Joensuu

Without doubt!

Unfortunately not [take for example an employee at my current company who refused to undertake any work at all. Verbal warning. Still no work. Writen warning, still no work out of her. When sacked she pleaded racial discrimination. The legal costs were estimated at around 4x her annual wage. The out of court settlement was agreed at c. 1x her annual wage. Quite simply, it's hard to dismiss any employee, and settlements are now now very frequent, even when the employee is completely in the wrong]

Or: 'Having looked into it, weve realised that our current management team aren't (for reason unknown) expected to achieve our targets'. [NB, this could mean that the current management/coaching team are a limiting factor; or equally it could mean that Cortese thinks he's identified better] No, not at all. This means: 'our targets are for a substantial progress over a (long) period of time, and all parts of the club need to achieve these targets' Or: 'as a result (of the current management team not being expected to meet the targets), we are removing them from their positions' So to summarise: 'we have high expectations, which we don't feel the current management team will live up to, therefore, they are being removed from their duties'.

Question is, which scenarios is based on the least assumptions? And even if we could establish that how would be know that we were on to the truth?

No, normally it's cheaper to settle that drag proceedings through the courts. It's also less embarrassing for both parties. Anyhow, I'm not saying any act of gross misconduct occurred, and nor do I think it likely to have occurred, just that it can't be excluded as a possibility.

Sounds interesting. I'd like to know more, but recogise that you can't say what you know in public. Does what you know help explain the seeming speed with which the decision was made, and the lack of replacement lined up?

No, what I'm saying does not contradict any statements made by the club. No diversion from the current explaination required.

Agree, IMO, this would be a very good reason to change the management team. If this is what has happened, Cortese has made an excellent choice. Sorry, I may seem obtuse, I'm just trying to be accurate. I know you are convinced the change was made simply because the new management team were preferred. We don't have definitive proof one was or another, but what we do know is that the timing was strange. It occurred after a win, and without replacement lined up. Those two things would indicate to me that a hasty decision was made, which doesn't sit comfortably with the suggestion that the decision was only motivated by Cortese seeing a better management team become avaliable. Now, I don't know one way or the other, but people on this thread have been essentially arguing that there is no possibility that Cortese was forced to react to events. I'm saying that we don't know for certain, he might well have been forced into a decision. I think a need to cavaet that with the following disclaimers: i'm not saying anything against Pardew, Adkins or Cortese, I'm just saying the evidence on the club statement doesn't proove any scenario to be definately true. However, the sequence of events suggests to me that the sacking was probably the result of a quick (rather than premeditated) decision. (Nb, for the record, no, I do not consider the sequence of events to be substantial evidence, it is merely indicative).

I agreed with you up until this bit. For the record, I'm absolutely not believeing in 'unknown reasons' instead. I'm am simply saying that beyond some vague objective of helping to meet the clubs ambitious targets, we really don't know anything.

There is no evidence for or against gross misconduct. My gut feeling is that it is unlikely, however I can't dismiss it as a possibility. Equally there is no evidence to assume that the decision can only have been made because 'the Chairman believe[d] someone else [would] do a better job'. This is only one of several perfectly valid interpretations of events, based on what we currently know.

What inside info are you privvy too then? Because the public statements don't proove this. As for rumours, frankly I feel they are best ignored.

I agree with that, but it still doesn't prove your assumption. Cortese might have been perfectly happy to keep Pardew until the Augustbank holiday (irrespective of his opinion of Adkins).

Agreed. Of course the unknown element is why the management structure weren't considered to be good enough (was it tactics, player purchases, arguments, some unknown personal incident etc). However, that's not something I expect to ever find out, but equally I'm not going to make any assumptions over which it was or wasn't.

Sorry, but you are wrong. The only reason provided by the club statement is to help meet the club's ambitious targets. Removing a manager for any of the scenarios I listed could be considered as helping the club to meet it's ambitious targets. As such they are all 'footballing reasons', if they affect on-pitch performance. You can't elimate any of the listed scenarios based on the evidence provided by the club statement.

