Whilst your comments re. having a solid working base for the club are clear and indisputable, I'm not sure they have such a direct correlation to on-field success as you seem to have concluded. Especially through your use of a number of examples (Juve, Southampton, Spurs, RB - the most hated team in the BL because they are considered to have bought their way to the top, the way City and Chelsea did in the PL) that have had limited competition and/or still aren't at the top of their respective leagues, which doesn't exactly support your theories, and especially when some of them have done so not by outstanding management but by out-spending their competition.
By it's nature football is cyclical. I don't care which team and in whatever league, no team stays at the top consistently (maybe RM, Barca and Bayern can be partially exempt from that statement due to the particular nature of their leagues and money).
Chelsea won the league then slipped to 10th, having fired their manager, one of the best in the game, midseason when flirting with the relegation zone.
United have finished 7th, 4th, 5th and 6th (an average position lower than Liverpool) since Ferguson left despite being the richest team in the world (though to give credit they have won the FAC, LC and EL, even if against opposition we'd also have pissed on).
Arsenal have had steady management as a club and a high quality manager for years but have only pottered around the Top 4 for the past 13 years, just once finishing in 2nd (yet never challenging for the title) and their only European trophies in their whole history a Fairs Cup in 1970 and Cup Winners Cup in 1994 (to give them credit 3xFACs in the past 4 seasons).
Are Chelsea and City, the only two consistent performers at the top of the PL now, where they are due to good management ? No, as clearly the records indicate their metamorphosis came about only after massive investment.
And so on to Spurs. One has to wonder how much of their rise has been due to good management (sorry, I disagree that Levy has been managing the club in a responsible or visionary way and they have had substantial assistance from the council over their redeveloping of their ground and Wembley). As to league form, what would have happened if we had got Ali ? Or they hadn't found Kane ? It is only the past 2 seasons they have finished 3rd and 2nd and looked maybe slightly better than they actually are. Prior to that over the past 10 years : 11th, 8th, 4th, 5th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 5th with the only silverware a UEFA Cup in 2008.
They shouldn't be held up as some beacon because, even with our mismanagement and flirtation with insolvency thanks to G&H, we still have an average league position of just 0.2 lower over that period, and, unlike Spurs, we actually had two genuine attempts at the PL title, not like them falling away to finish 10 & 7 points behind (last two seasons). I don't expect them to finish Top 4 this season, so what will be made of this outstanding management then I wonder (naturally a hypothetical at this point) ?
FFP - not specifically in response to your posts but let's not lose sight of the fact that our spending has also been limited by income, especially prior to the past 2 years, and in that regard the major gains in income from global marketing goes to providing a basis for LFC/Klopp to spend going forward. Without it we wouldn't be in the same strong financial position. Note that spending on infrastructure does not count towards FFP.
I totally agree with you on the promoting of non-football people to key positions. However sometimes that works too, just less often. You can be forgiven for trying and failing but then need to learn from that and change tack.
I'm not promoting or unequivocally supporting FSG at this stage, the jury is undoubtedly still out, however I find that pointing at other teams as examples of good management (unsupported by facts) and the fierce criticism on here by some, to be short-sighted and petty when many facts speak to the exact opposite.
