Chelsea, City and Leicester sacked their manager the year after winning the PL, the only team that hasn't done it in the past decade is United.
Chelsea and Leicester were both firmly in the bottom near relegation (Leicster were fighting relegation IIRC), so that isn't exactly a good comparison. City sacked their managers at the
end of the season for not winning the league, not in January when they are still in a title fight.
And you made several points but somehow only address one
Actually I addressed each point. Whether or not you think the explanation is adequate is a different story.
most clubs don't give a lot of say to the manager on the transfer market
It's safe to say it varies. No manager has the final say as they are not cashing the checks and they rely on scounts, but given some of the transfer decisions and stories out of Barcelona it
seems as though the manager's needs are secondary to that of the type of profile of player the board wants.
most clubs will side with their best player if he is unhappy
I would guess that Messi's happiness with the manager has a greater effect on the longevity of that manager more than any other player in the world. Of course, there is no way to quantify this.
most managers will lose their job if the board don't like them and the mesuring stick is the highest level reached previously.
I didn't dispute this. What I'm saying is Barcelona (and Real) have periodic, scheduled elections, where there can be a turnover of leadership. I would think a board with a traditional structure (appointed/voted in by the owners) would have less turnover
Regardless, of all of this, my original comment was it
seemed this way. Not that my thoughts are facts.