Country: England
Fan opinion is heavily considered on nearly every decision a club makes. You only have to look at the reversed decisions last summer to seek Government furlough schemes by clubs for proof of that.
That's true but the furlough scheme (which mind you would affect the livelihood of all of the staff at a club) and signing on a player are two very different things.
If they didn’t extend Auba or Özil’s contracts the club would’ve been treated to a huge and irreparable backlash by the fans. The board have to try to please the fans, the customers. Therefore, a risk assessment would have weighed heavily against not giving those contracts.
Irreparable backlash? I really don't think so. Backlash perhaps, not irreparable though, that's hyperbole.
I think if we sold Aubameyang and showed a plan to replacing him (long or short term) that made sense to fans we'd stomach it.
I mean take the Martinez and Leno scenario, there was a lot of talk about Martinez but it's died down quite a bit as Leno has started to perform very well; the end result matters the most in football.
As for the risk assessment part that sounds like made up fluff with all due respect.
I mean how do you know what goes into risk assessment and which factors are weighed more heavily against others?
And again I'm not arguing about which factors the club used in coming to the decision, you keep making this point and I'm telling you I don't care or it doesn't matter here.
I'm arguing about what should be important in decision making when it comes to players. The execs plans for long "success" (given the information they have) should take precedent.
What we do know for a fact is that winning and results on the field are the most important things in football.
The decisions made about signing on a player should be mostly based on that (of course within the make up of a plan).
Therefore blaming the fans isn't something that should be done when it comes to decisions like that.