In terms of the point under discussion there is.
The point under discussion is the effect on performance the frequent sacking of managers has.
The first to last perm management team appointed under Madejski's ownership which saw the most successful period in our history compared to the appointments since where we're gone into heavy decline is very relevant.
It's also relevant to point out that our average over that second period, and particularly our last three managers, have all fallen short of the average tenure Woodley describes and so we're part of what makes that tenure so short. The way averages work, that means there absolutely are multiple clubs that we are worse than in the Championship for managerial stability.
There's an argument that sometimes managers don't work out and you just have to pull the trigger early - Bullivant and Rodgers.
That realistically applies to Gomes, and though I was against it Clement. Stam got time and fell apart rather than starting poorly and not getting a chance. But it's clear as day there was no NEED to sack Bowen. And that what we've needed for a long time is stability
None of that is relevant.
The comments were about a specific study of management tenure comparing 2 random dates
You then said we were a basket case because for a totally different set of dates our managers had shorter tenure.
Whether changing managers is good or bad is a valid discussion but far from certain either way.
Whether you telling other people what they are to discuss or twisting stuff to suit your views is valid is also open to debate.
You're the one trying to tell me I'm not allowed to discuss something pal.