Pardew settlement with SFC

[captainchris]

Although the reporter hasn't spelt it out in words of one syllable, he is clearly saying that Pardew has agreed how much he will accept to pay up his contract. The 'gross misconduct' rumours are completely unfounded and were always unbelievabel because the club could not sack three people on those grounds unless all had been compliant in the act.

 

As usual with rumours, they were spread by people who claimed a 'reliable source' not by the source themselves and these 'sources' were giving different reasons to different people.

 

So, we move on, Pardew must now be reasonably happy, otherwise he wouldn't have accepted the compensation, although he won't be fully satisfied until he has a new job. The fans are largely satisfied as Adkins looks an OK manager who should achieve at least what Pardew would have done.

The main loser is Cortese, as his trustworthyness is damaged because he did not come clean over the reasons for the decisions, not just over Pardew but over Downes and Murdoch He gave a 'football' reason but did not justify it, leaving some of the fans with an element of doubt over his honesty.

 

How on earth can you link Corteses comments to lack of honesty. How does Cortese lose when he sacked him? Adkins "looks ok" If anyone is not being honest it's you! The football we are playing under Adkins is almost exactly one million miles away from the park football Pardew had us playing.

Cortese has done Pardew a favour by being economical with his statement on his sacking. The comments I am hearing and reading from the players now always leave one with an underlying lean towards a dissatisfaction with the Pardew compared to their stated happiness with the status now.

[Legod Third Coming]

No-one, club or manager, wants the bad publicity from an employent tribunal or court case. Mostly people in higher level jobs dont get sacked or walk - there's just a mutally negotiated separation agreement.

 

Cobblers. Someone is either sacked or they resign. THEN they agree what they are going to say about it and sign a compromise agreement.

[Wes Tender]

The "assumption" that Pardew was sacked for footballing reasons comes from the club's statement, where they said:

 

“Following a review of the status in and around the first team, the club has decided that, to achieve its well-known targets, it is essential to make changes to the first-team management and coaching. These targets for sustained and significant progress embrace both the first team and the football development and support centre as integrated, co-operative units."

 

"We recognise that frequent changes to the football management are unlikely to assist in the winning of trophies and promotions.

 

"However, we are taking these steps to achieve our aims, which we share with all supporters, to get promoted this season, and secure long term stability and progress for our football operations."

 

That's pretty clear to me.

 

(Edited to add the full statement)

 

I'm afraid that although you agree with Professor, he apparently doesn't agree with you.

 

He says

The main loser is Cortese, as his trustworthyness is damaged because he did not come clean over the reasons for the decisions, not just over Pardew but over Downes and Murdoch He gave a 'football' reason but did not justify it, leaving some of the fans with an element of doubt over his honesty.

[Joensuu]

The "assumption" that Pardew was sacked for footballing reasons comes from the club's statement, where they said:

 

“Following a review of the status in and around the first team, the club has decided that, to achieve its well-known targets, it is essential to make changes to the first-team management and coaching. These targets for sustained and significant progress embrace both the first team and the football development and support centre as integrated, co-operative units."

 

"We recognise that frequent changes to the football management are unlikely to assist in the winning of trophies and promotions.

 

"However, we are taking these steps to achieve our aims, which we share with all supporters, to get promoted this season, and secure long term stability and progress for our football operations."

 

That's pretty clear to me.

 

(Edited to add the full statement)

 

By all means read whatever you want into the statement.

 

To me it only reads as a generic statement saying (to paraphrase) that 'we are very ambitious, to meet our targets we had to make management changes'. This is so vague that it actually means very little. In fact, not one of the various explainations for Pardew's departure that I've heard contradicts the press release. It's deliberately vague for a reason.

 

Why read more into it?

Edited 15 October, 2010 by Joensuu

[The Kraken]

I'm afraid that although you agree with Professor, he apparently doesn't agree with you.

 

He says....

 

I was referring more to his first paragraph or two, more about the footballing reasons for sacking rather than foundationless personal accusations about AP.

 

That said, I'm not sure there's too much difference between what Prof said and I did; he said AP et al were dimsissed for footballing reasons, which is what the club quotes backs up. I just believe that the club statement did indeed justify the action, and I believe was as honest as a club statement on a manager's dismissal needs to be.

[doddisalegend]

Look, no offence but you don't know what you're talking about.

