You could make an excuse for every one of Moyes' failures. Just as you're doing for Woodward.
But if you look at Moyes performance as a whole, you'll see it wasn't good enough. Just as it isn't with Woodward.
Occam's Razor is a fine thing. But when you have a trend of failures and corroborating evidence over the course of transfer window, it's the trend you use as the base evidence.
Your appeals to what-about-ism don't wash.
You're shifting the goalposts by praising Ed's handling of our finances. This discussion is about his failures in player recruitment.
The facts I have are that only 2 out of 5 signings were completed. Same as the facts you have.
Your points are all over the place and you're switching tack with every sentence. I've been consistent in talking about results over the course of the window. They're not good enough, regardless of any excuses you make about individual transfer dealings.
Incidentally, you know nothing about the contexts of the individual negotiations either. So by referring to them, you're being hypocritical. The only thing you do know about, is about the results of those individual negotiations. Overall, they've been poor. 2 out of 5: that's way below what a club would expect. Woodward has failed by the metrics of the average Chief Exec/Chairman. There's no disputing that.
Let's get things straight here, I'm not saying, and I haven't once said that Ed had a good window. I'm not making excuses for the outcome, I am simply pointing out, that as individuals that aren't privy to the pertinent information, we can't make the appropriate judgement to decide on how well Ed as an individual performed.
Your insistent comparison to Moyes just doesn't wash, we all knew the circumstances and factors (the majority of which at least) that lead to the results. We know what set of players he had, what team he picked, what formation he chose, what tactics, what subs, what injuries, and suspensions. When all that was considered, finishing 6th or whatever wasn't good enough. If he'd had half the season with the entire first team out injured, then we probably would have looked at it, and thought, it's not the outcome we wanted, but
all things considered we can't complain too much.
You can't completely separate finances and player recruitment, they are intrinsically linked, players cost a lot of money, then there are agent fees, and wages etc etc. All of these things are considered whenever any player is bought, if they're not, you end up like Leeds.
Of course you can't just not spend anything ever either, or you still end up also rans, only with a large pot of money that would just dwindle away.
From a purely footballing perspective the window was terrible for united, I don't disagree, we set out to get 5 players, and we didn't get them.
Ed, however, can't look at it from a purely footballing perspective, and we don't know the circumstances that led to us only getting two of our targets.
I'm being far from hypocritical, you're quite right I don't know what happened in the negotiations, or what other factors were being applied to Ed. That supports my argument not hinders it, as I'm precisely saying that we don't know so we can't judge.
You say I'm all over the place, but half of what I say is in direct response to your points, the rest supports the fact you shouldn't judge without the facts.
You can keep banging on about 2/5 but ultimately unless you know the reasons for the results they are meaningless in isolation. An employer doesn't sack someone because they got 2/5, they find out why you got 2/5, or better still, already know why you only got 2/5, and then make a judgement on if that was acceptable given all the circumstance.
Please don't reply again, I don't want to be replying to you, going around in circles, this isn't the place for it, and I'm pretty confident no one else in the caf wants to read our too and fro.
So we'll agree to disagree
You can continue to judge people without knowing the facts that led to their situation.
I will continue to reserve judgement