I'm all for trying to create stability, but you don't do that by keeping a manager for a bit longer. Very best case Moyes lasts what? 3 years? Then we change again.

Stability comes with smart future proofing and planning for the next manager, even while the current does well.

Moyes has, by and large, played one system with us. I personally don't want West Ham to play like that long term.

The longer Moyes stays and the more he's allowed to built a squad to do that, the harder it is to transition AGAIN to something different.

So do you back a manager in the market for a couple of years who plays a style that long term you don't want, knowing he'll buy and sell to suit that system?

Or do you undermine them and build for something different, hurting your chances of short term success?

True stability in modern football comes with hiring a Director of Football who actually knows how to run a football club long term and giving them the mandate to create a team in whatever image you want.

You know, like telling to them copy the Red Bull model or something.

The lack of stability at West Ham isn't due to changing managers. It's down to changing styles with no forethought or oversight.

Allardyce. Bilic. Moyes. Pelle. Moyes.

Where's the consistency or through lines?

The lack of stability comes from the absence of a competent DoF.

You have Sullivan running about signing random players his agent mates flog him.

Allardyce had arguably the most transfer control out of the above, mainly because GSB were desperate when they hired him, and even he's said this would happen to him regularly.

We have a squad full of random players, brought to the club by random people, for random reasons, over the course of a decade. There's literally no structure to even begin creating a stable environment.

This ain't me saying Moyes out but let's be real, Moyes ain't changing nowt.