To be honest I am not sure how this can be perceived as a wind up, I thought it was a fairly black and white matter. I said Cunningham is getting credit in some quarters for blooding new players, but my point was that this is not intentional on his part. He would have Kelly, Sutcliffe etc. if he hadn't alienated them and the headlines would be different.
If established players leave, he has to replace them with new players. If he made a conscious decision to do this, then he could take credit for it (well what credit would be due), but he didn't make a conscious decision - he just alienated them and had to deal with the consequences.
But, and I have to agree with Bart on this - the real issue isn't the manager or even the players, it is the DCC fiddling while Rome burns.
Also - the debate on Daly v Cunningham has no foundation, Daly does not have to have been perfect (he wasn't) for Cunningham not to be working out (he isn't)/