Your missing the point. No one is suggesting that we should be competing with top clubs, some fans just feel that we as capable of more and when we have to watch players that the championship won't buy who play ahead of players who can offer so much more - it's criminal. In addition I think you will be hard pressed to find a manager who has the backing (both financial and lacknof pressure) that TP has had to date - this has to be taken into consideration when making a judgement.
Your judgement on style etc... Is an opinion and hence is subjective - I would have a different top 5!
You make an interesting point about wages etc... And I do agree with you on this. However there is a flip side which we as fans don't always consider. Example: Crouch used to be on significantly more than his current 40k ish we pay him now. Why would he except this? Simple, every deal we structure pays a lump sum on the transfer to cancel out lower wages, which is why we payed 10 million plus for Crouch yet Harry offered 5 million - a more reflective valuation. We can hide behind or wage structure being better than most, but we are just giving it away at the other end and unless they see their full contract out he deal is more expensive than what it appears on paper.
I view Newcastle as an excellent club who have always played an attactve brand of football, but I wouldn't attempt to go into detail about YOUR team for which you have far better knowledge than I. I also make you a wager now, I bet you Newcastle finish above us and if we end up 16/15th from where we are that will be a failure"
That's silly. A neutral's perspective is a worthy one when considering any matter, I find. As a fanatic myself and having watched all our games, I wouldn't hesitate to tell you which one of our players I thought were ****e, which ones were the reason we weren't playing well, and where our manager was failing. Doesn't make me right. Fans become so introspective and tend to cling to one another and ultimately a shared opinion. However, if someone comes in and has a different viewpoint, even if they haven't the same amount of experience, it doesn't make them ineffectual or worthless. An eye cast from a distance is useful, if only to be debated with. You could say, taking Newcastle out of the equation, my "subjective" analysis of your team as an aesthetic outfit is better than yours, because I'm less biased with my focus. I have nothing to do with or against QPR, Norwich (I like Chrissy Hughton, yet his team are in there), West Ham, at least.
However, you make some valid points, but I think it's testimony to the management position being no-win, unless you're Sir Alex. Do we know who behind the scenes is forced upon our managers, how much say they have in transfers and how much interest they have in scouting or investment? Not usually, and these are things we rarely thing about as fans. Newcastle is pretty obviously different at present, because Pardew slotted into an existing set-up and has made no backroom changes, and the chairman's puppet is pretty explicit in the system of negotiations, and the fact Pardew's input is limited at best.
Hypothetically, if you take transfers out of the equation, I think most would agree Pulis has been objectively successful. If transfers stay out of the equation, is it possible to subjectively justify advocating another manager on the basis of aesthetic pleasure? He would, after all, be doing what he has to in order to get the best out of the players pushed on him... In that scenario, it would be the third parties failure.
On the basis that everyone seems to suggest Pulis runs the show, perhaps instead of supporting his demise, you could support the implementation of a director of football type? If not, and sacking Pulis is the only solution, which candidates are out there that will play the football you want and are realistic captures? How long are they to be given to change the personnel, and how much money will they require? Will that involve more money and more time than retaining Pulis and letting him evolve his concept, or hiring a director of football?
If you look at most of the lower league teams, they more often than not play direct, so you'll have to look abroad. A man with a decent pedigree on a limited budget is Christian Gourcuff, and there's Marco Van Basten as another potential option. They're two I wish were in the premier league, and would love to see them at Newcastle to be honest. However, as seen with the latter, the career of these types are under threat when the beautiful game isn't effective immediately. In that regard, it's unlikely either men will be given as much time as Pulis has been, and if they aren't then you'll be stuck... Who would be next? An effective manager invariably. Then we start the cycle outlined previously...
Regarding the amount of time given by fans, I reckon it equates as this;
1. Most time is given to a successful manager who plays attractive football.
2. Next is a successful manager who plays effective football.
3. A manager who plays effective and attractive football.
4. A manager who plays purely effective football.
5. A manager who plays attractive football but is ineffective.
6. A manager who plays ineffective and unattractive football.
If Pulis is 4, Van Basten and many of his type are normally 5, because it takes time, restructuring of the club, and money to come good and become a 3 or 1... Or it might be too sexy and completely ineffective as a result, in which case you've wasted time and money on it. Whereas a purely effective manager is dependable and, while unambitious, isn't as risky. If you've got to the point where the risk is worth it, fair enough, but I think with the money on offer for staying in the league, it isn't as yet
