Because you say you put your hands up and you were wrong, but then you argue that you weren't wrong. You say "it is my opinion that the tactics and formations weren't up to par." So Gus has only succeeded because he changed things about a bit, which is what you'd have told him to do if he was wise enough to ask.I completely agree, I've put my hands up and said I was wrong. But some people like to argue even when people have put their hands up.
"I never said he was a bad manager, I said we should consider alternatives."
If we were a top premiership team then I'd agree, as top teams can be choosy. Considering replacing Gus would have been (and still would) be madness.
"In the mean time, we've signed players like Dobbie. Was he really what we needed? I can understand that we needed something, but Dobbie was a huge flop. That IMO, was a mistake, as was Harley etc etc. they've costed us a large amount, and something we shouldn't condone or find excuses for"
Dobbie didn't work out for us, but he's had success at this level before, and we weren't to know he wouldn't work hard enough for the team. As it is, we're getting got our money back for him. But you think we shouldn't condone that Using language like what we should condone is ridiculous. We get the best manager we can, and let them do the job - if a better manager is available, then changing could be good, but it's naive to think Gus hasn't done a great job with the budget he's had, or that there are better managers available to us.