Ok before I get slated for being crazy here, this is a genuine question. Jose has been successful when things are done his way - i.e. money and players who submit to him and do all of the tough things he wants them to do. We can safely say he was reasonably backed in terms of cash, maybe not enough, but decent amount spent. So no complaints there. However, when players were against him, I do not think the club backed him as a person/ideology/work culture. They should have made their position clear - "manager is the boss, if you do not like him or his style of play, we will sell you no problems. No hard feelings. We only want players who 100% buy into his methods and willing to run through brick walls for him." The reason I say this is that SAF was more revolutionary in terms of what he changed when he came, and he won a lot less at that stage in his career compared to Jose. But the club backed him and the rest is history. We can probably agree SAF was more vicious in the dressing room too and did not tolerate you once you go against him - Keane, Becks, Ruud are perfect examples. No matter how much you have done for the club. So, should the club have bought into his approach even more and instead remove the players rather than the manager? Shaw certainly improved once he listened to Jose. Is it unthinkable that our third season would have been different if we backed his authority even more?