You seem to put an inordinate amount of importance on management courses. Yes they cost money and yes they are reasonably rigorous but to say that everyone who passes is 'same skilled' is incredibly simplistic and analogous to saying that everyone who gets an English literature degree is capable of writing a nobel prize winning novel or that everyone who gets a MBA is capable of being a CEO.
Management is about decision making. In any field there is a huge variation in strategic intelligence, emotional receptiveness, conscientiousness and work ethic and football management is no exception.
I've no doubt that JFH has every coaching qualification under the sun. Unfortunately, that didn't stop him playing Periera in central midfield rather than McWilliams or persisting with Bunney over Buchanan despite the fact that every opponent targeted our left side. His decision making and man management was manifestly inferior to virtually every other manager in the league.
A few questions for you:
1. Do you think that we would have gone down last season if Chris Wilder, Paul Hurst or even Dean Austin had been our manager?
2. Do you really think that tactics, timing of substitutions and team selections are irrelevant and that 'money and luck' are the only relevant variables?
Ridiculous debate but it's passing the time I suppose.
I'm saying that everyone who takes the time and effort to go through the necessary coaching courses has a pretty reasonable idea of tactics and combine that with the likelihood they've played at a reasonable level means they've got a knowledge of tactics that could safely be argued is beyond someone who watches the game every other Saturday. My argument isn't about JFH but your criticisms of him are rather like pointing out to a heart surgeon where he went wrong because you watched practically every episode of Casualty.
In any event there was a thought at the time that Buchs wasn't up to the speed of League One and a replacement needed to be found. Shaun McWilliams was a young lad with a raw talent and JFH could have done a lot of damage to his potential by throwing him in as a short term fix.
My point has always been that sacking managers after a short term of only months is futile and in itself damaging as so much money is wasted paying up the contracts. The new manager is obliged to bring in new players to show he is that new broom and this leads to over bloated squads full of mediocre players - recognise that?
To answer your question directly, I think we would still be in League One if we had stuck with Rob Page. He was doing a reasonably good job with limited finances and the minute we went through a sticky patch the fans turned on him. I'm no big fan of Page but the money wasted on paying up his contract followed by JE and JFH would have been much better spent on players and facilities.
Of course tactics and the rest are relevant but no current manager is doing anything particularly revolutionary. All the tables are finishing virtually according to the player budgets and the odd few that are above and below that are getting more or less of their fair share of luck.
Ironically the appointment of Dean Austen did the club a big favour. He was appointed by JFH and was the first team coach so I doubt he spent the time disagreeing with everything JFH stood for. This means he won't feel obliged to make wholesale changes any incomer would have been obliged to do so. Perhaps the continuity I keep arguing for, albeit unintended, will give us success this season, let's hope so.