Thanks, good to see everything looks quite positive.
The question of whether this is too little too late remains, but the over-riding impression is that now we have a team of fighters and that some of the loanees are likely to be with us next season on permanent deals.
Well we're not going to be able to afford Soares, I think Parkinson will want to see more of Kandol so I'd imagine he'd love to sign Murty and Ward. Both would be good signings, I think Murty's contract is up and I doubt Wolves would want much, if anything, for Ward.
[quote][cite]Posted By: SilentAddick[/cite]Shouldn't this be put in Members only category due to the link and the sensitivity of the information therein?[/quote]
Umm ............ I don't think so. The Fans' Forum is not exclusive to a minority. Also, what's sensitive?
The contract details like the reference to a large number of highly paid contracts coming to an end which indicates that these are not to be renewed - We all know who the players are but is it appropriate to 'stiff' these players further when they are on the way out????
Also the questions over Richard Murray's competences alluded to in the minutes - I do not think this is appropriate outside the loyal fan base to see and behold....
There are other issues but I do not have the time to go back and forward.....
[cite]Posted By: SilentAddick[/cite]The contract details like the reference to a large number of highly paid contracts coming to an end which indicates that these are not to be renewed - We all know who the players are but is it appropriate to 'stiff' these players further when they are on the way out????
Also the questions over Richard Murray's competences alluded to in the minutes - I do not think this is appropriate outside the loyal fan base to see and behold....
There are other issues but I do not have the time to go back and forward.....
OK ............ even if we all 'know' who the highly-paid players are (and don't assume that everyone does), do you not think that those players are aware of the situation already?
Second, in the notes I have expressed an opinion about how Richard Murray might benefit from strengthening his hand in terms of football knowledge and expertise. A constructive suggestion in the wake of some questionable decisions (and some very good ones) in the past. I don't see the harm in sharing that view with anyone .... including the long list of Palace fans who subscribe to this site.
As for the other issues .......... let me know when you have more time.
Very interesting notes. I suppose the important unasked question would be "What happens if we do go down?" However, good to hear some positivity, which has been reflected on the pitch.
Good to see the notes. I don't mean to put a dampner on all of the hard work from the forum, and the credit from the club to actually responding to something that they didnt need to BUT everything in these notes we already knew didnt we?
As for the whole football 'nous' thing - its something I don't agree with, I feel it undermines the manager's position and causes unrest. Howver you dress it up, Director of Football, Playing Staff Adviser, Football Knowing Board Director, Transfer Stategist whatever it is I just don't think it is needed.
I can't even think of an example where it has worked in the past (come on you smart arses,, prove me wrong! ;-))
Might be worth another thread this discussion though.
[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]Good to see the notes. I don't mean to put a dampner on all of the hard work from the forum, and the credit from the club to actually responding to something that they didnt need to BUT everything in these notes we already knew didnt we?
As for the whole football 'nous' thing - its something I don't agree with, I feel it undermines the manager's position and causes unrest. Howver you dress it up, Director of Football, Playing Staff Adviser, Football Knowing Board Director, Transfer Stategist whatever it is I just don't think it is needed.
I can't even think of an example where it has worked in the past (come on you smart arses,, prove me wrong! ;-))
Might be worth another thread this discussion though.
WSS,
This whole exercise is really about re-building the confidence in the decision-making process that the Club is using. Fans do not understand that, so I would contest that we already knew everything in these notes. Maybe you did, but most did not. Either way, what we are trying to do is to convey the thought processes so that fans can understand where the Board is coming from. We may still not like the decisions, but we can agree with the thinking.
As far as the football advisory role is concerned, you state that you don't think it's needed. How then do you answer questions such as "why, when Andy Reid was sold (good business deal) did we not replace him with a creative midfielder (poor footballing decision)?". Are you comfortable with the player purchases over the last couple of years (Traore, Faye and McLeod are my personal favourites, but others will have others). Not needed? Mmmmm.
