And we've turfed Santi out* as well :-(

[Ash]

The problem is that, in financial terms, football very much did begin in 1992 when the Sky money came rolling in. That is absolutely the watershed moment when the scruffy, parochial game played on mudheaps we all grew up with ended and the gleaming, international game we all now pay Sky a small fortune for started. You could say the 1990 World Cup was the turning point, but in real terms, the Sky deal changed everything. The English game before and after that point are so dissimilar as to not even be worth comparing.

Nope. Just because there is more money in the game now doesn't mean that back then it was frivolous and amateur.

Anyway, to rewind to the original point; are you suggesting that Arteta was never under serious consideration for the role? Because if he was, and if only missed out because he came second to a better candidate, then the whole argument unravels a bit imo - if this 'professional' board nearly did appoint a bloke with no experience of the job.

[Burney]

Nope. Just because there is more money in the game now doesn't mean that back then it was frivolous and amateur.

Anyway, to rewind to the original point; are you suggesting that Arteta was never under serious consideration for the role? Because if he was, and if only missed out because he came second to a better candidate, then the whole argument unravels a bit imo - if this 'professional' board nearly did appoint a bloke with no experience of the job.

I didn't say it was frivolous and amateur (although in some ways it was both, of course), simply that the difference between then and now is the difference between a corner shop and Tesco.

And no, I don't think he was, really. He was an ex-player, a good chap, well thought-of and he signalled his interest. Out of courtesy we gave him an interview and let the papers talk, while talking seriously to the person we really wanted.

[WES]

I didn't say it was frivolous and amateur (although in some ways it was both, of course), simply that the difference between then and now is the difference between a corner shop and Tesco.

And no, I don't think he was, really. He was an ex-player, a good chap, well thought-of and he signalled his interest. Out of courtesy we gave him an interview and let the papers talk, while talking seriously to the person we really wanted.

The problem with Arteta was that his potential downside was too low. Had he failed quickly the club would have been murdered for taking someone on that had no experience, was too young etc etc.

Unai is 46 and has a track record for trophies and over-achieving in his time at Valencia and Sevilla. PSG selected him on this basis and other than an unlucky CL exit this year he would still be there.

Even if he fails the club can't really be criticized. And that's the key, that the next appointment isn't necessarily that good, but that he isn't that bad. We can wait for the next messiah to arrive when it suits us.

[eastgermanautos]

Santi would've been well aware of that already, imo.

It's like me telling a hound which way to turn a hare; naturally, I take the credit if it works but if the canine wasn't already fully abreast of the hare's priorities and subsequent likely behaviour, it would have had no business calling itself a hound in the first place.

I love the way you say fully abreast.