 

No offence at all. I've been involved in my fair share of displinary stuff at work with staff that need to be got rid off and unless football clubs don't have to follow employment law (which is possible considering how many clubs don't both with tax law) I don't see how he can off been sacked for gross misconduct. Now if you have a lot more experince in HR and employment law feel free to explain it to me. Prefebly in more detail than some vague idea that it might make southampton FC look bad which is irrelevant and compleate untrue if he did in fact commit gross misconduct.

[The Kraken]

By all means read whatever you want into the statement.

 

To me it only reads as a generic statement saying (to paraphrase) that 'we are very ambitious, to meet our targets we had to make management changes'. This is so vague that it actually means very little. In fact not one of the various explainations for Pardew's departure that I've heard contradicts the press release. It's deliberately vague for a reason.

 

Why read more into it?

 

I'm not reading more into it; in fact I'm one person advocating people NOT reading more into it. The statement says to me " We have targets of promotion; we've looked at our management team; we think our chances of promotion are better served with a different management team in charge; we want the 1st team and the development centre to be an integrated unit; we want to bring in a new management team who can better achieve those aims".

 

I believe I'm reading nothing in to it apart from teh black and white of the information presented to me.

[Legod Third Coming]

The most likely scenario here is pretty simple...

 

"Alan, things are not really working out here. You and I don't see eye to eye on style or our approach to the game. I want to thank you for everything you've done for us, but you know how it is."

 

"Sure, Nicola, I've been in the game long enough. You'll look after me and the boys of course?"

 

"Of course."

 

Really, what the feck else is there??

[buctootim]

No offence at all. I've been involved in my fair share of displinary stuff at work with staff that need to be got rid off and unless football clubs don't have to follow employment law (which is possible considering how many clubs don't both with tax law) I don't see how he can off been sacked for gross misconduct. Now if you have a lot more experince in HR and employment law feel free to explain it to me. Prefebly in more detail than some vague idea that it might make southampton FC look bad which is irrelevant and compleate untrue if he did in fact commit gross misconduct.

 

But the situation with Pardew isnt the same as someone nicking from work or going sick for a month when they're on holiday in Majorca. Its all much more public than that. Yes the law applies, but neither side want to use it.

[Joensuu]

I'm not reading more into it; in fact I'm one person advocating people NOT reading more into it. The statement says to me " We have targets of promotion; we've looked at our management team; we think our chances of promotion are better served with a different management team in charge; we want the 1st team and the development centre to be an integrated unit; we want to bring in a new management team who can better achieve those aims".

 

I believe I'm reading nothing in to it apart from teh black and white of the information presented to me.

 

 

Right, so I'm sure you agree that we don't know for sure whether 'footballing reasons' were behind the departure.

[leftback]

Eminently sensible take on things and as Alpine says, a surprise that some don't seem capable of understanding that this scenario is a possible solution driven by expedience. A line is drawn neatly under proceedings and everybody can move on, without any dirty laundry being washed in public.

 

If Cortese believed that Pardew wasn't the manager to take us up and that he finds Adkins to be the better candidate and also somebody who he has a better rapport with, then the price of the compensation is worth paying. Whether Pardew's departure was because of an incident of gross misconduct or for differences of opinion as to how the club should progress from here in footballing terms is unlikely to be known by anybody on here for a fact. Therefore Pardew is able to cite the second position in his next job interviews rather than the first.

 

However, although he did quite well to get us where we ended just narrowly missing the play-offs and winning the JPT Cup, I feel other clubs might still feel that he left us under a cloud, much as many of us felt he had left Charlton under a cloud.

 

first sentence of the second paragraph is spot on,apart from cortese knowing who he was going to put in,hence the disasterous point loss during wilkins abortion of a reign.It was criminal of this board to jump to the conclusions that we did,but i thought it wasnt right of cortese to hang the three of them out to dry amidst all the rumours.There was no cloud only the one cortese allowed us to create.Typical secretive weasel banker! still water under the bridge now,hope we dont lose out by the amount of points lost during the "abortion period" Like to know what input wilkins is having now. his brother proved hopeless as a manager as well.

[buctootim]

Cobblers. Someone is either sacked or they resign. THEN they agree what they are going to say about it and sign a compromise agreement.

 

Er, no. Just plain wrong. Weird because you've contradicted yourself. Post 58 is most likely how it happened.

[The Kraken]

Right, so I'm sure you agree that we don't know for sure whether 'footballing reasons' were behind the departure.

 

No, of course I don't know for sure. But given that the club have effectively told me that they were, why should I disbelieve them?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Amazing how few people get this.

 

It amazes me that people still think he was sacked for gross misconduct. He wasn't. FACT.

