I don't think Richard is saying it was nothing to do with him or that he's not responsible but as Len says you appoint a football expert and then back them.
Otherwise you have a director of football to oversee the deal and that causes another set of problems.
And if RM did come out and say "it was all my fault" the response would NOT be "fair enough, well done for coming out and saying that" but "See, he's f****** incompetent, he should resign now".
RM made mistakes and now he's paying for it, literally, via the bond scheme.
I read the "Pardew was the one picking the players" statement as "It wan't Parky picking the players" but that is just my reading of it.
[cite]Posted By: DRAddick[/cite]Being the boss Murray has to accept som blame but it's all retrospect and kind of a no win situation.
Nobody thought Pards was a bad choice when we got him and if Murray had not backed Pards with the players he wanted then we would be moaning he was to blame for not supporting him.
[cite]Posted By: StrikerFirmani[/cite]Murray added that he hoped to get in “four or five players” to fully aid Charlton’s fight against relegation, and said former boss Pardew must shoulder much of the blame for their current situation.
“With Alan, all the player purchases were down to him and probably that has been our biggest failing as many of the players that were brought in were big risks,” Murray said.
I am disappointed in Richard Murray’s comment regarding Pardew. Pardews is to easy a target to start slagging off now, we all know he is mainly to blame for the current problem but who granted him the unquestionable power in the first place. As mentioned by someone else already on this thread.
I would reiterate that RM should have monitored and questioned the signing of any player and if that is not his role then why wasn't someone appointed to audit signings?
To plead the 3 monkey's is either naive or a lack of responsibility.
On the other hand somebody who has walked away with £1.5 million for crass incompetence should perhaps accept some responsibility?
Big wages equals responsibility and accountability in every other walk of life supposedly and he (Pardew) was supposedly the football "expert" in the Company.
Len As I previously mentioned we all know Pardew is to blame for the current problems and I take your point he would have been the so called expert footy guy but if you are stating " Many of the players were big risk" Then you take some of the blame because you are either sanctioning them or you oppose it as one risk to many.
It isn't as though RM had not previous experience of money being spent badly before (Dowie ring a bell).
I think Murray got it wrong and as Harry Truman famously had written on his desk the buck stops here.
However Chaimen of PLCs appoint and headhunt experts in their fields to do a job. I think all Murray is saying is that HIS expert came up short which is a statement of fact and something he is entitled to say having just given the incompetent cretin £1.5 million for nothing!
Can understand the 'am I the manager or not argument', but nevertheless, it had already gone wrong with Dowie. Any company would take a long hard look at why something had gone wrong and make changes to ensure that the error was not repeated, or if that wasn't always possible, to at least make sure that the processes wherein mistakes could be made were subject to a great deal more scrutiny and an increased need for justification.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]Can understand the 'am I the manager or not argument', but nevertheless, it had already gone wrong with Dowie. Any company would take a long hard look at why something had gone wrong and make changes to ensure that the error was not repeated, or if that wasn't always possible, to at least make sure that the processes wherein mistakes could be made were subject to a great deal more scrutiny and an increased need for justification.
I agree that just letting a manager having total control has its weaknesses, mainly how good is the man you are trusting with the money, so what's the workable alternative.
What practical steps could you put in place that wouldn't totally undermine the manager? Genuine question.
you need a framework structure for anyone to operate within, for example untried players at certain levels would get x contract rate/duration etc. far too much gambling was allowed to happen the balance was completely wrong.
Its ironic that the one player who isn't getting a proper chance (Dickson) is one of the few players who wasn't a major gamble - low transfer fee/low wages/short contract - despite being a decent performer at all levels tried.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]you need a framework structure for anyone to operate within, for example untried players at certain levels would x contract rate/duration etc.
Its an interesting discussion, and I don't pretend to have the answers especially in hindsight.
I think you need a framework to operate in, perhaps do a risk assessment of each player?
If someone has had more than one or more career threatening injury (broken legs are pretty serious) If someone has mixed reports If someone has never proved himself at the next level up, or perhaps two
you think twice about giving them a standard 4 year deal.
Traore had suffered 2 broken legs each side I believe. I remember David Hillier won European glory with Arsenal, just how much was he to do with it. etc Faye had mixed reports JFH boro were getting rid - should have spoken volumes - was on a pretty short deal as I recall tho. Reid, inury prone etc
Was there one signing of Dowies era that wasn't a pretty big risk/gamble?
