Pardew settlement with SFC

[Joensuu]

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.

 

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.

[Professor]

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 fact that people are still analysing the events to satisfy themselves, and to argue with others, that the sacking was for football reasons shows that the statement at the time was not adequate. And when it led to rumours about gross misconduct, the club did not, as far I'm aware, act to deny those rumours. It would not have taken many more words added to the statement to make it clear either that the decision was team performance and nothing else, or if it was down to other differences that could have been said.

The timing was appalling and if Adkins proves to be a great appointment we will all be mopre then pleased, but there will have been an element of luck about it, as there was no guarantee who would get the job.

I like what I've seen of Adkins and I like how he is trying to get the team to play, but its early days to get too excited yet. We are still struggling to score goals and a 2-0 home win against the bottom club who were playing a lot of kids in their team, isn't enough evidence yet. Win tomorrow and then the belief can start.

[Joensuu]

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.

[Legod Third Coming]

Please find me the statements from football clubs over the last ten years that differ from the one put out by Cortese and which anyone but the hard of thinking clearly recognise and understand.

[The Kraken]

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.

 

Your absolute desire to ignore the club's factual and unambiguously clear statement is very strange. Given that, do you not see the total dichotomy in your argument? You are asking us to only look at current evidence, yet in the same breath you ask us to disregard the only evidence in front of us, seemingly because you have a problem with the aforementioned club statement. You seem to disregard the club statement with it's appriopriateness to fact, yet have no reason to suggest why.

 

It really is a truly bizarre approach. I don't understand it.

Edited 15 October, 2010 by The Kraken

[Joensuu]

Please find me the statements from football clubs over the last ten years that differ from the one put out by Cortese and which anyone but the hard of thinking clearly recognise and understand.

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.

[doddisalegend]

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'.

 

Keeping an open mind whose keeping an open mind? I've seen plenty of people condeming AP as a boozie near rapist based on what some bloke in the pub told them and I've seen plenty of people calling for Barney's head becuase of what some bloke in the pub told them. Where's the difference? All I've said is that If seen no evidence Pardew was sacked for gross misconduct I've also seen no evidence that Barney stabbed some bloke reapetadly in the face with a bottle either. Yet people have banded both of those things around on here, so where is the difference?

[Legod Third Coming]

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.

 

We know Pardew was fired. That is beyond doubt. Beyond any doubt. That he was fired for football reasons is also beyond doubt by virtue of the club's statement at the time.

 

All I am doing is explaining to you in the most simple terms possible (because they appear to be necessary) why Chairmen do not come out and say 'I sacked my manager'. What sort of statement were you expecting?

[Legod Third Coming]

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 rule all of those out. And all that remains in your list is footballing reasons. The Chairman's perception that Pardew is not doing a good enough job. Simple.

[Joensuu]

Your absolute desire to ignore the club's factual and unambiguously clear statement is very strange. Given that, do you not see the total dichotomy in your argument? You are asking us to only look at current evidence, yet in the same breath you ask us to disregard the only evidence in front of us, seemingly because you seem to have a problem with the aforementioned club statement. You seem to disregard the club statement with it's appriopriateness to fact, yet have no reason to suggest why.

 

It really is a truly bizarre approach. I don't understand it.

 

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.

[The Kraken]

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.

 

I believe my earlier analysis of the club statement reflects my belief that it says everything there is needed to know. Please tell me what you believe is missing, or what I've got wrong, from my interpretation of events:

 

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".

 

SUMMARY

 

We have a management structure, they aren't good enough, we're looking for someone else.

[Joensuu]

You can rule all of those out. And all that remains in your list is footballing reasons. The Chairman's perception that Pardew is not doing a good enough job. Simple.

 

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.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

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.

 

Pardew was sacked due to results on the pitch. I know this. I also know the situation of how the rumours started to circulate.

[The Kraken]

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.

 

Incorrect. You have left out the fact that the club see the current management structure as less able to meet those targets than a potential new management team.

