Fair point but if we sacked him on what grounds could he claim on his contract. Worst managerin league and worst in our history. Like to see the tribunal on that one.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Fair point but if we sacked him on what grounds could he claim on his contract. Worst managerin league and worst in our history. Like to see the tribunal on that one.
Obviously I'm not privy to his contract details but if he has taken on extra responsibility without extra remuneration I reckon that would go in his favour.
In answer to SHG's original question, I think we know the answer. Didn't Sir Richard Murray tell the fans forum meeting only a week or so ago that the board are delighted with the appointment and the fighting spirit Parky has introduced to the dressing room?
However, I've just read Parky's post match press conference: "I didn't feel we were strong enough as a unit or aggressive enough as a team ...it's that mentality at the start of the second half.You have to do all the ugly, horrible things right at the start of each half to get the opposition on the back foot ...Once we went 3-2 down there was an air of resignation about us. ..I sensed our fighting spirit was lacking today.''
Well, none of that is about the players' skill levels. It's all about their mentaility and how up for it they were. And it's his job as manager to instil that, isn't it?
I think that a better than 1.5 points per games from Palarse onwards although would mean relegation at least we would be going down with a fight and though at times today we played well, they are rubbish and we lost yet again, going down, and he should go to.
I'm with Len, he inherited a sinking ship, and with limited resources he gave it a go, and a small chink of light appeared briefly.
Give him the summer to rebuild, then it will be truly his squad, come the Autumn, if we continue to underachieve, then by bye, but give him at least one pre-season to do his own thing and to make his own mistakes, that will give us a truer picture of his capabilities IMO.
HE WILL BE JUDGED ON RESULTS AND GIVEN A 100 YEAR CONTRACT IN THE SUMMER IF WE MANAGE TO GET A POINT BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF THE SEASON. OR EVEN IF WE DON'T
[cite]Posted By: DA9[/cite]I'm with Len, he inherited a sinking ship, and with limited resources he gave it a go, and a small chink of light appeared briefly.
Give him the summer to rebuild, then it will be truly his squad, come the Autumn, if we continue to underachieve, then by bye, but give him at least one pre-season to do his own thing and to make his own mistakes, that will give us a truer picture of his capabilities IMO.
That would have been my view pre the last two home games but there is still something wrong. He had built a settled side but then lost Murty (no fault of his) and Kandol for two games. OK that happens but chopping and changing with Sam and Soares and leaving out Dickson completely (bench yes, I could see that) baffled me. That Watford's switch in tactics wasn't responded to by the players is the most worrying.
What Parky showed at Colchester and Hull is that he is not a impact manager. It took him time to build a twice promoted side at Colchester and he had started to lay the foundations, through 4 or 5 key signings, at Hull when he went. Those players went on to get promotion with the addition of a decent striker in Campbell.
I really don't know. I like Parky, he talks sense and he talks to you as an equal not as if he's too good to discuss football with a mere fan. He has a good record in building a side over time, he has "Charlton" values of picking players with character and leadership and fight but I'm still worried that it not enough. If he is allowed to keep the current side together there is a basis for a successful campaign next year but that is a big IF.
Di Canio could be great or could be a disaster. He would give the fans a lift and he'd sell a few more season tickets for sure. After that who knows? I doubt even Paulo knows. maybe with a good coach it would work but I doubt he'd keep the likes of Kins and Powell. He'd want his own people and you can't blame him for that.
As for the question I suggest you read David White's comments on the blog article to see how happy the board are.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]Holland is on 5k a week, if that makes him a high earner what to do the low earners earn??
That's hard to believe. I wouldn't say he's a greedy, money grabbing player at all, but he would have been on decent wages in the Prem and I can't imagine they've gone from anywhere between £15-25k a week to £5k? When he signed in the summer Pardew still wanted him to play a big part this season.
Very fair summary of the Parkinson problem by Henry, I think.
As Henry says not an 'impact' manager, but a long-term builder.
Which is why he should not have been appointed when we needed someone post-Pardew to make an immedate impact and save our season (not to mention our championship status).
Conversely, it may be the reason why - given that he's had time to bed in - he should hang around. Hopefully he can start planning and building now to get us out of div three.
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]
As Henry says not an 'impact' manager, but a long-term builder.
Which is why he should not have been appointed when we needed someone post-Pardew to make an immedate impact and save our season (not to mention our championship status).
