Not to me, the club has a completely different structure now. We aren't run by someone who had the Cleveland Browns winning one or two games every season, we are run by people who signed the best player and won the biggest trophy in basketball. They understand how to structure a successful team.
Exactly. O'Neill was a man who wanted to spend too much money on ordinary players. He worked for an owner with limited funds, who knew nothing about football and who'd employed two of his similarly clueless mates to run things. It was an absolute recipe for disaster. Now we have two absolutely minted owners, one of who has reached the pinnacle of his sport in the US. They've employed experienced and competent executives, and they haven't got many of the big decisions wrong so far.
I think that remains to be seen. The 4 biggest issues the owners and Purslow have had to deal with were:
1). Their first appointment as manager in the Championship.
2). Pulling the trigger or not on Smith after the Leicester game.
3). The Joe Saga.
4). Replacing Smith with Gerrard.
• The first choices for manager before Smith were a joint management team of Henry and Terry.
• We’re it not for the pandemic, I think Smith would have been sacked.
• It’s probably up for debate as to whether us or the Manchester Blues actually got the better end of the deal, nevertheless, the club definitely didn’t want to lose Joe and it torpedoed the existing plan.
• Sacking Smith is one thing. How Gerrard was appointed is something that I think sits uncomfortably for a number of fans and that’s not necessarily a comment on Gerrard himself. But the question is, how much is it feeding into how decisions are being made now? We don’t want a situation where if Gerrard and his team goes the structure falls apart. That’s where I think the parallels with O’Neill might come from.