[The Kraken]

The most likely scenario here is pretty simple...

 

"Alan, things are not really working out here. You and I don't see eye to eye on style or our approach to the game. I want to thank you for everything you've done for us, but you know how it is."

 

"Sure, Nicola, I've been in the game long enough. You'll look after me and the boys of course?"

 

"Of course."

 

Really, what the feck else is there??

 

Stop talking common sense.

[doddisalegend]

I'm not reading more into it; in fact I'm one person advocating people NOT reading more into it. The statement says to me " We have targets of promotion; we've looked at our management team; we think our chances of promotion are better served with a different management team in charge; we want the 1st team and the development centre to be an integrated unit; we want to bring in a new management team who can better achieve those aims".

 

I believe I'm reading nothing in to it apart from teh black and white of the information presented to me.

 

Its wierd that people won't believe an offical press release from the club, but five minitues of speaking to the bloke who cleans the loo at SMS and they'll believe anything. Not one shred of evidence about Pardew has come to light (plenty of rumours) and people condem him quite happily probably the same people who were saying we should give Barnard the benfit of the doubt (which I believe is fair). I understand some people didn't like Pardew, I understand some didn't like his football style what I don't understand is their desire to drag his name through the mud and demonise him based on a few internet rumours.

[Joensuu]

No, of course I don't know for sure. But given that the club have effectively told me that they were, why should I disbelieve them?

 

Quite simply, you shouldn't disbelieve them. They haven't said anything tangible enough for anyone to disbelieve. They've just carefully worded a statement to say very little whatsoever. So little in fact, that they haven't given a reason for the departure. So what's there not to believe?

[Legod Third Coming]

Er, no. Just plain wrong. Weird because you've contradicted yourself. Post 58 is most likely how it happened.

 

Not remotely wrong.

 

So two people make a decision spontaneously to mutually separate do they? No, of course fecking not.

 

Someone is asked to leave or someone leaves. THEN they agree what they are going to say about it.

 

Boards do not appear to fire CEO's because it reflects badly on their choice. CEO's don't appear to resign because it reflects badly on a board and affects the share price (and the CEO probably has a load). Same with football managers. Cortese can't be seen to fire Pardew because HE employed him less than 12 months earlier. But be in no doubt, FIRED is what he was.

 

The point is that one party is nearly always making the decision, that's just bleeding obvious.

[Joensuu]

Its wierd that people won't believe an offical press release from the club, but five minitues of speaking to the bloke who cleans the loo at SMS and they'll believe anything. Not one shred of evidence about Pardew has come to light (plenty of rumours) and people condem him quite happily probably the same people who were saying we should give Barnard the benfit of the doubt (which I believe is fair). I understand some people didn't like Pardew, I understand some didn't like his football style what I don't understand is their desire to drag his name through the mud and demonise him based on a few internet rumours.

 

Don't confuse waiting for evidence before jumping to conclusions, with trying to have a pop a Pardew. Two completely different things.

[buctootim]

Not remotely wrong.

 

So two people make a decision spontaneously to mutually separate do they? No, of course fecking not.

 

Someone is asked to leave or someone leaves. THEN they agree what they are going to say about it.

 

Boards do not appear to fire CEO's because it reflects badly on their choice. CEO's don't appear to resign because it reflects badly on a board and affects the share price (and the CEO probably has a load). Same with football managers. Cortese can't be seen to fire Pardew because HE employed him less than 12 months earlier. But be in no doubt, FIRED is what he was.

 

The point is that one party is nearly always making the decision, that's just bleeding obvious.

 

Of course one party makes the decision. But you don't sack or resign first and then try to hammer out a compromise agreement afterwards. The whole point of the agreement is to avoid a sacking. If the employee resigns first, then there is no need to pay compensation. The way it works is both parties agree terms and then the employee resigns. Easy.

[doddisalegend]

Don't confuse waiting for evidence before jumping to conclusions, with trying to have a pop a Pardew. Two completely different things.

 

No difference at all from what I can see. lots of rumours and people hearing things from other people not one shred of evidence that anybody knows the truth.

[The Kraken]

Quite simply, you shouldn't disbelieve them. They haven't said anything tangible enough for anyone to disbelieve. They've just carefully worded a statement to say very little whatsoever. So little in fact, that they haven't given a reason for the departure. So what's there not to believe?

 

Well, we're going to have to agree to differ then. I believe they have given plenty of reason for the departure. I'll try and be clear for you my interpretation of what they've said, but this is exactly what I replied to you in a previous post (so much so that I've cut and pasted it).

