I really get your sentiment, and wholeheartedly agree, apart from the highlighted part. It's not an easy task to put a specific time-frame on how long a rebuilding process should take, even more so in our case. I think we can all agree we've been a shambles top to bottom the last five years, if not longer.
Having said that, I expect managers to be professionals, e.g. experts in their 'field of business', just as the players. In football, most of the time they should be able to 'hit the ground running'. A manager with Bruce's pedigree shouldn't really need a few years imho. Whereas a younger, more inexperienced manager probably should be given a little more time. But as it stands, we didn't hire one of those, instead we went with one where the level of expectation was high to begin with. I can only hope that Tony and the board feel the same way.
Now for the sixty-four-thousand-dollar-question; what is the adequate amount of time that should be given? To me, the deciding factor here is first and foremost the progress made along the way. Results have been decent up until a few weeks back, but performances have largely been a disappointment. I honestly feel we are playing worse than under RDM, from a pure footballing perspective.
I'll admit, I initially massively overrated our squad this season. Most of RDM's signings made sense, and I was sure both Gardner and Westwood would be good players at this level. I've since changed my stance, and now come to terms with the deficiencies to our squad.
Given what Bruce has to work with, I'm now absolutely sure he needs to be given an entire transfer window. January just isn't enough.
But come next autumn, and we're still regularly starting Gabby up top, simply running around like headless chickens, hoofing the ball left, right and center, totally devoid of a game plan, I'll certainly be calling for his head twice a day!