Good on GianFredo. He had the opportunity to criticise Gold and Sullivan and gloat about our subsequent relegation under Avram Grant, but he resisted, confessing that he lacked the experience necessary and therefore that the decision to remove him was right.
Of course, some West Ham fans will still argue that Zola could have gained that experience whilst still managing the club - and let's face it, he couldn't have done worse than finish bottom in the following season aka Grant. Meanwhile, Stevie Bibs and Cones has done pretty well in his first season at West Brom, adding fuel to the fire stoked by those opposed to the pair's sacking.
The trouble is, we deserved to go down the season before under Zola and Clarke. Our points total that season was a pathetic 35, just two more than Grant's team achieved, and the lowest points total any team has stayed up with in the Prem. Zola and Clarke inherited a top half of the table team and in two seasons turned that team into a shambles.
And that must be a concern for Watford and West Brom fans. Will the pair suffer second season syndrome next year? Some managers - like Pardew it seems - are great when the wind is in a team's sails, but they are found wanting when conditions turn against them.
Zola thinks he is a better manager because of his sabbatical, but it may well be that the lend lease strategy employed by the Pozzos has simply given him a much better hand than has been dealt to any other manager in the division; in which case, third place may actually be an underachievement.
Should Udinese Calcio win the Play Off final, nobody will judge Zola too harshly if the Calabroni come straight back down, but should Holloway's charges triumph, the lovable Italian will be under huge pressure next year and it will be interesting then to see how he copes.