Shelvey isn't that much of a risk financially, you bring him on gradually and see if he can compete (easy one)
I think Henry that I would first apply myself very vigorously to finding out in quite a lot of detail where it had gone wrong with Dowie. Until that question has some answers then it is difficult to decide anything. Who are the scouts, who appointed them, who do they report to, what did they do, how did the decisions get made etc? Looking at the Pardew example of Christiansen, it would surely have been acceptable to query not the choice of player but the contract itself. 100K payable upon first performance. Don't like that one, what if he gets injured in training and misses most of the season, do I want to pay 100K to have him appear in a few end of season games? So it would have been possible to let Pardew have his wish but a financial director would be well within his remit to ask that the financial and contract terms were re-negotiated. A bit of basic internet research should already have flagged up that there were pre-existing murmurings over Pardews signings, a bit of caution was required. Maybe looking at how other clubs operate would be informative. Are they all subject to similar failings or are some more successful than others? I'd need a lot of answers. I think it may well have served us better if increasing pressure had been put on Pardew to explain some of his decisions. If he hadn't liked that, he could have walked and that would have saved us money! If a manager is successful you don't need to do that, but a failing manager deserves a lot more scrutiny and should expect to be increasingly accountable.
Only just got around to reading Murray's interview, as I've spent the day trying not to think about Charlton.
Comparing Parky's appointment to that of Curbs is crass. Blaming Pardew raises the question 'well why didn't you stop him earlier when everybody else could see he was throwing your money down the drain'. In fact, the entire interview raises more questions than it answers. Good job we've got eight posts from Sir Henry to translate what he really meant for us.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]I think Henry that I would first apply myself very vigorously to finding out in quite a lot of detail where it had gone wrong with Dowie. Until that question has some answers then it is difficult to decide anything. Who are the scouts, who appointed them, who do they report to, what did they do, how did the decisions get made etc? Looking at the Pardew example of Christiansen, it would surely have been acceptable to query not the choice of player but the contract itself. 100K payable upon first performance. Don't like that one, what if he gets injured in training and misses most of the season, do I want to pay 100K to have him appear in a few end of season games? So it would have been possible to let Pardew have his wish but a financial director would be well within his remit to ask that the financial and contract terms were re-negotiated. A bit of basic internet research should already have flagged up that there were pre-existing murmurings over Pardews signings, a bit of caution was required. Maybe looking at how other clubs operate would be informative. Are they all subject to similar failings or are some more successful than others? I'd need a lot of answers. I think it may well have served us better if increasing pressure had been put on Pardew to explain some of his decisions. If he hadn't liked that, he could have walked and that would have saved us money! If a manager is successful you don't need to do that, but a failing manager deserves a lot more scrutiny and should expect to be increasingly accountable.
I agree about accountability. Dowie is another issue but sticking with pardew '
You say increasing pressure should have been put on Pardew and for all I know it may have been but remember people who were slagging him off rotten on here heard him talk at a couple of meetings and came out feeling sorry for him and saying how unfair the board had been to him and that he deserved more time and freedom to make his own decisions. he was/is a good talker and could I'm sure could convince any of us that a signing would be a good one. As fans we all the tendency to say "yeah, get him in, just what we need, let's take the risk".
The Christenian deal is bizarre. £100k after 10 games makes sense but after one doesn't. I don't know who negotiated that but that is something the board can have direct control over and they, IMHO, called that wrong. That the player was good enough to play at this level however was Pardew's call and he is the one who got that wrong. Could any of the board or us, even after seeing him play in friendlies, have said "No, not good enough, get rid" and know it was the right decision?
Bottom line is that either you give the guy a budget to stick to or someone who is not a "football" person has to say "no". In the end scruntiny or accountability or whatever it's called come down to Richard/Derek/Waggott saying "no" to the manager or a Director of Football being appointed.
We were spoilt by Curbs who was criticised for being too cautious, too slow, not taking enough risks/punts by fans (how many times did you read "another one we missed out on") but who treated the money like his own and then got two people who, IMHO, spent the money like there would always be more tomorrow. That was the error and everything that's happened has come from that.
Maybe in Parky Richard sees someone who he can have a similar level of trust and way of working that he had with Curbs. I don't know, Richard doesn't ring me and run his decisions by me any more ; - )
So two main messages. Parkinson was indeed appointed for financial reasons and the Board are against administration (not surprsing really considering they are the major creditors with the most to lose I would have thought).
But I agree there is a positive feel to it all. The bottom may not have been reached yet and things may take another season or so to work through, but a solid base is being built i think (hope?) for the next ten or so years adventure back up the leagues.
''Don't deliberately misrepresent me or suggest that I'm speaking for Richard.''
No deliberate misrepresentation. Why would I do that? And didn't say speaking for him. I stand by the word I used : 'translating'. There are 50 posts in this thread - and no fewer than ten of them are from the loquacious Sir Henry!
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]The Christenian deal is bizarre. £100k after 10 games makes sense but after one doesn't. I don't know who negotiated that but that is something the board can have direct control over and they, IMHO, called that wrong. That the player was good enough to play at this level however was Pardew's call and he is the one who got that wrong. Could any of the board or us, even after seeing him play in friendlies, have said "No, not good enough, get rid" and know it was the right decision?
What was more bizarre was his reported wages of £5k a week.