[Joensuu]

I believe my earlier analysis of the club statement reflects my belief that it says everything there is needed to know. Please tell me what you believe is missing, or what I've got wrong, from my interpretation of events:

 

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".

 

SUMMARY

 

We have a management structure, they aren't good enough, we're looking for someone else.

 

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.

[Legod Third Coming]

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.

 

Yes you can. There is no evidence of gross misconduct. None. The reasons are provided more eloquently than me in the post above yours.

We have changed our management team - not 'our manager'. We have made the decision to bring in a team who can better achieve our aims - ie. a team who will get better results.

Jesus wept.

 

Where is the evidence of gross misconduct? Nowhere. And why on earth would gross misconduct require the removal and replacement of the entire coaching team? So, given the statement of the club and a modicum of common sense, you can rule out anything but footballing reasons - those being that the Chairman believes someone else will do a better job. Which is precisely what he said publicly.

[Joensuu]

Incorrect. You have left out the fact that the club see the current management structure as less able to meet those targets than a potential new management team.

 

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).

[Joensuu]

Pardew was sacked due to results on the pitch. I know this.

 

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.

[Joensuu]

Yes you can. There is no evidence of gross misconduct. None. The reasons are provided more eloquently than me in the post above yours.

We have changed our management team - not 'our manager'. We have made the decision to bring in a team who can better achieve our aims - ie. a team who will get better results.

Jesus wept.

 

Where is the evidence of gross misconduct? Nowhere. And why on earth would gross misconduct require the removal and replacement of the entire coaching team? So, given the statement of the club and a modicum of common sense, you can rule out anything but footballing reasons - those being that the Chairman believes someone else will do a better job. Which is precisely what he said publicly.

 

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.

[The Kraken]

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.

 

The in and outs of the specifics of the dismissal do not matter why. Nor are they relevant in this discussion.

 

It is just undeniable that the public reason for Alan Pardew and his staff being dismissed was for footballing reasons. It could have been that Cortese didn't like our brand of football. It could have been he didn't like the gap between the first team and development squad. It could have been because Pardew didn't get on with Lou Reid and his staff. Who knows the ins and outs.

 

But you seem to want to turn all of that into ""F*ck it, let's also have a look at unknown reasons and believe them instead. But let's also let tell others not to jump to conclusions".

 

I find that needlessly odd.

[Joensuu]

But you seem to want to turn all of that into ""F*ck it, let's also have a look at unknown reasons and believe them instead. But let's also let tell others not to jump to conclusions".

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.

[Legod Third Coming]

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.

 

He said that our objectives are better served with a different management team in charge - if that doesn't mean someone else can do a better job, what does?

You are being deliberately obtuse and I see now way to continue to debate this with you as a result.

[The Kraken]

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.

 

Your aren't though. You're suggesting we divert attention from the current explanation from the previous employer, and instead investigate other theories which have no basis in fact.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

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 have had the same story given to me by 2 different people, 1 freelance journalist and from a business colleague who knows another journalist. These journalists were privvy to certain information. Obviously I cannot print it here.

[aintforever]

Surely if there is a settlement that rules out gross misconduct.

[Joensuu]

He said that our objectives are better served with a different management team in charge - if that doesn't mean someone else can do a better job, what does?

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.

 

You are being deliberately obtuse and I see now way to continue to debate this with you as a result.

 

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).

[Joensuu]

Your aren't though. You're suggesting we divert attention from the current explanation from the previous employer, and instead investigate other theories which have no basis in fact.

 

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

[Joensuu]

I have had the same story given to me by 2 different people, 1 freelance journalist and from a business colleague who knows another journalist. These journalists were privvy to certain information. Obviously I cannot print it here.

 

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?

[Joensuu]

Surely if there is a settlement that rules out gross misconduct.

 

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.

[The Kraken]

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

 

I'm giving up now. I have no idea what you are arguing for. Or against. Other than the fact that a previously issued club statement may be be true. Or not. Or maybe half true. Or doesn't adress the issues. Or something else.

 

All I know is that you think I'm wrong to support it. Or the other way round. Who knows.

[Legod Third Coming]

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).

