Comparing PPG is only comparable if it illustrates identical circumstances for both Managers. Same opposition, same players, same injuries and suspensions etc. It would be of little concern to those that sacked his predecessor because, as they said, the decision was not results based.
Simon Rusk has had 15 games so far and is trying to adapt a different playing style that is alien to some of his squad and it's clear to see that some are adapting quicker than others. Taking away the rights and wrongs of the previous Managers departure is it fair to demand that a new boss continues to operate the same system, formation and squad that he inherits if he believes another way is better?
Don't get me wrong, I was staggered by the dismissal of Jim because even though I half expected the decision it was clear that the structured set up was not his cup of tea and the move from the organic growth to the cheque book would change the Club. It was the timing and manner of the departure that annoyed me which lacked class and consideration for the supporters who though we were better than that.
We have 11 games until the end of the season (not including play offs) and most expect us to be in the lottery at the end. As we know its as much about how you finish rather than where you finish especially with no fans in the grounds. Missing out in 2nd place or winning your last 6 games?
For me the bottom paragraph of your post re loans or capital is the most important issue. If it's the first the Manager issue becomes pretty much irrelevant.