(by the way before some pr**k gets a paddy on, that last paragraph was taking the piss)
I know mate and the truth is we, probably, aren't that different in our views.
For you (I reckon) the holy grail is the title - same for me. Failing that: trophies - same for me.
You are happy to attribute our recent on field success to the owners and that is fair enough but...
Where we differ Billy (or so it seems) is: I believe that success and failure are two sides of the same coin. I believe that it's wrong to separate the two. At best it's an unbalanced view.
If you are happy to attribute success to the owners (irrespective of who they are) then there's no reason you shouldn't attribute failure to them. And vice-versa btw.
That's the point I was making in my initial post.
Do we really attribute the fact that the team finished second to FSG? Because, if we do... we must do the same for H&G.
If we attribute the three semi-finals to FSG - what about the failure to reach the semis every other time? The two can't be separated to suit.
All the 'good' is down to them but any failure is down to the players or successive managers? Nah.
Fact is - [if you really need to attribute on field exploits to them] - we have 'failed' more under FSG than we have 'succeeded'.
However I accept that you didn't start this thread to be just another FSG thread Billy so any more posts I have on FSG will be posted in the original thread - no point in duplication of well worn debates. Catch you later mate.
Logged