It's all about opinions, of course, but where is the harm in making a constructive suggestion which others have put to me in the interest of improving (note 'improving') our performance in this part of the decision-making process? The Club does it anyway (eg by calling up key contacts and asking for advice). We are simply saying that it might be beneficial to do it on a more regular and more formal basis.
No that's fair enough Dave, just an opinion as you say - I would put this scenario out there for you though regarding the Reid thing and if we had a Football Advisor:
So Pardew wants to sign Andy Gray, Football Advisor says he doesn't rate him and should sign a creative midfielder. Who does Murray listen to? He takes both views. Pardew insists, Football Advisor sticks to his view. So RM now either overides and so undermines his manager or he ignores his advisor who quite rightly says "why did you ask me then?
So Pardew wants to sign Andy Gray, Football Advisor says he doesn't rate him and should sign a creative midfielder. Who does Murray listen to? He takes both views. Pardew insists, Football Advisor sticks to his view. So RM now either overides and so undermines his manager or he ignores his advisor who quite rightly says "why did you ask me then?
Andy Gray was the replacement for Todorov - not Reid.
Cook was the cheap, cheap 'gamble' replacement for Reid.
So Pardew at least, needed a Football Advisor.
Overall, I'm fairly impressed with Parky's loan signings. Especially as he has spent so little money comparatively.
So maybe, Football Advisor is no longer the priority it once was...?
I think it may have been helpful in the Reid scenario. At a Q&A session with Pardew, someone very specifically questioned Pardew about the lack of a creative midfielder, adding that it worried him. There was a lot of applause for this question and Pardew responded by saying that he was aware of the problem and that he would be addressing it. He then proceeded to do nothing and maybe an extra person reminding Pardew in front of RM of what he had said wouldn't have gone amiss.
[quote][cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]No that's fair enough Dave, just an opinion as you say - I would put this scenario out there for you though regarding the Reid thing and if we had a Football Advisor:
So Pardew wants to sign Andy Gray, Football Advisor says he doesn't rate him and should sign a creative midfielder. Who does Murray listen to? He takes both views. Pardew insists, Football Advisor sticks to his view. So RM now either overides and so undermines his manager or he ignores his advisor who quite rightly says "why did you ask me then?[/quote]
Not the comparison I had in mind. The Board says "we have a good opportunity to get decent money for Andy Reid, bearing in mind that he is susceptible to injury and may not play many more games for us this season." The Football Advisor says "OK, good business deal, but it will leave your midfield devoid of creativity. Reid is the heartbeat of the team. If you sell him, you will need to spend some of the money gained on a player such as XXX or XXX."
If Richard Murray then chooses to go with Pardew's insistence that we sign Andy Gray rather than a creative midfielder, then it is a decision made with the overall risk assessed accurately. Yes, the Football Advisor will need to appreciate that he is there as a consultant and that Richard Murray has the freedom to accept or ignore that advice.
It's no more than improving the likelihood of making better football-based decisions and, in an ideal world, the Manager and Football Advisor would have mutual respect and understanding.
[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]Change "Gray" for "Cook" then...
My real point, was that Parkinsella seems to be far more clued up on signing players with the right ability and character to fit within the team unit. So maybe Football Advisor is no longer necessary ... ?
[cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]It's no more than improving the likelihood of making better football-based decisions and, in an ideal world, the Manager and Football Advisor would have mutual respect and understanding.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? as we say in the Liberal club
[quote][cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]Change "Gray" for "Cook" then...[/quote]
My real point, was that Parkinsella seems to be far more clued up on signing players with the right ability and character to fit within the team unit. So maybe Football Advisor is no longer necessary ... ?[/quote]
You have to be a little bit careful with that. For example, if Parkinson ends up with a team of eleven captains (which apparently he wants), that might work in an all-out relegation scrap, but is a dangerous long-term strategy. Too many chiefs, not enough Indians (if you can forgive my un-PC example).