We were in the Prem when we signed him, even knowing we would probably go down £350k for a supposedly very promising winger wasn't a lot. The board and Pardew believed we'd come straight back up, and the cheap gambles like Christensen, Dickson and several others would work out for us.
It's a lot now that we're on our way to League One and that with his wages we've spent a lot of money on a player that hasn't played for us and never will.
Comments
Otherwise you have a director of football to oversee the deal and that causes another set of problems.
And if RM did come out and say "it was all my fault" the response would NOT be "fair enough, well done for coming out and saying that" but "See, he's f****** incompetent, he should resign now".
RM made mistakes and now he's paying for it, literally, via the bond scheme.
I read the "Pardew was the one picking the players" statement as "It wan't Parky picking the players" but that is just my reading of it.
True
We can fully agree there!!
I agree that just letting a manager having total control has its weaknesses, mainly how good is the man you are trusting with the money, so what's the workable alternative.
What practical steps could you put in place that wouldn't totally undermine the manager? Genuine question.
Its ironic that the one player who isn't getting a proper chance (Dickson) is one of the few players who wasn't a major gamble - low transfer fee/low wages/short contract - despite being a decent performer at all levels tried.
(Happy b'day for yesterday btw)
:)
Some might call it a wage structure.
OK but we have a matrix and a maximum player cost now.
What else cos having a wage structure doesn't stop that being misspent.
Where would a European cup winner like Traore or an experienced proven striker like JFH come in your framework.
Where would an "untried" kid like Shelvey come?
I think you need a framework to operate in, perhaps do a risk assessment of each player?
If someone has had more than one or more career threatening injury (broken legs are pretty serious)
If someone has mixed reports
If someone has never proved himself at the next level up, or perhaps two
you think twice about giving them a standard 4 year deal.
Traore had suffered 2 broken legs each side I believe. I remember David Hillier won European glory with Arsenal, just how much was he to do with it. etc
Faye had mixed reports
JFH boro were getting rid - should have spoken volumes - was on a pretty short deal as I recall tho.
Reid, inury prone
etc
Was there one signing of Dowies era that wasn't a pretty big risk/gamble?
Shelvey isn't that much of a risk financially, you bring him on gradually and see if he can compete (easy one)
And players wives to boot.
Comparing Parky's appointment to that of Curbs is crass. Blaming Pardew raises the question 'well why didn't you stop him earlier when everybody else could see he was throwing your money down the drain'. In fact, the entire interview raises more questions than it answers. Good job we've got eight posts from Sir Henry to translate what he really meant for us.
I agree about accountability. Dowie is another issue but sticking with pardew '
You say increasing pressure should have been put on Pardew and for all I know it may have been but remember people who were slagging him off rotten on here heard him talk at a couple of meetings and came out feeling sorry for him and saying how unfair the board had been to him and that he deserved more time and freedom to make his own decisions. he was/is a good talker and could I'm sure could convince any of us that a signing would be a good one. As fans we all the tendency to say "yeah, get him in, just what we need, let's take the risk".
The Christenian deal is bizarre. £100k after 10 games makes sense but after one doesn't. I don't know who negotiated that but that is something the board can have direct control over and they, IMHO, called that wrong. That the player was good enough to play at this level however was Pardew's call and he is the one who got that wrong. Could any of the board or us, even after seeing him play in friendlies, have said "No, not good enough, get rid" and know it was the right decision?
Bottom line is that either you give the guy a budget to stick to or someone who is not a "football" person has to say "no". In the end scruntiny or accountability or whatever it's called come down to Richard/Derek/Waggott saying "no" to the manager or a Director of Football being appointed.
We were spoilt by Curbs who was criticised for being too cautious, too slow, not taking enough risks/punts by fans (how many times did you read "another one we missed out on") but who treated the money like his own and then got two people who, IMHO, spent the money like there would always be more tomorrow. That was the error and everything that's happened has come from that.
Maybe in Parky Richard sees someone who he can have a similar level of trust and way of working that he had with Curbs. I don't know, Richard doesn't ring me and run his decisions by me any more ; - )
Don't deliberately misrepresent me or suggest that I'm speaking for Richard.
I'm not and have stressed that in nearly every post.
End of conversation.
But I agree there is a positive feel to it all. The bottom may not have been reached yet and things may take another season or so to work through, but a solid base is being built i think (hope?) for the next ten or so years adventure back up the leagues.
No deliberate misrepresentation. Why would I do that? And didn't say speaking for him. I stand by the word I used : 'translating'. There are 50 posts in this thread - and no fewer than ten of them are from the loquacious Sir Henry!
What was more bizarre was his reported wages of £5k a week.
We were in the Prem when we signed him, even knowing we would probably go down £350k for a supposedly very promising winger wasn't a lot. The board and Pardew believed we'd come straight back up, and the cheap gambles like Christensen, Dickson and several others would work out for us.
It's a lot now that we're on our way to League One and that with his wages we've spent a lot of money on a player that hasn't played for us and never will.