Now we're getting somewhere, Jim...
No problem...like you said, it's a good thing to be able to restate/paraphrase another's point. Keeps everyone focused...
Minor, you say? Ok, let's have it...
To be clear, you "wouldn't say it's 'unfair' to criticize" Levy/ENIC based on the trophy-less decade?*** Ok, this is an interesting point...I'm interested to see where it goes, why, and under what conditions...but it stands to reason if someone doesn't find a particular line of criticism unfair then they'd agree with it...but we'll see...
...and again, to be clear, your criteria of success is what, exactly? We've beaten around that bush but we've never really speciated it. I think it would help if you clearly defined what your criteria for success is...I can surmise that it is not based on trophy haul (but I'd still want clarity and precision). And though we've reference league position and respective finals we've only attributed it to nebulous ENIC IN entity.
But I can see this...the Poch years were awesome, getting up and knowing someone might be in for a drubbing, "your fucking shit", team of animals, etc etc. But I'd like to be clear of your position, or whichever you're arguing.
But I asked/my statement began...
That is according to YOUR criteria...and since you utilize different criteria then by definition you believe any other criteria is less than optimal, unfair, wrong, etc etc etc...whatever the case may be but it's not the best. Right? That stands to reason. You, scarletjim, think the best/most fair set of criteria is your own...right? I'm not sure this is controversial because I believe everyone that has ever lived thinks their take is best.
But this also means that you think yours is the most fair criteria (as everybody does)...unless you are saying that you are a person walking around with knowledge of a more fair set of criteria that you are eschewing for whatever particular reason that I'm sure many would be interested to hear about...
But most importantly, according to YOUR criteria (which I stated in the post to which you replied), it is thus unfair criticism to levy the trophy-less decade on Levy/ENIC...because your criteria isn't based on trophy haul it is based on something we'll hopefully learn about in a subsequent post. And according to YOUR criteria is what I am asking...no one else's criteria matters here.
Not sure I can agree with that change being minor, Jim...
***I get that this point is followed by "according to THEIR criteria" later in the post. I'm just responding in flow of the post and not in any way attempting to mischaracterize your reply...that should be abundantly clear but sometimes...in situations like this...folks will look for any reason to escape...not suggesting you'd do that but just getting out ahead of anything.
Hmmm, so perhaps we are chancing upon a fundamental point where we disagree (which for me would be some type of progress maybe
). Whilst I agree that I think my criteria are the 'best' (for want of a better expression) from the way I see things, I do nevertheless appreciate that other people have their own criteria which are just as valid as mine. I admit not everyone can do this - for closed-minded people, your assertions above are correct, but for open-minded people, i.e. those willing to accept that other people can have different, but equally valid opinions to their own, your assertions above don't apply in my opinion. So again, it would be unfair for me to criticise performance given my criteria, but perfectly fair in my opinion for you to criticise given your criteria, as I recognise and respect that you have different criteria to me, and for me there is nothing inconsistent or incongruent about that (perhaps for you there is).
Just realised I've not answered your first question there, what does 'success' or 'good football results performance' look like for me. I'll be honest, I've not pinned or penned a precise criteria on it before as it could be impacted by many variable drivers, but roughly speaking nowadays it's something like:
- being in the race for top 4, achieving it let's say 2-3 times every 5 years, knowing that sometimes we will miss out, and sometimes we may be in the race for the title.
- ideally winning a trophy say every 5 years, but appreciating that sometimes luck plays a part in single games, so therefore at least getting close to winning a trophy (say semi-finals at least) once every 2/3 years.
- we may of course over or under perform for a couple of years within any given period, so the above would be judged over a medium to long term timeframe, let's say 3-5+ years.
As I say, I've not been asked to precise that before so I'm not certain about it, but it would be something like that.
Is that helpful? I'm sorry it's not the yes/no answer you were hoping for, but it's more nuanced than that as I suspect we disagree on some of the definitions (e.g. 'unfair') and associated nuances & perhaps to some degree semantics. I am trying my best...
.I think the bar is very low for a club of our size. The new owners would only need to get top 4 every 3 or so years to match them. With the £££ we generate it would be hard to mess that up.
