[Goose]

I am pretty sure in this case that the directive from the important boosters was to "do something substantial", and firing all the assistants was that. It is probable that in that group some of them were under-performing. What is not clear is that the next group will be any better. If the HC fires one guy and immediately replaces him, that can make sense. For whatever reason, the HC wanted someone else. Most of the staff getting fired but not the HC almost never makes sense. The HC must have been a total fool to keep all those incompetent folks on the payroll for a whole year (or more in most cases). This is more likely the "punishment of the innocent", to be followed by the "promotion of the non-involved".

[Goose]

I am pretty sure in this case that the directive from the important boosters was to "do something substantial", and firing all the assistants was that. It is probable that in that group some of them were under-performing. What is not clear is that the next group will be any better. If the HC fires one guy and immediately replaces him, that can make sense. For whatever reason, the HC wanted someone else. Most of the staff getting fired but not the HC almost never makes sense. The HC must have been a total fool to keep all those incompetent folks on the payroll for a whole year (or more in most cases). This is more likely the "punishment of the innocent", to be followed by the "promotion of the non-involved".