Extended-PhenotypeNo Fixed AbodeExtended-Phenotype Never thought I'd see the day when a Chelsea fan draws comfort from bettering Reading. I remember when they used to measure themselves against Man United. How times change.
It was another example of people saying 'stability is key'. Obviously it isn't. I could have used Arsenal for an example again.
All digs and pokes aside, I think the importance of stability is diluted when you have infinite funding.
You can't take away the success Chelsea have had, even with the merry-go-round of managers the past umpteen seasons. But surely even you would admit the 'almost but not quite' feeling of Chelsea would no doubtably be improved with a stable, regular manager at the helm.
I could be wrong, but weren't Chelsea most successful under Jose who, in Chelsea terms could be regarded as long term?
Chelsea will always be in the mix on the account of Abramovich's millions. But you can't help but think what a force they could truly be if he kept his involvement cash only.
A club like Reading needs stability because (subject to a surprising turnaround) we don't have the cash to compensate. I guess you guys have the money to survive X Factor managering, we don't.
I'd also argue that Reading just getting to the PL is a sign that stability works. RA would have sacked BMcD for not winning the play offs. Or for not winning the Championship convincingly enough. Or just because he caught a whiff of a more high profile manager becoming available.