The problem is you have at least four, arguably six or seven clubs in the PL who think they deserve to win the title, and only one can. That leaves 3-5 disappointed sets of fans. I don't like to use the term 'glory supporters' because we all obviously like to see our teams win, but you need to be realistic about the fact that not winning the title is OK, and will happen to 19 out of 20 teams every season. And as you say it's not a level playing field because you have some clubs with billionaire owners who have a gigantic advantage over everyone else. I can understand wanting to see a different manager in if you don't like the kind of football you're seeing, or you don't agree with the decisions they make with what resources they have available, but I don't agree with wanting a manager out just because he doesn't win something, because that is not in his control.
I agree Edd, that's why I framed my previous question in the context of "would second place but being Xpts off the top be acceptable, or would a decent CL run etc."
I suspect most big 4/6/7 fans would be happy if they saw their team making genuine progress year on year and getting close, or closer, to winning a title/CL/trophy.
Obviously those ambitions have to be adjusted to your club's bank balance. City and Chelsea are just money pits, so finishing well off the pace in all comps is not acceptable. Spurs, Leicester, Pool, Arsenal, WH all work on smaller, ie NORMAL, budgets and thus ambitions or expectations are lower. Or maybe "realistic" would be a better word.
Utd are probably the one exception. They fit somewhere between the 2 camps. They don't have billionaire owners who throw money at them, quite the opposite, but they do have an amazing marketing team behind the scenes that all but prints money. They are the only other PL club who can compete financially with the 'rich man's play things' of City and Chelsea.
And for the record, yes, I am jealous of City and Chelsea, I wish my club had an owner who fired 200m per year at them and didn't care. But they don't. So all I can do is look on enviously and point out the slightly morally repugnant nature of clubs being owned by men/sovereign wealth funds who have made their money in ehhh 'questionable' ways. And also point out that both the club's in question were mere also rans before their owners turned up. And they may revert to that level if the owners ever get bored, or in Chelsea's case, kick the bucket.