Pretty much. When Khaldoon and Garry Cook sacked Mark Hughes back in 2009, they were ruthlessly savaged by the British media for being everything wrong with football - heck, a full year on, when Hughes's new Fulham team played Manchester City, leading sports journalists declared live on TV that it would be a "victory for football" if Fulham were to win the game, for no reason other than because they thought they club needed to be taught a lesson about how unfair it was to sack him after a mere 18 months. The fact that they had retained a managerwho they hadn't even appointed in the first place (he was hired just weeks before the takeover) for so long was entirely irrelevant. This is also before the Barcelona guys joined CFG, and everyone knows that Barcelona like to base the way they work on natural succession rather than frequent change and so on.
Ever since then, it's seemed fairly strongly to me that they have a real aversion to not giving managers long enough to prove themselves. The only really like to step in when they think that things just aren't working. Firing Jason Kreis in New York after only one season is pretty much the only time that they have leapt to action since then, and I can only presume that that is because they were just getting the vibe that he simply was not working in terms of what they wanted from a manager.
Others here have observed multiple times that in spite of JVS' serial failures, he was slowly achieving what could be deemed his minimum required standards every year. It was always my gut instinct that they were keeping him on 'til the end of his contract simply because they felt that a sacking would go against their word from the start of each season that he would continue if he met X, Y and/or Z conditions. People will say that them bringing in a new manager now means that the clock is reset and we're now going to be stuck with a new guy who could serially fail until the end of his contract. The corollary to hiring a brand new manager, of course, is that he will have targets set at exactly where they think Melbourne City should now be at, and not based on a function of growth since the manager's previous season.
Anyway, as Malloy says, whether you think this is a positive or negative, that's the indication I get of how CFG operates.