 

"Following a review of the current 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. Ergo - a different management team are expected to do a better job of achieving promotion.

 

"These targets for sustained and significant progress embrace both the first team and the football development and support centre as integrated, co-operative units. Ergo - a different management team will better suit this desire for integration and cooperation.

 

"Consequently, the first team manager Alan Pardew, first team coach Wally Downes and goalkeeping coach Stuart Murdoch have been relieved of their duties with immediate effect. We wish them well for the future." Ergo - a different management team will do a better job.

[doddisalegend]

Surely if there is a settlement that rules out gross misconduct.

 

you'd of thought so.

[Jonnyboy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[doddisalegend]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

 

LOL nice. To be honest I'm not sure who's winning the three way going on on this thread, entertaining reading though.

[Joensuu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

 

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?

[The Kraken]

you'VE thought so.

 

It just does

[Jonnyboy]

i feel the simplest explanation is that pards was just sacked for finishing 7th and a poor start to the season,

and was not having sweaty wag orgies

[benjii]

What a strange thread.

[Joensuu]

"Following a review of the current 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. Ergo - a different management team are expected to do a better job of achieving promotion.

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]

 

"These targets for sustained and significant progress embrace both the first team and the football development and support centre as integrated, co-operative units. Ergo - a different management team will better suit this desire for integration and cooperation.

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'

 

"Consequently, the first team manager Alan Pardew, first team coach Wally Downes and goalkeeping coach Stuart Murdoch have been relieved of their duties with immediate effect. We wish them well for the future." Ergo - a different management team will do a better job.

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'.

[Joensuu]

Surely if there is a settlement that rules out gross misconduct.

 

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]

[doddisalegend]

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]

 

I think your place needs a better HR department.

[Kaiser Soze]

Can someone copy & paste the article? Won't let me view for some reason. Cheers in advance.

[Wes Tender]

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.

 

I'm with you on this and the perfectly reasonable approach you have adopted throughout this debate. There is no firmer evidence that supports either the position that Pardew was sacked because of football reasons or that there was some gross misconduct. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that in the event of the latter reason, a statement such as was made by Cortese could have been an expedient excuse to deflect press intrusion, both for the sake of Alan Pardew and for the club. There is nothing peculiar in the dismissal of Pardew's asistants either, as that is entirely normal that a new manager might want his own assistants. Other questions have been raised about the sudden timing after a 4-0 victory and the fact that Cortese had not lined up a replacement. For the reason of the sacking to have been because of gross misconduct, it would have been strange that the stories that surfaced were a total fabrication without any basis of substance at all.

 

Taking all of these things into account, I feel that at the very least there is reasonable doubt that makes it not so clear cut that anybody can say with total certainty that either one position or the other can be totally watertight.

[Joensuu]

I think your place needs a better HR department.

 

Without doubt!

[Wes Tender]

Whatever happened to Personnel Managers, dustmen, linesmen, rat catchers, etc?

[dubai_phil]

So in other words the club wouldn't be confident enough in their gross misconduct charge to go to court which in effect means their wasn't really any gross misconduct. In all the places I've worked if you've committed gross misconduct and the employer can prove it your sacked you can't take the employer to court as you don't have a leg to stand on and you certainly don't get a settlement. If your employer can't prove it then they can't sack you for it, you can't be sacked becuase they think you are doing something. Giving Pardew a settlement seems to prove to me that he was sacked for footballing reasons just like almost every other football manager not becuase he was humping his way round staplewood. No way do I buy the Idea that NC a man who picks fights with the press for fun and is very single minded if he feels he is the right is going to worry about bad publicity from the press or back down from a court battle.

 

Uh no. HTH

 

Forget employment legislation and right and wrong for just a moment, Football is a business in the public eye, NEITHER party had anything to gain from an Argument, so a settlement is the way to go. AP did a good job building our infrastructure from scratch and for that I give him my thanks.

