bigmick wrote:Benny The Noon wrote:nayway thats my story over - conclusion - it took ferguson 7 years and a lot of players to win the prem for the first time in 26 years - it took chelsea 250 mil in two seasons to win the prem .
That's not really a conclusion though mate, it's two statements. Is the conclusion that if Rafa is at the helm for seven seasons that he will win the Premiership as well? Or is it that we'll need to give Rafa 250 million quid over two seasons in order for him to win it?
If it's the first one, then all is good because he's in his sixth season now. If it's the second one, then I think in the current financial climate and with our owners, I think it's unlikely to happen.
And what if the seventh season doesn't yield the title (it's probably unfair on the manager to expect it in truth), what then? What if this turns out to be our fourth without a trophy, what then? I guess what happens then is we revert to what each of us considers to be our "minimum standard". I do wonder sometimes though what some peoples minimum is, or indeed whether or not they have one.
For me, having shown we have a good enough team last season (and indeed in the season before that IMHO) to challenge for the title, we really ought to challenge for it each season. That doesn't mean we necessarily have to finish within four points like we did last time, but at least we should be able to put up a bona fide attempt. Being out of contention by the end of October, after ten matches is neither a realistic nor a bona fide challenge. Now for me, as that represents a serious step backwards on our previous efforts, if there aren't mitigating circumstances I'd be looking for a new manager at the end of the season.
Some people have more patience and "faith" in the manager than me, and that's fair enough of course. What if we don't challenge next season though, or the one after that? Do we actually have a minimum standard, or is it written in sand and we just rub it out each season and blame wherever we end up on the owners?