This was exactly the reason i was against his appointment in the first place.
However, i think its fair to guess from a supporter perspective that the immediate driving force behind his appointment was that of finance, namely the lack of it.
Actually Nigel, i've just had a scan of what i wrote at the time of the appointment, and surprisingly it supports people's current calls for change, even though i'm not there myself yet.
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]
As Henry says not an 'impact' manager, but a long-term builder.
Which is why he should not have been appointed when we needed someone post-Pardew to make an immedate impact and save our season (not to mention our championship status).
This was exactly the reason i was against his appointment in the first place.
However, i think its fair to guess from a supporter perspective that the immediate driving force behind his appointment was that of finance, namely the lack of it.
Finance and stability I would guess. We don't have much of the first and we've forgotten what the second is.
Given some luck and some time I still feel Parkinson, especially with the likes of Kinsella behind him, will be a good manager for someone. Just not sure it is us anymore. However I've not given up on him and I can see why the board wanted to stick with him even when the results didn't come. There was an change in attitude and endeavour on the pitch.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Given some luck and some time I still feel Parkinson, especially with the likes of Kinsella behind him, will be a good manager for someone. Just not sure it is us anymore. However I've not given up on him and I can see why the board wanted to stick with him even when the results didn't come. There was an change in attitude and endeavour on the pitch.
The board is going to stick with him for the remainder of the season. That was pretty clear when they appointed him in the first place, after no wins in eight matches as caretaker, and then learning from the AGM that he isn't on more money as manager than he was as first team coach.
OK, so we are stuck with him, for better or worse, for the remainder of the season. He apparently is a nice guy, everyone wants him to succeed ... yada, yada, yada ...
I do not believe that stability is a reason for keeping around a manager that is not up to the job. Unfortunately, there has been no evidence that he is up to the job.
I also don't think someone can can be a good manager in League 1 that was not a good manager in The Championship.
I would be thoroughly delighted if he turned this season around and relegation was somehow avoided, and supporters clamoured for him to come back next season.
I just don't see any evidence. And I am sorry to write that, but it is the truth, IMO.
I feel for Parky, he inherited a sinking ship and did his best but couldn't keep it afloat, but then I wonder who could have turned things around given the lack of finances? I don't recall Jose Mourinho putting his name in the frame ad=fter Parky was sacked. I presume the board did look around and possibly had a few calls about the job, but probably chose Parky because he was a) cheap and b) the other applicants didn't offer anything that he already possessed.
The question is - has he "lost" the changing room and the ability to inspire the team, if the answer is yes then we'll need a new manager come May. If not then it's worth reviewing things and making a decision based on whether he can build and motivate a successful promotion chasing side next season. Currently I'm of the opinion that a fresh set of coaching/managerial faces are needed.
[quote][cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]Holland is on 5k a week, if that makes him a high earner what to do the low earners earn??[/quote] How are you so sure?[/quote]
This number was widely bandied about at the time I forget by whom
Comments
Dowie and Pardew spunked £24 million between them leaving Parky in the position of rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.
At the end of the season many of the higher earners like ZZ, Ambrose, Holland and Toddy will be off the payroll.
Weaver and Hudson will probably go too so hopefully some money will be freed up which will be available for the squad.
Parky knows league 1 and the players so there is an argument for keeping him. Do we want to waste yet more funds on managerial severance pay?
Obviously I'm not privy to his contract details but if he has taken on extra responsibility without extra remuneration I reckon that would go in his favour.
of those only Hudson would command a fee.
It'll be worth it. Parky must go, sacked, walked, whatever.
Can we afford to bring anyone else in?
We're all hurting and probably need to take a little bit of stock and see where we go from here given our financial constraints.
However, I've just read Parky's post match press conference: "I didn't feel we were strong enough as a unit or aggressive enough as a team ...it's that mentality at the start of the second half.You have to do all the ugly, horrible things right at the start of each half to get the opposition on the back foot ...Once we went 3-2 down there was an air of resignation about us. ..I sensed our fighting spirit was lacking today.''
Well, none of that is about the players' skill levels. It's all about their mentaility and how up for it they were. And it's his job as manager to instil that, isn't it?
No of course they arent!!!
no one is...
