Sounds more like circumstance than the limitations of the manager, then, which is kind of what I said in the first place.
Like I said he couldn't manage multiple competitions, but the performances (and results) last season domstrate how he'd unfortunately run his course. No team lost more point from a winning position than we did. I can't think of many that gave up more late goals, the players he had pushed so hard for (Elanga and Wissa) were either poor or injured. I love the bloke and it doesn't feel right to criticise him now, but his goose was cooked.
Apropros of nothing, but I had to google 'c-suite'. I hate corporate wank-speak.
So hamstrung by awful owners, then. Yes, in the Champions League the moment, but off the back of a season out of Europe. They only seem to qualify for it in the years that they aren't in it. I'm not sure how that's an argument for a club of their stature manipulating things to their advantage by being part of some 'red cartel'.
Compare them to Aston Villa. Man Utd have been awful for a while now, and yet these rules allow them to consistently spend huge sums on players and pay huge wages. Conversely since they appointed Emery Aston Villa have performed really well on and off the pitch, but are forced into selling their best players to abide by these financial rules. Did you know that because of UEFA's coefficient rule, Aston Villa got less money for making it to the 1/4 final, than Man Utd did for just
being in the CL? The game is rigged man.
Incidentally, they are probably one club that you can say are organically massive. Arsenal too, even though their place in the top flight was bought, albeit 100 or so years ago. They have always been London's top side.
They rode the wave of the Premier League's creation and fair play. However now that they're safely on the top table, they're not going to let anybody else challenge them. So Liverpool, Arsenal, Man Utd, Spurs, have definitely colluded to restrict the ability for other threats to rise.
It's interesting, but the people I've heard decry financial fair-play rules the most are fans of Leicester, Manchester City and Newcastle. Clubs benefiting from unearnt bankrolling. You're right, it shouldn't be impossible to break into the elite, but it also shouldn't be possible to do it the way Manchester City or Chelsea did, and that Newcastle want to.
You think? Go and chat to Villa fans, Everton fans, fans of the B teams, Fulham, Leeds and so on. Few fans are in favour of these rules and those that are, either support the clubs at the top, or they're fans of clubs who haven't yet banged their head off the glass ceiling.
It's more big clubs are always rich. Backed, yes, of course, but mega-rich individuals financially doping clubs, a la Blackburn, Manchester City, Chelsea, etc., is particularly egregious and anti-competetive, in my opinion.
Why is that any different to Arsenal's shareholder loans? Or Liverpool under Moores? The owner putting money into the club is how clubs get successful. It's always been thus. Now, I agree their should be limits on spending, but these current rules aren't about sporting fairness. Not really. they're about maintaining the status quo to the benefit of 4-5 clubs.
Well, they're in Europe this season, their second out of the last three; could they be on their way to establishing themselves as regular competitors in Europe? Possible. Look at how far they've come; I don't think they are a great example to use for an argument of a closed shop; they are an argument for what you can do with top management and a level of backing that falls within the rules. Will they ever be 'at the top table'? Probably not, but if they ever are, it will be on the back of the incremental building that they're currently attempting.
Brighton are the model club for medium sized clubs like us; also, I'd probably add, clubs like Newcastle.
That's the point though, they can keep doing well and finishing in Europa, or whatever, but every year their best plaeyrs are taken, every so often their manager is poached, so they can't afford to make mistakes in the transfer window, they can't afford to ppoint the wrong successor. The elite can, and do, every season, without it significantly impacting them.
We've had to pivot to something more akin to their model, we're signing young players with potential, and putting faith in a young manager. We've had to pivot because, despite making profit, despite having massive commercial revenue, despite on field successes, we're forced to penny pinch.
