Respectfully, I don’t think it could have been articulated any better. Fact of the matter is - a CL entry and subsequent revenue would be better than otherwise - the question/argument wasn’t about a sliding scale so it should just be left there - “something is better than nothing” - rather than pontifications about “how much of an impact”, no?
Let me try it differently: I think it is absolutely valid to ask the manager to go for every trophy that is there. Especially in our situation where the trophy is more or less everything we could play for. What I think is wrong though, is partnering this (le me call it positive, competitive) expectation with some "either that or your gone" attitude, that is anything but positive.
I’m not really sure of what you’re saying here so I’ll just say; I disagree. The notion that you can’t build long-term whilst attempting and/or being fully committed to winning the cups that you’re in (as established by the premise of the post you replied to) - especially so when we have a decent shout at it - and could facilitate said long-term building is ridiculous in my opinion. I appreciate your attempt to engage/articulate your view - and it’s likely a deficit on my end - but we will not agree nor see eye to eye on this if you think otherwise.
I didn't say it is impossible per se to to build longterm while maintaining a certain level of success. I said that in our specific case it is even more difficult to do so. As said - there were so many indicators there that we were trending downwards, long before there was even talk of Amorim. And again, I think expecting the team to have a proper go at the opportunities it has is absolutely legit and fine, my struggles start where people cross the line not just hoping for positive performances but to expect positive results in one-off games.
I completely agree. It’s incredibly frustrating to listen to the mentality of some sections of the fan base, and equally frustrating in trying to educate them on the folly of their thinking.
Last year we were so bad, after two years of building under ETH, setting all sorts of negative records, and frankly performances and data metrics were even worse than results. But then one cup win and many pivoted and used it as a reason to retain support for the manager. Despite overwhelming evidence that this was a mistake. Prior to the final, all polls showed the significant majority of fans were in favour of him being sacked, after the game the poll swung the other way - as though it was evidence of progress, when every available data set pointed towards a containing downward curve the next season.
Ineos, I assume and believe, bowed to this overwhelming fan pressure, and kept ETH on. And it was a huge mistake. The evident logical reasoning bore through as accurate, and the team achieved the results the data suggested they would. Very, very poor results. By this point we had already done further ETH driven recruitment, albeit recruitment with more coherency to a wider strategic vision.
We don't know what happened behind closed doors. I agree, we should have parted ways with ETH but at the same time, I was adamant in saying "getting rid only for the sake of getting rid doesn't make sense, you need a plan". From what I understood, none of the candidates were convincing enough. No question though, sticking to ETH only to get rid of him a few month later even though nothing really changed, was fickle and reactionary. Unfortunately this seems to become a proud tradition.. which is one of the reasons I am so worried seeing what is brewing within the fanbase yet again.
Now we are at the beginning of a massive rebuild of the squad and a complete overhaul of the cultural and competitive environment of the club. A process that will take time and patience. To hang that process on the outcome of any knockout competition is absurd, and indeed indicative of the same flawed thinking of the last decade or more. The vision and judgement of success has to be judged against completely different metrics.
Agree wholeheartedly to the bolded part.
Don't agree on the part with the additional ETH driven recruitment. None of the players was a pure ETH prototype that has no use away from him.
JZ was a little to pricey and I personally thought we should avoid adding another young striker but one that could lift a bit of pressure from Hojlund but so young and at that price, it isn't the end of the world.
De Ligt is a good defender in terms of natural talent, physical state and ability to play the ball. He also came at a good price, I personally don't see him not fitting in the team under any coach.
Mazraoui was cheap, a good player that we got for a good price. He isn't a wingback, sure, but who knows, maybe he turns out a right CB. For the price, this isn't any damage done.
Ugarte is a mobile midfielder with decent passing ability for his expected role, great physicality and a decent skillset to play in modern midfields. No damage done.
None of them would have been my personal choices I guess but I don't think, any of them were obvious mistakes or un-recyclebar under a different coach. Obviously, other profiles may have been more important under a different manager but I think, thats a different issue than outright saying the recruitment was a complete waste of time.