- May 17, 2018
- 11,872
- 47,993
But why are you only looking for the worst examples to back your case?
They're not the worst scenarios, they are the only other scenarios of clubs who have spent money that aren't City, Chelsea, Arsenal or Man Utd - all of which have actually proved that they basically win trophies because of their managers, even with horrific spending on some parts.
With a bit more backing from the board we would have had more chance of success - no guarantees for sure but more of a chance, absolutely. It’s beyond ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
I'm not sure of the logic there. It's built primarily on conjecture - is there any information to suggest there was a lack of backing from the board? (no incomings does not do this alone). Seems to me that the SDoDLs have invented that, despite plenty of people who claim to have connections that suggest otherwise. (also, how many times have we broken our transfer record under Poch?).
The point being made was the Levy's success is determined by trophies won - mine was that trophies are not determined by the board - there is absolutely no correlation between money spent and titles won. The main factor in the last god knows how many years has been the manager (with Chelsea winning titles by doing little more than swapping managers).
A board (and Chairman's) legacy is made by the stuff that has already been done successfully - bringing in the right manager, building an infrastructure to support the framework of a big club, building a stadium, clearing debts, bringing in money.
Poch didn't want a DoF and didn't want Baldini - that seems to me to have been the bigger issue in place. DL has enough to do without doing all the schmoozing, and so does Poch. Someone needs to realise that control over transfers is futile if it isn't manageable.
Last edited: