[cite]Posted By: bingaddick[/cite]I've gone for a complete change with the caveat that it has to be somebody who has a decent track record, not a rooky or a failure.
Someone like Pardew, you mean ... ?
Sorry, Bing - couldn't resist ....!
;o)
We could have a decent debate over Pardews "decent track record" Oggy. Including evidence showing caveats issued at the time of his appointment.....;o)
Ha ha, Bing ...... Pardew had a decent enough track record at Reading and West Scam, promotions, play off finals, 9th Prem position with the team he built and an FA Cup Final - is decent enough in my book.
So why did he lose the plot at Charlton .....?
I don't suppose he knows why, let alone anybody else.
But lose the plot he did. All I can think of, he must have had good management teams at Reading and West Ham.
With Parky, he got found out ...... because perhaps Parky, solid Pro that he undoubtedly is, didn't have the tactical nous and personality that Pardew's other No2's undoubtedly must have had.
Just having a little conversation with myself (first sign of madness, I suppose - but at least someone is listening, lol), and found this on Wiki:
" Peter Grant enjoyed a successful time as assistant manager to Alan Pardew at West Ham, helping them reach the 2006 FA Cup Final and finish ninth in their first season back in the English Premier League. ....
On Friday 13 October 2006 Peter Grant was appointed manager of Norwich City, leaving his position as Alan Pardew's assistant manager at West Ham United."
So that's why Pardew had a great 1st season back in the Prem, 9th position and FA Cup Final.
And a solid start to the next season ...... it must have collapsed and West Scam in freefall about the time Grant left to manage Norwich, resulting in Pardew being sacked 2 months later.
Now we know. Pardew in the Prem was only as good as his No2.
And he got found out when Grant left.
And got found out again at The Valley ........ because his No2 there wasn't up to scratch.
Anyway, my point is ...... Pardew was only as good as his No2.
And at Charlton, his No2 wasn't capable of covering for him.
Which, having unearthed that little nugget, it gives me cause for concern should Parky, solid and committed Pro that he is, continue to sit in the manager's seat.
Because Parky is perhaps only as good as his No2 also........ ?
Or overides him.
Because improvement though there may have been, something clearly still isn't working.
But I can't see it happening, so we've got to back what we've got. No point in this destructive "should never have been appointed" crap, let's start looking forward and stop the tedious search for scapegoats. We all know what's wrong, and we want to push forward and stop looking into the past. If Parky's what we've got... then we've got to stand behind him.
Hopefully Parkinson can get some strong characters in during the summer, that's what we've lacked since Pardew filled the place with lily-livered types who wouldn't say boo to a goose.
Oggy, there were question marks about Pardew going right back to his Reading days. Yes he got them promoted from the third tier. Yes he got them into the play-offs, yes he got West Ham up at the second attempt. Yes he got them to the FA Cup final. However, he didn't quite make it happen at Reading (Coppell did). He almost f*cked it at West Ham. He admitted himself that he gambled in that second season and it nearly didn't happen. They scraped into the play off on the last day of the season. They had a good first season back and got to the cup final. Then it all went t*ts up the following season. There were well rumoured off the field issues involving him. There were problems behind the scenes with gambling at the heart of them. My mate who is a Hamsters fan described his tactical ability as very nearly non-existent and he continuously played players out of position.
Back to my original post, perhaps I should qualify my remarks as we need a manager with a decent track record with tactical nous.
for me, the lack of finance says keep 'em and see how the season starts, although that may still leave us paying compensation if sacked. Having said that, we don't know what his contract would be as a manager for next season.
On another note, leicester went through 3 managers last season and appointed a new one for this campaign. It got them back up, but at what cost though.........
''On another note, leicester went through 3 managers last season and appointed a new one for this campaign. It got them back up, but at what cost though......... ''
Probably not that much. Martin Allen left ''mutually'' after refusing to sign the players Mandaric told him to sign. Would have got some dosh, I guess, but not anything like his full contract, of which he was probably in material breach. Megson left for Bolton after just a handful of games and presumably Bolton had to compensate Leicester. Holloway would have cost money when sacked for winning ''only'' nine out of 32 matches - a win ratio , by the way, which Parky must dream about and (let's look on the bright side) could still match if he wins his next six on the spin. Providing he's around for the next six, which manoueverings in the board room may well ensure that he isn't.
I hate the rapid turnover of managers in the modern game. But I reluctantly accept that if you want success in the current high risk/high reward climate that trickles down from the Premership, it's what you have to do. So you keep changing at least once a season until success comes. Stability is a luxury you can only afford once you've found a winner, like Ferguson, Wenger or, indeed, Alan Curbishley.
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]i had no idea the voting would be as close
Have to say I did - people who maybe arent as vocal about "Parkinson is sh*t, get him out" and don't post much probably have voted under the anonymity of the poll.
Good reflection and goes to show how difficult a choice the Board do have and how everyone wont be happy regardless.
I know it's only 100 or so people so far but its a semi decent sample.
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]i had no idea the voting would be as close
very surprising really after the shit season we have had
like the fact that 19% are sitting on the fence so that they can moan later when whatever decision made goes wrong and it isn't their fault. Jeez show some balls, make up your mind.
Ort rather than sitting on the fence, perhaps they genuinely don't know ?
Its not about saying later as its an anonymous poll
I voted i genuinely don't know. I see arguments on both sides and at this point of time, i honestly can't say with any conviction that i think one approach is better than the other. Sorry if you see that as fence sitting.
same as afka ... obviously i'd want parky out and the rest of em , new broom and all that but our financial situation dictates otherwise... the change should have been made when parky's caretaker period proved so pathetic
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]But I reluctantly accept that if you want success in the current high risk/high reward climate that trickles down from the Premership, it's what you have to do. So you keep changing at least once a season until success comes. Stability is a luxury you can only afford once you've found a winner, like Ferguson, Wenger or, indeed, Alan Curbishley.
Doesn't it sometimes take a season or two to know if you've found a winner though?
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]i had no idea the voting would be as close
very surprising really after the shit season we have had
like the fact that 19% are sitting on the fence so that they can moan later when whatever decision made goes wrong and it isn't their fault. Jeez show some balls, make up your mind.
It's not about us showing some balls, Large.
If there was money in the kitty, then I see it as a no-brainer, because the present manager, management team even, have so far proved by results that they are not really good enough.
When Parky took over, we had only just hit 3rd from bottom for the 1st time, but have been bottom since soon after.
They've had 25 matches (with 3 to come, presumably) to save the club from relegation - 28 matches is more than half a season to turn things round. Okay they finally have, but too little too late to change the course of our season.
And by any standards, just 3 victories in so far 25 matches, tell it's own story ....
despite just about every opposing manager saying, with the players that Charlton have, they should never be in trouble.
So what do they know, that Parky can't grasp ... ?
At any other club, Parky would have gone, finances or no.
But RM has made the clubs financial position very clear.
And as things stand today (as far as we are aware), there appears to be little alternative but to keep Parky.
But that doesn't mean that's the right decision either.
Hence - us fence sitters truly don't know.
kinsella reign as reserve manager and having never managed before counts him out,parkinson disgraceful record since november should as well,get someone who has no ties to this club.
Parkinson's record of 3 wins in 25 and his previous association as Pardew's impotent sidekick means that his position is completely untenable. Since his full time tenure, he has left us cut adrift and relegated with three games to go.
Voted All change as this supposed stability has not yielded anything positive what so ever.
If the manaegemnt isn't changed, how is the team's performance going to. PP has been with the club in a management role since last season.
I would implore the board to act now as no other manager, currently in employment, has a worse record than PP.
I would go for a complete change. However, we are then relying on the board making the right decision with the new man. I would take Parkinson over Boothroyd or Sanchez for instance but I suppose thats the gamble!
***The poll below is based on no form of takeover materialising, as a club with no money and needing to sell players and lower the wage bill dramatically. Consider before voting the additional financial impact of having to pay up contracts.***
I think this just goes to show what a sorry state we're in. 37% including myself in favour of keeping Parkinson and I bet most of them, like me, are pretty demoralised at the thought of him still being in charge next season. We had our chance to gamble halfway through the season - it meant blowing more money but we were a more attractive proposition at the time to a new manager and still had a good opportunity to get out of trouble. Now we're down and too skint to roll the dice. If we don't get bought out we could be looking at a god few seasons in the lower divisions. It's all very well saying "let's get rid of him and get someone new in" but the money just isn't there to do it.
The directors have shown a great deal of generosity in supporting the club through these difficult times, but surely they must feel that by keeping Parky they are merely throwing yet more good money after bad. If I had the means, and maybe they do(?), bite the bullet and pay him off...
Do it sooner, and we have time to galvanise the team, quickly establish who will be staying/ going and any money raised after paying off Parky, could be used in strengthening the most vulnberable areas in the team. We are now talking league one level players, so I am sure there will be plenty of bargaiuns at this level, together with younger players coming through our own ranks.
Parky's record on signings have been abjectly bad, so he is not the person we need in shaping a new team to get us out of league one.
Simple principle in all aspects of life, football included:
Do things for the right reasons.
A manager should be appointed because he is thought to be the best person for the job, not because he is the low-cost option. Short-term economies catch up on you eventually. Our December 08 cost-savings have resulted in serious financial losses throughout 2009 and beyond.
Question - where is the evidence that Phil Parkinson is the best person for the job?
It's hardly overwhelming, is it?
I accept that the next question is 'who is the best person for the job'? That depends heavily on the true nature of the job. Richard Murray and the rest of the Board now need to get the job description right.
Remember that our successful years under Curbishley were actually attributable to the Curbishley/Murray/Reed/Varney partnership. That's the kind of team that needs to be re-created. Four different pieces of the puzzle. Parkinson (or anyone else) is only the 'right person for the job' if he fits with the other pieces.
Time to start writing those job descriptions, Richard?
[quote][cite]Posted By: c4fcdenmark[/cite] Voted All change as this supposed stability has not yielded anything positive what so ever.[/quote]
What stability? We haven't had stability since King Curbs left!!!
I voted to keep the management in place.
Whether Parky should of got the job or not he did, he took over when we were in a shocking position, Les Reed and Pards had only served to build on the rubbish Dowie installed and Parky inherited it. It's taken bloody ages but recently performances have started to improve, we were on a downward spiral with Dowie, Reed then pushed the problem accelerator, went further down with Pards and the trend continued with Parky until recently. The only man since Curbs to get a upward turn of form. Like some suggest we could take on another manager, he brings in some new ideas and we go straight back up, great! But what happens if it goes bad next year? We get rid and look for another manager? Keep rotating managers until someone is successful and as soon as it gets bad again we switch?
This tiny slither of improvemnet is the best news we've had in three years. Lets try and build on it!
Im really surprised that people are resigned to accepting Parkinson....not because he is the best man for the job, but due to him being a low cost option and for falling into the same malaise that the club seem to be in...better the devil you know and all that claptrap. Its time for change....its plain enough for anyone to see;;;;its time to stop this ridiculous spiral before it completely spins out of control. We are going to have to make huge changes in personnel.....and that should start at the top of the tree with the management.Its long overdue, lets get it done now.
Comments
We could have a decent debate over Pardews "decent track record" Oggy. Including evidence showing caveats issued at the time of his appointment.....;o)
So why did he lose the plot at Charlton .....?
I don't suppose he knows why, let alone anybody else.
But lose the plot he did. All I can think of, he must have had good management teams at Reading and West Ham.
With Parky, he got found out ...... because perhaps Parky, solid Pro that he undoubtedly is, didn't have the tactical nous and personality that Pardew's other No2's undoubtedly must have had.
Who were they, BTW ... ?
" Peter Grant enjoyed a successful time as assistant manager to Alan Pardew at West Ham, helping them reach the 2006 FA Cup Final and finish ninth in their first season back in the English Premier League. ....
On Friday 13 October 2006 Peter Grant was appointed manager of Norwich City, leaving his position as Alan Pardew's assistant manager at West Ham United."
So that's why Pardew had a great 1st season back in the Prem, 9th position and FA Cup Final.
And a solid start to the next season ...... it must have collapsed and West Scam in freefall about the time Grant left to manage Norwich, resulting in Pardew being sacked 2 months later.
Now we know. Pardew in the Prem was only as good as his No2.
And he got found out when Grant left.
And got found out again at The Valley ........ because his No2 there wasn't up to scratch.
On 8 July 2008, he joined West Bromwich Albion as first-team coach, replacing Craig Shakespeare.
Grant, who holds a UEFA Pro License, was a team-mate of Albion manager Tony Mowbray at Celtic.[5]
How's that, Ali ... ?
;o)
And at Charlton, his No2 wasn't capable of covering for him.
Which, having unearthed that little nugget, it gives me cause for concern should Parky, solid and committed Pro that he is, continue to sit in the manager's seat.
Because Parky is perhaps only as good as his No2 also........ ?
Or overides him.
Because improvement though there may have been, something clearly still isn't working.
But I can't see it happening, so we've got to back what we've got. No point in this destructive "should never have been appointed" crap, let's start looking forward and stop the tedious search for scapegoats. We all know what's wrong, and we want to push forward and stop looking into the past. If Parky's what we've got... then we've got to stand behind him.
Hopefully Parkinson can get some strong characters in during the summer, that's what we've lacked since Pardew filled the place with lily-livered types who wouldn't say boo to a goose.
Back to my original post, perhaps I should qualify my remarks as we need a manager with a decent track record with tactical nous.
On another note, leicester went through 3 managers last season and appointed a new one for this campaign. It got them back up, but at what cost though.........
Probably not that much. Martin Allen left ''mutually'' after refusing to sign the players Mandaric told him to sign. Would have got some dosh, I guess, but not anything like his full contract, of which he was probably in material breach. Megson left for Bolton after just a handful of games and presumably Bolton had to compensate Leicester. Holloway would have cost money when sacked for winning ''only'' nine out of 32 matches - a win ratio , by the way, which Parky must dream about and (let's look on the bright side) could still match if he wins his next six on the spin. Providing he's around for the next six, which manoueverings in the board room may well ensure that he isn't.