I think the Football Advisor role is aimed more at providing the football-based implications into the business decisions that Richard Murray has to make. The fact that Parkinson seems more adept than Pardew in this area doesn't really alter the picture for me - it's about helping Richard Murray to understand the consequences, from a football perspective, of the business decisions he makes.
[cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]it's about helping Richard Murray to understand the consequences, from a football perspective, of the business decisions he makes.
That comes across as slightly patronising IMHO.
Richard and the board already have two former managers and ex-Charlton Players as director and associate director.
They already, as you said yourself, take soundings on players informally.
More importantly Richard and the board already employ someone with football expertise to make footballing decisions. His name is Phil Parkinson.
ok, Richard has made mistakes, and admits as such, but I think it's a bit rich suggesting he needs help to make decisions. By the nature of decisions you get some right and some wrong. In my opinion he's got more right than wrong, and that isn't just on the 'football' side. An 'advisor' would only muddy the waters further and possibly undermine the Manager. I personally didn't think the Fans Forum was there to suggest to the Board how to run things and by making such suggestions it is possible you may alienate those in charge.
It seems to me you only need a football advisor if you have an incompetent manager, or one who doesn't have a good enough relationship with the board.
[cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]
I think the Football Advisor role is aimed more at providing the football-based implications into the business decisions that Richard Murray has to make. The fact that Parkinson seems more adept than Pardew in this area doesn't really alter the picture for me - it's about helping Richard Murray to understand the consequences, from a football perspective, of the business decisions he makes.
The manager and RM should be doing this already, shouldn't they?
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite][cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]
it's about helping Richard Murray to understand the consequences, from a football perspective, of the business decisions he makes.
That comes across as slightly patronising IMHO.
Richard and the board already have two former managers and ex-Charlton Players as director and associate director.
They already, as you said yourself, take soundings on players informally.
More importantly Richard and the board already employ someone with football expertise to make footballing decisions. His name is Phil Parkinson.
Let me try again ..........
It's about helping Richard Murray to understand the consequences, from a football perspective, of the business decisions he makes. Phil Parkinson (or any manager) is not directly involved in the business decisions, as I understand it. So, take the Andy Reid example. No manager would support the loss of such a player. But, if the deal made business sense, Richard Murray has a decision to make based on those different inputs. Richard's background allows him to address the business part .......... and this needs to be counterbalanced with a full appreciation of the football implications. Hence, advice needed as, I suggest, the opinion of the manager is likely to be a little polarised.
Maybe time to let this one rest as we are way off topic, plus I'll look at modifying the notes the reflect the diversity of opinion on this issue.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite][cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]
it's about helping Richard Murray to understand the consequences, from a football perspective, of the business decisions he makes.
That comes across as slightly patronising IMHO.
Richard and the board already have two former managers and ex-Charlton Players as director and associate director.
They already, as you said yourself, take soundings on players informally.
More importantly Richard and the board already employ someone with football expertise to make footballing decisions. His name is Phil Parkinson.
Let me try again ..........
It's about helping Richard Murray to understand the consequences, from a football perspective, of the business decisions he makes. Phil Parkinson (or any manager) is not directly involved in the business decisions, as I understand it. So, take the Andy Reid example. No manager would support the loss of such a player. But, if the deal made business sense, Richard Murray has a decision to make based on those different inputs. Richard's background allows him to address the business part .......... and this needs to be counterbalanced with a full appreciation of the football implications. Hence, advice needed as, I suggest, the opinion of the manager is likely to be a little polarised.
Maybe time to let this one rest as we are way off topic.
Yes, lets leave it as I think it detracts from the other information in the summary and the questions that were raised in the original letter which if I remember correctly didn't include the notion of a football advisor.
However I will say, having been lucky enough to been on the periphery of the decision making around the Andy Reid sale, both the football and business implications were considered IMHO.
Not saying board always get it right but then again neither do "football people" because otherwise no managers would get sacked and no "big" team would ever get relegated : - )
[cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]Change "Gray" for "Cook" then...