Not at all. The club statement is the only thing we do know. I'm not asking you to disregard it. I'm pointing out that it says very little (and rightly so IMO). Why assume an interpretation that favours Pardew? I know it's a nice thing to do, but why? The evidence certainly isn't there to say one way or another.

LGTC, there is nothing unusual about the statement. I think we can agree on that. What we are disagreeing on is that we still done know (and probably never will know) the reasoning behind the decision. For example can we dissprove any of the following: The sacking was based on the lack of fitness. The sacking was based on the waste of preseason. The sacking was based on a lack of tactics. The sacking was based on a distute over a player the Chairman signed. The sacking was based on a dispute over a player Pardew had wanted to sign. The sacking was based on Cortese's dislike of Pardew. The sacking was based on an act of misconduct. The sacking was based on a training ground argument. The sacking was based on a personal incident. All of these meet the reason given in the club statement. All I'm saying is to assume that some of them can't have occurred is to be jumping to conclusions without evidence.

You can both read between the lines if you wish. And obviously I'm being naive for not doing so. However, I still see nothing that precludes any of the various explainations that have been presented and rumoured. The absense of a line of text from a club statement is, IMO, far from compelling evidence. Assume the best of Pardew if it makes you feel better; I choose not to make assumptions. Btw, I agree, having re-read the statement, the wording is more indicative of a sacking than a mutual termination.

Goodness, I give up. The answer to your question isn't 1,2,3,4 or 5, it's that you don't know for sure whether that's the correct question to ask.

Is it a sacking then? Why ever did the club not say so? Oh yeah, that's right, because in senior positions nobody gets sacked, they 'reach an agreement'. That's often known as mutual termination. Anyhow, IMO that is just a tangent.

Not rocket science, and certainly highly likely, but definately not known for sure. Facts, not assumptions.

Kracken, running very late now. Sorry didn't mean to make it look like I was singling you out. I don't agree that the worst of the rumour are true either. However, if they were true, would they not also be covered by the 'football reason' catch all explaination? I mean if something awful had happened, wouldn't the football clubs best way of achieving our targets be to remove the problem? Again, not trying to suggest Pardew did anything wrong, just that the reason provided by the statement does not exclude the possibility. To assume any reason without evidence is wrong.

I'm not asking for anyone to provide a reason. Just observing that an explaination hasn't (and probably can't) be provided. Any company can explain any mutual termination as being to help meet their ambitious targets. What actually happened, and why is however still unknown. So I guess, I can agree with you about 'footballing reasons' if 'footballing reasons' is your way of saying 'reason unknown: chose any of those suggested'.

Agreed absolutely. Agreed absolutely. Whoooah! Here was me agreeing with you, and you've only gone and contradicted yourself. As you rightly say, Cortese didn't offer a reason, and that noone should jump to any conclusions; but then you immeadately jump in with two feet and make the assumption that it must have been a footballing decision. Eh? You can't have it both ways.

Kracken, I have to dash, so can't respond in full. If you can't see that the statement that was released was deliberately crafted to say as little as possible, that it is deliberately vague, and that it employs sales-speaks such as "integrated, co-operative units" then yes, we will have to agree to disagree. The only solid 'reason' provided by the club statement is: "to achieve [our] targets, it is essential to make changes", that could mean literally anything. In fact, think through all of the different reasons which have been proposed on here. Every single reason that I have heard suggested doesn't contradict that statement. It's a brilliant example of a business statement, being vague, misleading and compelling without actually providing any conclusive reasons. Why jump to the conclusion that it was a 'footballing' decision, when we simply don't know?

So you think that there is no difference between not jumping to conclusions and erm, jumping to a conclusion? And you believe that because you think by keeping an open mind you might somehow be cricitisising Pardew? That's as nonsensical as Dubya's argument that people who were opposed to the Iraq war were siding with the 'Axis of exil'.