By the end Pardew was like a rabbit in the headlights standing by that dugout with his arms folded. He had run out of ideas and his post match comments were ever more bizarre.
Parky may or may not prove to be the right man but I prefer him to Pardew even now and I speak as somebody who was pleased when Pardew was appointed.
I've resisted even thinking about this one in the three hours since Large started the thread. It's one of those elephant in the corner questions you really want to go away because the consequences of it are too scary to contemplate, for clearly there is an argument that if we were going to limp on wth Pardew's deputy, we might as well have kept the organ grinder and saved 1.5 million.
I know, however, that It was vital to get rid of Pardew (and indeed it should have been done earlier) . Partly because of what Len says , partly because he'd only have wasted whatever money he was given to spend in January - but above all because we simply could not have continued with a man who was the biggest disaster to befall Charlton since Michael Glikstein (whose name has cropped up here quite a bit in recent days). And yes, I'm including Dowie in that.
The sad thing is that an opportunity was missed for despite getting rid of Pardew, we have not moved forward.
Crazy to even think about it. Go back and watch his pre-match press conference on CAFCTV before the Sheffield United game, he was totally gone emotionally and physically and was just going through the motions. He really was a broken man, he had done his best and thrown the kitchen sink at the job but things just kept on getting worse and worse. It happens, that's football.
No way Pardew would have done better than Parky, probably the same or maybe a bit worse.
Nope. We haven't played as badly since irrespective of results. We were going down under Pardew whether he stayed or not. To balance up the decision to get rid of him for £1.6m or whatever ludicrous amount his pay-off was, we should have been prepared to fork out for a replacement. The fact that they haven't tells you all you need to know about the future under this Board of Directors. Watch for us make money on transfer dealings in January. Before the month's out, I can see Chris Dickson being brought in from the cold because the third division's more his level and he's the right price bracket for the future.
No, he had to go. He had tried every permutation available to him and he still could not work out his best/most consistent side, nor did he know how to turn things round tactically. Also agree that his pre match/post match comments were becoming weirder as each game passed.
There is a rather nagging logic about the thought that if there is little money and no realisic financial possibility of bringing in outside management (which seems to be what the Board are saying) then why not have kept the money and invested it on players rather than sacking Pardew to swan off to the Bahamas with £1,6M in his sky rocket. On the other hand there was a huge head of steam up for him to go and he was a major architect of our failures.
Comments
You can't backtrack now!
Still Pardew had to go. Just a shame Parky didn't go with him at the time.
Parky may or may not prove to be the right man but I prefer him to Pardew even now and I speak as somebody who was pleased when Pardew was appointed.
I know, however, that It was vital to get rid of Pardew (and indeed it should have been done earlier) . Partly because of what Len says , partly because he'd only have wasted whatever money he was given to spend in January - but above all because we simply could not have continued with a man who was the biggest disaster to befall Charlton since Michael Glikstein (whose name has cropped up here quite a bit in recent days). And yes, I'm including Dowie in that.
The sad thing is that an opportunity was missed for despite getting rid of Pardew, we have not moved forward.
No way Pardew would have done better than Parky, probably the same or maybe a bit worse.
Well you're not wrong there, Jack, because the bloke was clearly cracking up. But does that mean we paid £1.6m in order to save his mental health ???
Could we not have sent him to a DHSS health tribunal, which would have put him on incapacity benefit, thus saving us having to pay him off?