 

Following a review of the status in and around the first team, the club has decided that, to achieve its well-known targets, it is essential to make changes to the first-team management and coaching."

 

we've looked at our management team; we think our chances of promotion are better served with a different management team in charge

 

These targets for sustained and significant progress embrace both the first team and the football development and support centre as integrated, co-operative units.

 

We want the 1st team and the development centre to be an integrated unit.

 

We recognise that frequent changes to the football management are unlikely to assist in the winning of trophies and promotions.

 

However, we are taking these steps to achieve our aims, which we share with all supporters, to get promoted this season, and secure long term stability and progress for our football operations.

 

We want to bring in a new management team who can better achieve those aims.

 

 

Seriously, that's all I'm reading from the club statement; that the club believed we would be much better served in achieving promotion by ditching our current management team and bringing in a new one. I'm genuinely confused as to why you're questioning my stance on it, and asking me not to "read more into it"? I'm only reading what's there. Is any of my analysis above wrong?

 

The club clearly got rid of an existing management team, stated why, and brought someone else in who they clearly believe better helps them achieve their stated objectives.

[doddisalegend]

Well, we're going to have to agree to differ then. I believe they have given plenty of reason for the departure. I'll try and be clear for you my interpretation of what they've said, but this is exactly what I replied to you in a previous post (so much so that I've cut and pasted it).

 

 

 

we've looked at our management team; we think our chances of promotion are better served with a different management team in charge

 

 

 

We want the 1st team and the development centre to be an integrated unit.

 

 

 

We want to bring in a new management team who can better achieve those aims.

 

 

Seriously, that's all I'm reading from the club statement; that the club believed we would be much better served in achieving promotion by ditching our current management team and bringing in a new one. I'm genuinely confused as to why you're questioning my stance on it, and asking me not to "read more into it"? I'm only reading what's there. Is any of my analysis above wrong?

 

The club clearly got rid of an existing management team, stated why, and brought someone else in who they clearly believe better helps them achieve their stated objectives.

 

spot on.

 

Bit boring though much better to assume a druken Alan Pardew was roaming staplewood searching for players wives to ravage and defile.

 

Of course with your interpretation of the club statement some could critisce NC for not just removing Alan in the summer and that wouldn't do at all.

[Bartosz Bialkowski]

#

 

He was sleazy (Fletcher etc) at West Ham but the rumours about him down here were just that - rumours (I know that for a fact). Kids stuff really, can't believe so many people bought it, like the stupid Gerrard rumours, some poeple are like gossiping old women, they need some conspiracy to hold onto. Anyway, he done a fantastic job here, personally I wish him well.

 

Well I have heard they were true, from someone who would most definitely know.... so.... one of us is wrong.

[Joensuu]

No difference at all from what I can see. lots of rumours and people hearing things from other people not one shred of evidence that anybody knows the truth.

 

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'.

[leftback]

The most likely scenario here is pretty simple...

 

"Alan, things are not really working out here. You and I don't see eye to eye on style or our approach to the game. I want to thank you for everything you've done for us, but you know how it is."

 

"Sure, Nicola, I've been in the game long enough. You'll look after me and the boys of course?"

 

"Of course."

 

Really, what the feck else is there??

 

Thats exactly how things should, and do happen at clubs where the guy doing the sacking is an ok guy.We of course have a vague statement,hang the pepole out to dry leaving everyone wondering what the reasons were.He should have had the balls to pay him up wipe his mouth, tell the truth and just get on and back his judgement in appointing someone he believed could do better. he appointed ap after all, was his ego too big to admit he had made an error. i think that will always be the problem emanating from the top.

[Legod Third Coming]

Of course one party makes the decision. But you don't sack or resign first and then try to hammer out a compromise agreement afterwards. The whole point of the agreement is to avoid a sacking. If the employee resigns first, then there is no need to pay compensation. The way it works is both parties agree terms and then the employee resigns. Easy.

 

Yes, but in reality if you made the decision, you resigned. If they made the decision, you're sacked.

 

I resigned as a Director and then agreed a settlement and by signing a compromise agreement understood that my settlement would be far higher. Simple.

 

In this case, Cortese decided that Pardew's tenure was over (call it whatever you like, it amounts to the same thing as sacking). They then agree a package and Pardew agrees what he's going to say.

 

That's because Pardew knows the game. If he sticks two fingers up and holds out for his full contractual entitlement he can kiss goodbye to another job in football... But the idea of a mutual agreement is nonsense. I think I've seen one genuine case of people agreeing mutually to part in 20 years of working...