 

As Darren W so eloquently said elsewhere, he gave us the JPT Final at Wembley for which I give him my thanks

 

He gave us our first Winning Season in many years for which I give him my thanks

 

He found a way to fall out with his Chairman, for which I call him an Idiot

 

He did well for us, could have done better but did well. Now it is Nigel's turn. I think (hope) he will do better, but then as a football fan, all of us hope for that no matter who we support.

 

Thanks AP, good deal done for all parties, good luck in the future, life is for living. Get on with it and same for those hung up on here about it

[The Kraken]

I'm with you on this and the perfectly reasonable approach you have adopted throughout this debate. There is no firmer evidence that supports either the position that Pardew was sacked because of football reasons or that there was some gross misconduct.

Actually, there is. There is a formal club statement detailing it. A club statement which the manager has been interviewed on tv about, and hasn’t contradicted.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that in the event of the latter reason, a statement such as was made by Cortese could have been an expedient excuse to deflect press intrusion, both for the sake of Alan Pardew and for the club. There is nothing peculiar in the dismissal of Pardew's asistants either, as that is entirely normal that a new manager might want his own assistants. Other questions have been raised about the sudden timing after a 4-0 victory and the fact that Cortese had not lined up a replacement. For the reason of the sacking to have been because of gross misconduct, it would have been strange that the stories that surfaced were a total fabrication without any basis of substance at all.

 

All your own supposition. And all baseless in fact. Upon what are basing your opinion on, apart from your own opinion?

 

Taking all of these things into account, I feel that at the very least there is reasonable doubt that makes it not so clear cut that anybody can say with total certainty that either one position or the other can be totally watertight.

The only factor you have taken into account is your own opinion. No facts at all, none.

[doddisalegend]

Uh no. HTH

 

Forget employment legislation and right and wrong for just a moment, Football is a business in the public eye, NEITHER party had anything to gain from an Argument, so a settlement is the way to go. AP did a good job building our infrastructure from scratch and for that I give him my thanks.

 

As Darren W so eloquently said elsewhere, he gave us the JPT Final at Wembley for which I give him my thanks

 

He gave us our first Winning Season in many years for which I give him my thanks

 

He found a way to fall out with his Chairman, for which I call him an Idiot

 

He did well for us, could have done better but did well. Now it is Nigel's turn. I think (hope) he will do better, but then as a football fan, all of us hope for that no matter who we support.

 

Thanks AP, good deal done for all parties, good luck in the future, life is for living. Get on with it and same for those hung up on here about it

 

I don't disagree with most of that Phil what gets me is the rumours and smears that some keep throwing his way not proof just I heard it from a source he was banging so and so wife it ****es me off. The club have never claimed gross misconduct I don't buy the bad publicity thing NC has proved with his dealings with the press already he isn't bothered by bad press if he thinks he is right. If NC thought he could ditch AP on a clear case of gross misconduct and saved himself a settlement into the bargain he would of done it IMO there is hardly going to be bad press from reveling you sacked an employee for gross misconduct if it's true(in fact I'd have more respect for NC in such a stuation). AP and NC couldn't get along AP had to go no problem, timming could have been better like the summer but do people really need to smear AP as a drunken letch? I don't think so.

Edited 15 October, 2010 by doddisalegend

[Wes Tender]

Yes, The Kraken. It is my opinion and I agree that there are no facts to substantiate it and I made a judgement call from what I have read and what I have heard from a source I trust that made me consider the element of doubt. It is a fact that the club made a statement on the official site saying that Pardew left because of footballing reasons, but then again, history is littered with instances of one thing happening and another version of events being reported in the media as an explanation for the sake of expediency.

 

You can believe what you want and I am perfectly entitled to reach my own conclusions. Either of us could be right or wrong, but neither of us is likely to find out the truth. It is not impossible that the truth was a mixture of the two and that we are both half right. I have concluded that in my opinion there is reasonable doubt, which is something that you are not prepared to concede.

 

However, I take it that whatever the circumstances, we are both content with the outcome. I think that from what I've seen so far, Adkins is the better manager and I agree with somebody else's comment that the Tranmere match was better football than anything we saw last season under Pardew.

[LostBoys]

Good - lets move on now - to the top of the table by the end of October