Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post
The rationale is that, in my view, on balance he’s doing ok and his replacement might do worse (something I know you would concede is entirely possible).

You think he’s not doing ok. We could thrash that one out too, but as I said before the difference between our positions would be negligible.
You think he should be kept on and is doing ok, I think he should be sacked and the club has been seriously under performing for at least 6 or 7 years because of his stubbornness and arrogance.

The difference between those positions is hardly negligible.

We are one of the top 10 richest clubs in the world, we are 5th in our domestic league, we are 1 point ahead of Watford, 2 points ahead of Newcastle and 3 points ahead of Burnley, we are 9 points behind the league leaders after 9 games, using linear extrapolation this would lead to us ending up 38 points behind the league leaders, we have not meaningfully challenged for the PL or CL in almost 10 years.

Explain to me how this is 'OK'. Now, you see, this is the way a logical argument/discussion is conducted.