But why were they publicly flirting with other managers if they are so sure about the one that they have got?
I don't pay much attention to Erik's narrative. I expect the sporting directors above him have tried to create an environment in which he is most likely to be successful (i.e. offering support and stability), but this whole 'having a shared vision for the club' comes unstuck if there is no visible improvement on the pitch. He's not even their man, so there's not even the sense that might cling on to him because sacking him would be evidence of their own mistake. All those highly paid guys, fresh in their jobs, are relying on ETH to perform and get the best out of the expensive signings as his failure is ultimately their responsibility. Zero chance they just sit meekly by for months and let ETH make them look like idiots.
The evidence says the opposite though, they tried to get rid of him in the summer, failed to back to speak up about him at every opportunity, opted to keeps his extend his contract by a year rather than agree a new one. You don’t go from that to sticking with someone for years, especially when he’s doing a terrible job.
He isn’t the man for the long term, he just hasn’t been sacked yet.
I think they went through that process because being new to the club they wanted to court their options and see what was out there. ETH proved to be their best option, probably impressing them with his long term vision or something, and they went with him. I think they were going to give him a longer deal but were not able to agree on removing the veto, hence triggered 1-year extension to start with.
They supported him with £200m worth of signings including two of his former players and another Dutch talent which indicates at least some trust in his ability to turn us around.