My real point, was that Parkinsella seems to be far more clued up on signing players with the right ability and character to fit within the team unit. So maybe Football Advisor is no longer necessary ... ?
That's the feeling I'm getting.
Dowie went for players he thought were proven in the Premiership, they sort of were, but weren't right for us.
Pardew went mainly for younger players, hoping they'd play to their potential and grow into a good Premiership team.
Parkinson is getting players in he knows (or is pretty sure) he will get something out of (Murty and Ward especially). I don't think he'll necessarily always go for experience, but like you said he'll go for the right sort of characters as well as having enough ability. I can even understand why he got Gillespie in, it just didn't work out as well as he hoped.
Get the feeling with Parkinson he has more chance of finding us the right players on bargains and free transfers from the Championship and League One than Pardew would have.
Comments
Well we're not going to be able to afford Soares, I think Parkinson will want to see more of Kandol so I'd imagine he'd love to sign Murty and Ward. Both would be good signings, I think Murty's contract is up and I doubt Wolves would want much, if anything, for Ward.
Umm ............ I don't think so. The Fans' Forum is not exclusive to a minority. Also, what's sensitive?
Also the questions over Richard Murray's competences alluded to in the minutes - I do not think this is appropriate outside the loyal fan base to see and behold....
There are other issues but I do not have the time to go back and forward.....
OK ............ even if we all 'know' who the highly-paid players are (and don't assume that everyone does), do you not think that those players are aware of the situation already?
Second, in the notes I have expressed an opinion about how Richard Murray might benefit from strengthening his hand in terms of football knowledge and expertise. A constructive suggestion in the wake of some questionable decisions (and some very good ones) in the past. I don't see the harm in sharing that view with anyone .... including the long list of Palace fans who subscribe to this site.
As for the other issues .......... let me know when you have more time.
As for the whole football 'nous' thing - its something I don't agree with, I feel it undermines the manager's position and causes unrest. Howver you dress it up, Director of Football, Playing Staff Adviser, Football Knowing Board Director, Transfer Stategist whatever it is I just don't think it is needed.
I can't even think of an example where it has worked in the past (come on you smart arses,, prove me wrong! ;-))
Might be worth another thread this discussion though.
WSS,
This whole exercise is really about re-building the confidence in the decision-making process that the Club is using. Fans do not understand that, so I would contest that we already knew everything in these notes. Maybe you did, but most did not. Either way, what we are trying to do is to convey the thought processes so that fans can understand where the Board is coming from. We may still not like the decisions, but we can agree with the thinking.
As far as the football advisory role is concerned, you state that you don't think it's needed. How then do you answer questions such as "why, when Andy Reid was sold (good business deal) did we not replace him with a creative midfielder (poor footballing decision)?". Are you comfortable with the player purchases over the last couple of years (Traore, Faye and McLeod are my personal favourites, but others will have others). Not needed? Mmmmm.
It's all about opinions, of course, but where is the harm in making a constructive suggestion which others have put to me in the interest of improving (note 'improving') our performance in this part of the decision-making process? The Club does it anyway (eg by calling up key contacts and asking for advice). We are simply saying that it might be beneficial to do it on a more regular and more formal basis.
So Pardew wants to sign Andy Gray, Football Advisor says he doesn't rate him and should sign a creative midfielder. Who does Murray listen to? He takes both views. Pardew insists, Football Advisor sticks to his view. So RM now either overides and so undermines his manager or he ignores his advisor who quite rightly says "why did you ask me then?
Andy Gray was the replacement for Todorov - not Reid.
Cook was the cheap, cheap 'gamble' replacement for Reid.
So Pardew at least, needed a Football Advisor.
Overall, I'm fairly impressed with Parky's loan signings. Especially as he has spent so little money comparatively.
So maybe, Football Advisor is no longer the priority it once was...?
