It's a given because the bloke who runs the club, owns the club, directs the club and makes all the decisions about the club even down to what can and what cannot be reported about the club. Us the fans can either accept it or not but it will make absolutely no difference to the decisions being made whether we like them or not.
No, all Gibson got was a pat on the back for putting his money out there to begin with as per usual. We can't complain about the money he spends and how he spends it because he spends it, apparently. Very little has been said about him or by him accepting the responsibility of the decisions he made. Instead he's publicly scapegoated every bugger else in the division for their spending practices and thrown his former manager under the bus for how he operated during that time, don't mind the bloke who gave him the job to begin with.
I couldn't agree more with that. Why is it accepted as a given?
I still don't get. Lots of people are successful relative to their starting point in life but not everyone wants to be because some people don't have ambition at all. So the fact that some people aren't trying shouldn't preclude other people from trying, and the same goes for football clubs as well. If that's what you are suggesting that is? Ambition and planning aren't one and the same. You can have ambition but plan poorly and not achieve your aims. You can make a great plan for one thing but not have one for another and it ends in failure, and it doesn't matter what success you've had in the past.
The Golden Thread thing isn't the only plan we seem to have formed over the last few years but none of them last because ultimately they are all at the whim of one person, and that person does whatever he likes in the end. So for example, he interferes in transfers and buys a player that he wants. That isn't part of the plan, and it actually screws with the plan that is in place, but it's still ambitious. Another example would be Gibson making it clear following relegation that our aim was to go straight back up. That was his aim or ambition. He appointed a new manager, sanctioned heavy spending, and then a few months later changed the manager, and suddenly the spending was a mistake, and had to be 'put right', at least according to the new manager. I don't recall if Gibson had anything to say for himself at the time though?
As I said, I don't see what anyone's personal circumstances have to do with a haphazard approach to running a football club?
But that last bit in bold there, shouldn't be a given, that's my ultimate point, and fans accepting it is a big part of the problem in my opinion.