[Legod Third Coming]

Thats exactly how things should, and do happen at clubs where the guy doing the sacking is an ok guy.We of course have a vague statement,hang the pepole out to dry leaving everyone wondering what the reasons were.He should have had the balls to pay him up wipe his mouth, tell the truth and just get on and back his judgement in appointing someone he believed could do better. he appointed ap after all, was his ego too big to admit he had made an error. i think that will always be the problem emanating from the top.

 

To be fair to Cortese, no-one but Pardew and Cortese know what he said. But I'm pretty sure it was straight and to the point and all that's happened since is a negotiation. These things often take time. Cortese wants to pay as little as possible, Pardew wants as much as possible. When I had a long-term contract and wanted it paying up in full, I was also conscious I didn't want to be mowing my lawn forever...

[The Kraken]

To be fair to Cortese, no-one but Pardew and Cortese know what he said. But I'm pretty sure it was straight and to the point and all that's happened since is a negotiation. These things often take time. Cortese wants to pay as little as possible, Pardew wants as much as possible. When I had a long-term contract and wanted it paying up in full, I was also conscious I didn't want to be mowing my lawn forever...

 

Don't forget it took West Ham and Alan Curbishley 17 months to come to an agreement over compensation for his termination of contract. This one is rapid in comparison.

[VectisSaint]

But no-one knows what the settlement is do they? It could be anything between Saints paying him and his staff the full remaining value of their contracts and eating humble pie, through to Pardew paying the club compensation for the additional costs incurred in handling the fallout from some outrageous behaviour by him. In practice, its probably somewhere in between.

Maybe AP paid Saints. Nothing in the report says which way the settlement went.

(Just being pedantic, I'm sure we paid him)

[Legod Third Coming]

What I find distasteful in all this is the lack of gratitude towards Pardew from some sections of our fanbase and the speed with which they will believe any internet bull sh i t rumour to compensate for the Chairman's decision and show him as some shining light.

 

Sacking Pardew is not inexplicable, although the timing was appalling. Appointing Adkins may well be a masterstroke.

 

It shouldn't require any other justification and I don't believe Cortese offered one. So noone else should be filling a void that doesn't exist. It was a footballing decision, end of.

[The Kraken]

What I find distasteful in all this is the lack of gratitude towards Pardew from some sections of our fanbase and the speed with which they will believe any internet bull sh i t rumour to compensate for the Chairman's decision and show him as some shining light.

 

Sacking Pardew is not inexplicable, although the timing was appalling. Appointing Adkins may well be a masterstroke.

 

It shouldn't require any other justification and I don't believe Cortese offered one. So noone else should be filling a void that doesn't exist. It was a footballing decision, end of.

 

And that is the perfect summary of the situation. I agree entirely.

[Joensuu]

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?

[Joensuu]

What I find distasteful in all this is the lack of gratitude towards Pardew from some sections of our fanbase and the speed with which they will believe any internet bull sh i t rumour to compensate for the Chairman's decision and show him as some shining light.

 

Agreed absolutely.

 

Sacking Pardew is not inexplicable, although the timing was appalling. Appointing Adkins may well be a masterstroke.

 

Agreed absolutely.

 

It shouldn't require any other justification and I don't believe Cortese offered one. So noone else should be filling a void that doesn't exist. It was a footballing decision, end of.

 

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.

[Legod Third Coming]

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.

 

Cortese offered a footballing reason. IT is in his statement at the time. I said it shouldn't require 'another' justification. I think you missed the 'another'. He offered a justification. IT was a footballing one.

[Legod Third Coming]

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?

 

To 'achieve our targets' can mean nothing but this is a football decision. What other targets do we have? The first landing on Mars? Sailing the channel in a shell? Building a life-size replica of the Taj Mahal?

[Jeff Le Taxi]

-------------------

Edited 15 October, 2010 by Jeff Le Taxi
cos im stupid

[The Kraken]

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?

 

You can read this when you get back then. I feel like I'm whacking my head against a wall anyway.

 

The crazy thing is this: I think you're telling me to look at the facts, and not to jump to any conclusions. But you're then telling me not to believe the facts laid before me by the club, via a public statement, that it was a footballing decision. I'll re-iterate that; the club have said it was a footballing decision. They really have. You cherry picked a bit of the club statement, but look at it in its entirity; it is clearly a statement that says the club can find better elsewhere, and that is what they'll do.