So Pardew wants to sign Andy Gray, Football Advisor says he doesn't rate him and should sign a creative midfielder. Who does Murray listen to? He takes both views. Pardew insists, Football Advisor sticks to his view. So RM now either overides and so undermines his manager or he ignores his advisor who quite rightly says "why did you ask me then?[/quote]
Not the comparison I had in mind. The Board says "we have a good opportunity to get decent money for Andy Reid, bearing in mind that he is susceptible to injury and may not play many more games for us this season." The Football Advisor says "OK, good business deal, but it will leave your midfield devoid of creativity. Reid is the heartbeat of the team. If you sell him, you will need to spend some of the money gained on a player such as XXX or XXX."
If Richard Murray then chooses to go with Pardew's insistence that we sign Andy Gray rather than a creative midfielder, then it is a decision made with the overall risk assessed accurately. Yes, the Football Advisor will need to appreciate that he is there as a consultant and that Richard Murray has the freedom to accept or ignore that advice.
It's no more than improving the likelihood of making better football-based decisions and, in an ideal world, the Manager and Football Advisor would have mutual respect and understanding.
My real point, was that Parkinsella seems to be far more clued up on signing players with the right ability and character to fit within the team unit. So maybe Football Advisor is no longer necessary ... ?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? as we say in the Liberal club
My real point, was that Parkinsella seems to be far more clued up on signing players with the right ability and character to fit within the team unit. So maybe Football Advisor is no longer necessary ... ?[/quote]
You have to be a little bit careful with that. For example, if Parkinson ends up with a team of eleven captains (which apparently he wants), that might work in an all-out relegation scrap, but is a dangerous long-term strategy. Too many chiefs, not enough Indians (if you can forgive my un-PC example).
I think the Football Advisor role is aimed more at providing the football-based implications into the business decisions that Richard Murray has to make. The fact that Parkinson seems more adept than Pardew in this area doesn't really alter the picture for me - it's about helping Richard Murray to understand the consequences, from a football perspective, of the business decisions he makes.
That comes across as slightly patronising IMHO.
Richard and the board already have two former managers and ex-Charlton Players as director and associate director.
They already, as you said yourself, take soundings on players informally.
More importantly Richard and the board already employ someone with football expertise to make footballing decisions. His name is Phil Parkinson.
The manager and RM should be doing this already, shouldn't they?
stoke have a director of football, i think. You can't force it on a manager without making them feel undermined, though.
Let me try again ..........
It's about helping Richard Murray to understand the consequences, from a football perspective, of the business decisions he makes. Phil Parkinson (or any manager) is not directly involved in the business decisions, as I understand it. So, take the Andy Reid example. No manager would support the loss of such a player. But, if the deal made business sense, Richard Murray has a decision to make based on those different inputs. Richard's background allows him to address the business part .......... and this needs to be counterbalanced with a full appreciation of the football implications. Hence, advice needed as, I suggest, the opinion of the manager is likely to be a little polarised.
Maybe time to let this one rest as we are way off topic, plus I'll look at modifying the notes the reflect the diversity of opinion on this issue.
Yes, lets leave it as I think it detracts from the other information in the summary and the questions that were raised in the original letter which if I remember correctly didn't include the notion of a football advisor.
However I will say, having been lucky enough to been on the periphery of the decision making around the Andy Reid sale, both the football and business implications were considered IMHO.
Not saying board always get it right but then again neither do "football people" because otherwise no managers would get sacked and no "big" team would ever get relegated : - )
That's the feeling I'm getting.
Dowie went for players he thought were proven in the Premiership, they sort of were, but weren't right for us.
Pardew went mainly for younger players, hoping they'd play to their potential and grow into a good Premiership team.
Parkinson is getting players in he knows (or is pretty sure) he will get something out of (Murty and Ward especially). I don't think he'll necessarily always go for experience, but like you said he'll go for the right sort of characters as well as having enough ability. I can even understand why he got Gillespie in, it just didn't work out as well as he hoped.
Get the feeling with Parkinson he has more chance of finding us the right players on bargains and free transfers from the Championship and League One than Pardew would have.