Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Richard Murray's comments and position...

2»

Comments

  • [cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]''If they are going to keep him, then come on and explain the thinking ...''

    Well I'm guessing here but how about :

    i) we've already spent over budget for 2008-9 in paying off Pardew

    ii) cheaper to keep Parky than get rid cos he's on a contract ,too

    iii) the squad Pardew left is so not fit for purpose that we've no real confidence any manager can turn it around

    iv) we've rather left it all too late anyway...

    After some Peter Mandelson clone has spun this , it will come out as :

    "Although the results haven't been quite as positive as we would have liked, there are encouraging signs that things have improved over recent games. Phil Parkinson knows the players and the Charlton set-up better than anybody and we have every confidence that given a slice of the kind of luck you need to succeed in football, he is still the best man to turn it around''.

    lol as I believe they say...

    Nigel, your "spun" quote was uncannily close to being correct.
  • edited December 2008
    Yes, but I suspect my unspun reasons 1-4 (above) are closer to the truth!

    The one thing which really does the board no credit at all is that they led us to believe there was a plan (b) if Parky failed to get the results. And the sad truth is we were misled over that : there clearly never was a plan (b).
  • edited December 2008
    As I stated elsewhere, having listened to Derek Chappell at Bromley I never really thought there was a plan B.
  • But Chappell clearly said at that time, Parkinson would be judged on results.

    It's that statement which makes today's decision so incongruous ....!
  • [cite]Posted By: Covered End[/cite]As I stated elsewhere, having listened to Derek Chappell at Bromley I never really thought there was a plan B.

    We don't know there wasn't a Plan B. Perhaps it just turned out that Plan B was unworkable. It is quite possible that at board level there was a genuine belief they could get a better manager at a price the club could afford but it just didn't materialise. Perhaps they honestly believed that someone of reasonable quality would be willing to do the job for less money.

    I expect that the real problem in getting anyone else to sign up to the cause is that a decent manager would look at our squad, name about 11 positions that were in desparate need of improvement, realise that at best there'd only be the cash to improve one or two at best and .quietly make their excuses. But that doesn't mean there never was a plan B
  • He was always going to get the job, the Board were just hoping to announce it on the back of a couple of good results. Mugged again!
  • Well, if what you say is correct Stig, strictly speaking that's more a case of them hoping to cobble together a plan b if the need arose rather than having one in place.

    And given that they promised a strategic review after the Shef U game and one assumes they were not hawking the job around prior to said review, they haven't spent very long trying to cobble together the putative plan b, have they?
  • i dont think we will ever really know what state the club is in until we get to the end of this season

    something tells me people have had a look but havent liked what they have seen underneath the fabric of the club and those that were left were no better than parky and therefore a waste of money to try for
  • There is no other rational explanation than this is purely a financial decision because we are totally potless!! I can't see it any other way. The players coming in will be balanced by those going out, Parky is "cheap" so there we are. All the rest is bullshit spin.
  • Nigel, but surely if they'd had a plan b in place they wouldn't have needed Parky in the first place?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!