 

I find it utterly incredible that, in this thread, you choose to pick on me for reading things which apparently aren't there. Yet you have absolutely nothing to say about the people who still cling to the belief that AP and staff were sacked for gross misconduct. You have nothing to say about the rumours that persist about AP having ex-marital affairs with playing staff. And nothing to say about other accusations of transgressions by the management team. Yet me, taking a club statement fully on its merits, is cause for you to take issue. I'll admit, I'm thoroughly confused.

 

Anyway, the weekend has landed.

[Legod Third Coming]

You can read this when you get back then. I feel like I'm whacking my head against a wall anyway.

 

The crazy thing is this: I think you're telling me to look at the facts, and not to jump to any conclusions. But you're then telling me not to believe the facts laid before me by the club, via a public statement, that it was a footballing decision. I'll re-iterate that; the club have said it was a footballing decision. They really have. You cherry picked a bit of the club statement, but look at it in its entirity; it is clearly a statement that says the club can find better elsewhere, and that is what they'll do.

 

I find it utterly incredible that, in this thread, you choose to pick on me for reading things which apparently aren't there. Yet you have absolutely nothing to say about the people who still cling to the belief that AP and staff were sacked for gross misconduct. You have nothing to say about the rumours that persist about AP having ex-marital affairs with playing staff. And nothing to say about other accusations of transgressions by the management team. Yet me, taking a club statement fully on its merits, is cause for you to take issue. I'll admit, I'm thoroughly confused.

 

Anyway, the weekend has landed.

 

Precisely. And that's fine. If it works out, and the evidence is encouraging if not compelling, noone will care. Cortese will be a football genuis - with apologies to Chris Marsden.

[Joensuu]

Cortese offered a footballing reason. IT is in his statement at the time. I said it shouldn't require 'another' justification. I think you missed the 'another'. He offered a justification. IT was a footballing one.

 

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'.

[Legod Third Coming]

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'.

 

What happened is Pardew was fired. Why? Cortese thought someone else could do a better job. This is not rocket science my friend.

[The Kraken]

Just observing that an explaination hasn't (and probably can't) be provided.

 

Yes, it has. You just don't want to see it.

 

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'.

 

Why do you think it was a mutual termination? The club have said they looked at the management structure and hence evaluated the contracts of 3 football management staff and termed them inappropriate, so looked elsewhere. How is that a mutual termination?

Edited 15 October, 2010 by The Kraken

[Joensuu]

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.

[Joensuu]

What happened is Pardew was fired. Why? Cortese thought someone else could do a better job. This is not rocket science my friend.

 

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

[Legod Third Coming]

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.

 

Mate, you're not reading what's there in black and white.

 

Ok, so why didn't Cortese say "I sacked Alan and his staff because in my view we were underperforming"? Because:

 

1. He's not a c u n t.

2. It makes him look bad as he employed him.

3. Because he recognises that a lot of fans consider him to have been successful.

4. He respects Pardew and would like him to be gainfully employed elsewhere.

5. It removes any future opportunity for Pardew to sue for wrongful dismissal.

 

Not being funny but this is schoolboy stuff.

[The Kraken]

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.

 

In short, no. If it was anything but a footballing reason I believe the club are smart enough to put up a statement along the lines of "Alan Pardew and his staff are dsimissed with immediate effect, there will be no further comment on the matter". What we did do is publicise a displeasure for a management team in a professional and subtle way while expressing a desire for something better.

Edited 15 October, 2010 by The Kraken

[Joensuu]

Yes, it has. You just don't want to see it.

 

 

 

Why do you think it was a mutual termination? The club have said they looked at the management structure and hence evaluated the contracts of 3 football management staff and termed them inappropriate, so looked elsewhere. How is that a mutual termination?

 

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.

[Legod Third Coming]

In short, no. If it was anything but a footballing reason I believe the club are smart enough to put up a statement along the lines of "Alan Pardew and his staff are dsimissed with immediate effect, there will be no further comment on the matter". What we did do is publicise a displeasure for a management team in a professional and subtle way while expressing a desire for something better.

 

In language that anyone who has followed football for more than 12 months would recognise in a heartbeat.

[The Kraken]

Is it a sacking then? Why ever did the club not say so?

 

"Following a review of the status in and around the first team, the club has decided that, to achieve its well-known targets, it is essential to make changes to the first-team management and coaching."

 

Does that sound in any way mutual to you?

[The Kraken]

In language that anyone who has followed football for more than 12 months would recognise in a heartbeat.

 

12 days, I'd suggest. In any case, RIP LGSC. I'd like to say I mourned....