Of course the CEO shapes policy, you can hardly suggest otherwise when, as you say, they, or by extension, the board, sign the cheques. Wielding a financial veto is the most persuasive pressure you can exert to directly shape policy. I understand the distinction you make in describing the power differential in the workplace , but on certain issues within football a clear understanding of boundaries needs to be recognized: for example if we look at the CEO's dogged retention of players the manager no longer has a tactical use for, then, I believe, it illustrates an overstepping of the mark, and should recognize that for the best practice to exist any such decision should be taken by someone who is qualified to make these types of nuanced judgments and defer to the insight of a person who works pitchside, on a day-to-day basis, with said players. In fact, your description excuses any sort of interference, shy of actually picking the team, and ultimately gives Woodward the excuse of being a passive supplicant to the whim of the board ........... a board which, lets not forget, owes its very existence to his maneuverings in proposing the takeover in the first place.
I'm no fan of Jose's & I have a deep foreboding about the coming season, but Woodward's use of spin and this inappropriate and indeed inopportune, "cover my ass" press briefing has particularly rankled with me. Anyway, we aren't going to agree, so I'll leave it there.
