Fair enough. I think my general point is valid though - that the decision took some courage and that they haven't hidden themselves away from the reaction.
It's an unusual type of decision in that normally owners only make a change when things start to go wrong. They very rarely back themselves to bring in someone new pro-actively.
So many of Ashley's decisions have been reactive to events around him. Even bringing in Keegan - which was the only remotely pro-active one - had a whiff of panic about it and pleasing others rather than backing his own beliefs. In the current wave of criticism, all his decisions tend to be lumped together, but in this one he's really put his neck on the line and stamped his own judgement on the situation.
It's a gamble, but I suspect that, in his thinking, putting Hughton in charge long-term was also a gamble. He now feels that, if he's going to lose, it'd be better to lose having backed himself rather than going with the flow.
The only problem I have with that assessment is the choice of Hughton's replacement. What on earth does Pardew have going by his past experiences -- especially in the transfer market -- that Hughton didn't, or couldn't have achieved himself? It's about faith, and they seemed to either, a) have none in Hughton, for whatever reason, or b) there were other reasons which we'll probably never know regarding his sacking.
I'm just trying to see the logic in Pardew's appointment, as if Ashley really wanted a proven, experienced, even world-class manager, he could've appointed one. Giving Pardew a five and a half year deal is a little presumptuous, and requires a lot more faith than the amount the players and fans already had in Hughton.
I don't know the answer to that, but my guess is that Ashley had long-standing doubts about Hughton's ability to be sufficiently tough with the players, which is the usual issue when a coach becomes manager. I'd felt that Hughton had answered those doubts, but maybe one or two things were going on that we don't know about. Chris's last minute decision to wear a suit and look the part may have been in response to that, I don't know.
As I said, a change of manager normally happens when the existing one is judged a failure, and maybe that's why the dominant question is 'What did Hughton do wrong?' Maybe of more importance is that fact that Ashley was going to have to offer a long-term contract to a manager, recruit a new assistant and probably spend more money in January. It was crunch time, and he decided he wanted to make his own choice, rather than deal with Hughton, who is the product of circumstances. In that sense, it may have been more a positive judgement of Pardew, as much as a negative judgement of Hughton.
Pardew comes across as confident and intelligent, and his early record was good. He ran into boardroom problems at Southampton and West Ham, and Charlton is the only real blot in his copy book. Even then, he was taking over a club in decline. He's also keen and motivated to get his career back on track, so I can see why Ashley might seem him as the best bet from all the available candidates. It certainly isn't a impulse choice.
What he's gambled on is Pardew being able to overcome the inevitable reaction, on and off the pitch, to Hughton's sacking, which Ashley's unpopularity has magnified. He needs a bit of luck, and on Saturday, he got it. Torres had that chance to put Liverpool ahead, and normally with him, it goes bang into the bottom corner, no problems. In this case, it hit Krul on the legs. On such moments can futures depend.
Or maybe Ashley is just a control freak who didn't like the fact that Hughton was starting to disagree with him and invented an excuse to replace him with one of Llambias' gambling buddies who was desperate to get into football and would accept any terms and conditions to do so.
I suppose we'll never now.
Well, a few months ago, Hughton was supposedly the 'yes man'. I think there was a disagreement in that Hughton wanted a long-term contract, and the decision about who appoints the assistant (which is a long-term decision) brought all that to a head. Underneath it all, if Ashley had confidence in Hughton, it would have been settled.
I think Ashley has reached a certain point. He knows he can't sell the club, and he knows he'll continue to lose money as the owner. There's talk about 'asset-stripping' and 'selling at a profit' but those clearly aren't options. Now that he's going to be carrying the can, he thinks that he may as well back his own judgement, and forget about normal conventions or trying to please other people. That's the way that he's run his business.
The bloke looked completely relaxed on Saturday. It's like he's taken so much abuse that he doesn't care any more. That's not a great place to be, but it's probably better than all the wavering that's gone on over the last three years.
I thought the Wall Street Journal (of all places) had an interesting take on the difference between a manager and a coach:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704457604576011332568345512.html?mod=wsj_share_twitter
I don't know if Pardew will work out or not, but it seems that this kind of appointment might be a reasoned alternative to the kind of DOF/coach structure (Wise etc) that Ashley has already tried and abandoned, and to which many posters on here are emphatically opposed on principle.
Not necessarily a bad thing, in that sense.
Very good article this...
Responsibility and final say over transfers - isn't that what Keegan wanted?
