.
Your extrapolation of 15 games to equal 33 points over the season, a bit daft really when were already on 35 points when he was sacked.
It was only daft if you took it literally. It merely illustrates that CCFC were putting together bottom-of-the-table results over a significant, continuous period of time (a third of the season). That alone ought to be a compelling reason for anybody quizzing why Dowie was sacked.
From the first 15 games of the season, had 24 points, which extapoloated over the season at 1.6 points per game, would have given us 74 points and a place in the play-offs. Unrealistic, but no more so than your reasoning.
Irrelevant. My reasoning is simply that Dowie had an extended losing run which is why he got sacked. All you are doing is pulling out random statistics with no context or meaning whatsoever. If Thorn loses the next 10 games in a row, should we be focusing on that or a single game we won under his stewardship a couple of months earlier?
Over the seaon to date, a course of 30 games it actually worked out to about 1.16 pts per game.
Irrelevant, because this isn't about the season as a whole. The team was not bobbing up and down with some semblance of consistency; it was a good start and a dreadful second-third of the season. To have stuck with Dowie would have been to presume that the line would start ascending again, but after three months of descent there was no reason to believe that would be the case.
Even with the new manager syndrome(and full use of Dann and Fox), Coleman managed 1.13 pts per game for the last 15 games. Hardly the "great leap forward".
Irrelevant. Coleman is another topic altogether. It can be easily argued that the decision to hire Coleman was wrong. That's not the same as asking whether it was the right decision to sack Dowie.
It wasn't though, Adebola was sold in early January, believe Kyle also paid off at that time, and Dann and Fox as mentioned earlier brought in too soon before his sacking to have any statistical significance.
Adebola and Kyle left on the 31st and 30th January, respectively. Fox and Dann were brought in on the 28th January and 1st February, respectively. Both pairings are as significant/insignificant as the other. Either way, I think it would be an enormous stretch to suggest that Dowie was particularly hamstrung by the comings and goings.
I believe players weren't getting paid in the run up to the take-over(or rumours to that effect), whilst most players don't give a fuck how the club is run, they do care about their pockets, an intangible with a tangible effect.
No, they remain intangibles. You can't ask for facts and then provide intangibles yourself. I could say that Dowie's inability to sufficiently motivate players during a boardroom crisis was a failure of management...but I wouldn't because that is getting into the area of intangibles.