I hate the rapid turnover of managers in the modern game. But I reluctantly accept that if you want success in the current high risk/high reward climate that trickles down from the Premership, it's what you have to do. So you keep changing at least once a season until success comes. Stability is a luxury you can only afford once you've found a winner, like Ferguson, Wenger or, indeed, Alan Curbishley.
very surprising really after the shit season we have had
Good reflection and goes to show how difficult a choice the Board do have and how everyone wont be happy regardless.
I know it's only 100 or so people so far but its a semi decent sample.
like the fact that 19% are sitting on the fence so that they can moan later when whatever decision made goes wrong and it isn't their fault. Jeez show some balls, make up your mind.
Its not about saying later as its an anonymous poll
I voted i genuinely don't know. I see arguments on both sides and at this point of time, i honestly can't say with any conviction that i think one approach is better than the other. Sorry if you see that as fence sitting.
;-)
Doesn't it sometimes take a season or two to know if you've found a winner though?
It's not about us showing some balls, Large.
If there was money in the kitty, then I see it as a no-brainer, because the present manager, management team even, have so far proved by results that they are not really good enough.
When Parky took over, we had only just hit 3rd from bottom for the 1st time, but have been bottom since soon after.
They've had 25 matches (with 3 to come, presumably) to save the club from relegation - 28 matches is more than half a season to turn things round. Okay they finally have, but too little too late to change the course of our season.
And by any standards, just 3 victories in so far 25 matches, tell it's own story ....
despite just about every opposing manager saying, with the players that Charlton have, they should never be in trouble.
So what do they know, that Parky can't grasp ... ?
At any other club, Parky would have gone, finances or no.
But RM has made the clubs financial position very clear.
And as things stand today (as far as we are aware), there appears to be little alternative but to keep Parky.
But that doesn't mean that's the right decision either.
Hence - us fence sitters truly don't know.
And outside of the club, nor does anybody else.
Voted All change as this supposed stability has not yielded anything positive what so ever.
If the manaegemnt isn't changed, how is the team's performance going to. PP has been with the club in a management role since last season.
I would implore the board to act now as no other manager, currently in employment, has a worse record than PP.
I think this just goes to show what a sorry state we're in. 37% including myself in favour of keeping Parkinson and I bet most of them, like me, are pretty demoralised at the thought of him still being in charge next season. We had our chance to gamble halfway through the season - it meant blowing more money but we were a more attractive proposition at the time to a new manager and still had a good opportunity to get out of trouble. Now we're down and too skint to roll the dice. If we don't get bought out we could be looking at a god few seasons in the lower divisions. It's all very well saying "let's get rid of him and get someone new in" but the money just isn't there to do it.
Do it sooner, and we have time to galvanise the team, quickly establish who will be staying/ going and any money raised after paying off Parky, could be used in strengthening the most vulnberable areas in the team. We are now talking league one level players, so I am sure there will be plenty of bargaiuns at this level, together with younger players coming through our own ranks.
Parky's record on signings have been abjectly bad, so he is not the person we need in shaping a new team to get us out of league one.
Do things for the right reasons.
A manager should be appointed because he is thought to be the best person for the job, not because he is the low-cost option. Short-term economies catch up on you eventually. Our December 08 cost-savings have resulted in serious financial losses throughout 2009 and beyond.
Question - where is the evidence that Phil Parkinson is the best person for the job?
It's hardly overwhelming, is it?
I accept that the next question is 'who is the best person for the job'? That depends heavily on the true nature of the job. Richard Murray and the rest of the Board now need to get the job description right.
Remember that our successful years under Curbishley were actually attributable to the Curbishley/Murray/Reed/Varney partnership. That's the kind of team that needs to be re-created. Four different pieces of the puzzle. Parkinson (or anyone else) is only the 'right person for the job' if he fits with the other pieces.
Time to start writing those job descriptions, Richard?
Voted All change as this supposed stability has not yielded anything positive what so ever.[/quote]
What stability? We haven't had stability since King Curbs left!!!
I voted to keep the management in place.
Whether Parky should of got the job or not he did, he took over when we were in a shocking position, Les Reed and Pards had only served to build on the rubbish Dowie installed and Parky inherited it.
It's taken bloody ages but recently performances have started to improve, we were on a downward spiral with Dowie, Reed then pushed the problem accelerator, went further down with Pards and the trend continued with Parky until recently. The only man since Curbs to get a upward turn of form.
Like some suggest we could take on another manager, he brings in some new ideas and we go straight back up, great! But what happens if it goes bad next year? We get rid and look for another manager? Keep rotating managers until someone is successful and as soon as it gets bad again we switch?
This tiny slither of improvemnet is the best news we've had in three years. Lets try and build on it!