An interesting point.
Money. Winning titles.
They aren't necessarily the same thing. But I do think that, if an owner wants to make money, he needs SUCCESS. You can't make money with a perennially losing team, especially in LA.
UK's point is an apt one. Arsenal of late have frustrated their fans the same way the Rams of the late 60s-early 80s frustrated us. They perennially contend and then come up short. Arsene Wenger perennially fields excellent teams without winning much hardware.
Now, if you're a money-oriented owner, that's fine. There's enough success to fill the Emirates and sustain the global Arsenal brand.
But imagine if Wenger started losing and the Gunners fell out of contention altogether. That would NOT be acceptable, and he'd be gone in a trice.
Which brings me back to Kroenke and Fisher. In a fresh thread, I tried to pose a single question" WHY would anyone think Kroenke finds this year's effort by Fisher acceptable? I don't get that.
SK had a reason to keep Fisher to handle the move. I think it's daft, but clearly Kroenke wanted Fisher to shepherd the team's migration west. And in THAT CONTEXT, winning and losing didn't matter.
But the move is finished. And SK needs to try to make money in notoriously fickle LA. He has GOT to get at least CONTENTION to make money on the Ram brand. He may not care about titles as such. But I cannot imagine him not demanding CONTENTION from his coaches moving forward.
I fully expect him to hire a new HC for next year. I expect him to demand contention. Money concerns demand that.
Now, perhaps we'll get into an Arsenal situation. Perhaps we'll get to contention level and plateau there. I can imagine him being satisfied with, say, an Arsene Wenger/Chuck Knox level of achievement. And I can imagine us becoming frustrated with that.
But that's a long way off. And I cannot imagine Kroenke looking at this year's debacle and finding it acceptable. That makes no sense to me.