BUT we have to just take it on the chin... or go and support Kuala Lumpers u19 2Xl
Give him the summer to rebuild, then it will be truly his squad, come the Autumn, if we continue to underachieve, then by bye, but give him at least one pre-season to do his own thing and to make his own mistakes, that will give us a truer picture of his capabilities IMO.
That would have been my view pre the last two home games but there is still something wrong. He had built a settled side but then lost Murty (no fault of his) and Kandol for two games. OK that happens but chopping and changing with Sam and Soares and leaving out Dickson completely (bench yes, I could see that) baffled me. That Watford's switch in tactics wasn't responded to by the players is the most worrying.
What Parky showed at Colchester and Hull is that he is not a impact manager. It took him time to build a twice promoted side at Colchester and he had started to lay the foundations, through 4 or 5 key signings, at Hull when he went. Those players went on to get promotion with the addition of a decent striker in Campbell.
I really don't know. I like Parky, he talks sense and he talks to you as an equal not as if he's too good to discuss football with a mere fan. He has a good record in building a side over time, he has "Charlton" values of picking players with character and leadership and fight but I'm still worried that it not enough. If he is allowed to keep the current side together there is a basis for a successful campaign next year but that is a big IF.
Di Canio could be great or could be a disaster. He would give the fans a lift and he'd sell a few more season tickets for sure. After that who knows? I doubt even Paulo knows. maybe with a good coach it would work but I doubt he'd keep the likes of Kins and Powell. He'd want his own people and you can't blame him for that.
As for the question I suggest you read David White's comments on the blog article to see how happy the board are.
That's hard to believe. I wouldn't say he's a greedy, money grabbing player at all, but he would have been on decent wages in the Prem and I can't imagine they've gone from anywhere between £15-25k a week to £5k? When he signed in the summer Pardew still wanted him to play a big part this season.
As Henry says not an 'impact' manager, but a long-term builder.
Which is why he should not have been appointed when we needed someone post-Pardew to make an immedate impact and save our season (not to mention our championship status).
Conversely, it may be the reason why - given that he's had time to bed in - he should hang around. Hopefully he can start planning and building now to get us out of div three.
This was exactly the reason i was against his appointment in the first place.
However, i think its fair to guess from a supporter perspective that the immediate driving force behind his appointment was that of finance, namely the lack of it.
http://www.charltonlife.com/blog/?p=208
Finance and stability I would guess. We don't have much of the first and we've forgotten what the second is.
Given some luck and some time I still feel Parkinson, especially with the likes of Kinsella behind him, will be a good manager for someone. Just not sure it is us anymore. However I've not given up on him and I can see why the board wanted to stick with him even when the results didn't come. There was an change in attitude and endeavour on the pitch.
The former definitely drove the appointment.
Not sure about the latter.
Eight (winless) games without a manager between Pardew's sacking and Parky's appointment is an odd way to go about ensuring stability!
The board is going to stick with him for the remainder of the season. That was pretty clear when they appointed him in the first place, after no wins in eight matches as caretaker, and then learning from the AGM that he isn't on more money as manager than he was as first team coach.
OK, so we are stuck with him, for better or worse, for the remainder of the season. He apparently is a nice guy, everyone wants him to succeed ... yada, yada, yada ...
I do not believe that stability is a reason for keeping around a manager that is not up to the job. Unfortunately, there has been no evidence that he is up to the job.
I also don't think someone can can be a good manager in League 1 that was not a good manager in The Championship.
I would be thoroughly delighted if he turned this season around and relegation was somehow avoided, and supporters clamoured for him to come back next season.
I just don't see any evidence. And I am sorry to write that, but it is the truth, IMO.
I feel for Parky, he inherited a sinking ship and did his best but couldn't keep it afloat, but then I wonder who could have turned things around given the lack of finances? I don't recall Jose Mourinho putting his name in the frame ad=fter Parky was sacked. I presume the board did look around and possibly had a few calls about the job, but probably chose Parky because he was a) cheap and b) the other applicants didn't offer anything that he already possessed.
The question is - has he "lost" the changing room and the ability to inspire the team, if the answer is yes then we'll need a new manager come May. If not then it's worth reviewing things and making a decision based on whether he can build and motivate a successful promotion chasing side next season. Currently I'm of the opinion that a fresh set of coaching/managerial faces are needed.
How are you so sure?[/quote]
This number was widely bandied about at the time I forget by whom