Alan Pardew

[quayside]

In the full Nolan interview on the BBC website he clarifies that it was Llambias who spoke to the players, not Ashley.

 

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.

 

Your questions about Pardew getting the job instead of Hughton echo the thoughts of many of us. But can you name the world class manager we could have appointed? Not sure any of these can be classed as world class but anyway O'Neill is clever and would need to spend so forget him, Jol was never in it as he was never going to shaft his old mate  Hughton - so who then? I really wouldn't read too much into the 5 year contract thing, Ashley's lawyers will have ensured any payoff won't be too punishing.

 

[thomas]

"Are they booing me?"

"No, sir... they're saying pard-booooo."

 

Shit, I know. But still.

*looks to the stands* "Are you saying boo or pard-booooo?"

"BOOOOOOO"

Ronaldo - "I was saying pard-boooo."

[DJ_NUFC]

I agree that the choices available to replace Hughton don't indicate a huge improvement, which is why I'm not entirely sure why he was sacked in the first place. It's all as baffling as ever under Batman & Robin. Ticket tout and Casino Director. We just gotto suck it up and get on with it.

[Cronky]

In the full Nolan interview on the BBC website he clarifies that it was Llambias who spoke to the players, not Ashley.

 

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.

[oldtype]

In the full Nolan interview on the BBC website he clarifies that it was Llambias who spoke to the players, not Ashley.

 

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.

[Cronky]

In the full Nolan interview on the BBC website he clarifies that it was Llambias who spoke to the players, not Ashley.

 

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.

[TheGuv]

"Are they booing me?"

"No, sir... they're saying pard-booooo."

 

s***, I know. But still.

*looks to the stands* "Are you saying boo or pard-booooo?"

"BOOOOOOO"

Ronaldo - "I was saying pard-boooo."

 

[Benwell Lad]

The fans craving a "stellar" appointment is rubbish although journalists reading some comments on here last week may have got that impression.

Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Allardyce were pretty "stellar" at the time and where does that get us - having to fork out the equivalent of a small country's GDP to pay them and their entourage off when it all went wrong.

I'd far rather have a hard working manager with something to prove and a decent reputation amongst his fellow pros.

Either way it can be risky but "stellar" appointments my arse !

[womblemaster]

"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."

 

it probably because pardew was prepared to accept ahleys idea of growing the club without big spending on players.  Isnt oneil seen as a chkbk manager? JOl probably wanted more money.

Pardew is onboard with the youth development thing, and i guess ashley thinks thats the way to farm the money.

 

It seems pardew is mearly a steward who runs the roost but the "big vison" is from the top.

 

[mrmojorisin75]

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.

 

is this a fact, or is it just total guesswork?

[ATB]

I am still very sad when I think about the whole situation. I still miss Hughton a lot and I know we should have won against Liverpool with him in charge too.

 

This will not end well - with Ashley and Pardew - I know that. We might play well and take some points in the beginning of the Pardew-era. but just like Souness he will fuck up. Beside. We will probably sell our best player and bring in some crap. We got so much potential (we could easily be what Tottenham are now) and I though (hoped) that we started to go in the right direction with Hughton. No I know that it will not end well with Pardew and Ashley - both MUST go.

 

I also feel quite sad that so many supporters already start to feel OK about the situation and that Pardew is a super manager after this weekend, it is bizarre.

 

I more thing. I feel disguised about the footage at Ashley at the weekend when he "celebrate" the goals. Could not look at it. If he really is that happy. How the fuck could he fire Hughton. He is just to much. Can not stand him. he MUST away!

[Optimistic Nut]

Not Mike's fault he couldn't disgust his feelings.

[Benwell Lad]

Decent take on things.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/philmcnulty/2010/12/pardews_perfect_start.html

[NG32]

I am still very sad when I think about the whole situation. I still miss Hughton a lot and I know we should have won against Liverpool with him in charge too.

 

This will not end well - with Ashley and Pardew - I know that. We might play well and take some points in the beginning of the Pardew-era. but just like Souness he will f*** up. Beside. We will probably sell our best player and bring in some crap. We got so much potential (we could easily be what Tottenham are now) and I though (hoped) that we started to go in the right direction with Hughton. No I know that it will not end well with Pardew and Ashley - both MUST go.

 

I also feel quite sad that so many supporters already start to feel OK about the situation and that Pardew is a super manager after this weekend, it is bizarre.

 

I more thing. I feel disguised about the footage at Ashley at the weekend when he "celebrate" the goals. Could not look at it. If he really is that happy. How the f*** could he fire Hughton. He is just to much. Can not stand him. he MUST away!

 

I dont think its a feeling of "ok" with it now.  Its more like what can you do. We also have a team that needs to pick up points on a regular basis, being all arsey about it will have a negagtive effect on the players.

[OzzieMandias]

In the full Nolan interview on the BBC website he clarifies that it was Llambias who spoke to the players, not Ashley.

 

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:

 

Instead, according to reports in the English media, the soft-spoken Mr. Hughton was let go because he was thought to be more of a "coach" than a "manager."

 

And here is another example of how English soccer remains different from the rest of the world, where there isn't much of a distinction between the two. Whether you're manager or coach, the job is the same: lead the training sessions, determine the tactics, sit on the bench and make decisions during games. Traditionally, however, an English manager is much more than that. He's basically a general manager and coach rolled into one. He's also responsible for negotiating contracts and signing players. It's a legacy from the late 1800s, when managers often wore suits, waistcoats and top hats and let the players train by themselves.

 

Some English clubs have strayed from the model. Yet the cult of the all-powerful British manager—the one who controls every aspect of a club, right down to the youth team, medical staff and the janitor—still endures, possibly because the most successful manager in English football, Manchester United's Sir Alex Ferguson, runs his club that way. Of course, Sir Alex earned that omnipotence by winning no fewer than 46 major trophies.

 

Mr. Ashley evidently wanted a Sir Alex-type, and Mr. Hughton did not fit the bill. All he did was keep an often fractious locker room together, win plaudits from the fans and overachieve on the pitch. He was also happy to delegate and defer to others when it came to matters outside of his expertise, like transfers.

 

Whether Mr. Pardew can be a Sir Alex redux remains to be seen, though he did leave his previous job at Southampton precisely because he did not have the kind of wide-ranging powers he craved. In that sense, it's a match made in heaven, for both men.

 

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.

[jdckelly]

In the full Nolan interview on the BBC website he clarifies that it was Llambias who spoke to the players, not Ashley.

 

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:

 

Instead, according to reports in the English media, the soft-spoken Mr. Hughton was let go because he was thought to be more of a "coach" than a "manager."

 

And here is another example of how English soccer remains different from the rest of the world, where there isn't much of a distinction between the two. Whether you're manager or coach, the job is the same: lead the training sessions, determine the tactics, sit on the bench and make decisions during games. Traditionally, however, an English manager is much more than that. He's basically a general manager and coach rolled into one. He's also responsible for negotiating contracts and signing players. It's a legacy from the late 1800s, when managers often wore suits, waistcoats and top hats and let the players train by themselves.

 

Some English clubs have strayed from the model. Yet the cult of the all-powerful British manager—the one who controls every aspect of a club, right down to the youth team, medical staff and the janitor—still endures, possibly because the most successful manager in English football, Manchester United's Sir Alex Ferguson, runs his club that way. Of course, Sir Alex earned that omnipotence by winning no fewer than 46 major trophies.

 

Mr. Ashley evidently wanted a Sir Alex-type, and Mr. Hughton did not fit the bill. All he did was keep an often fractious locker room together, win plaudits from the fans and overachieve on the pitch. He was also happy to delegate and defer to others when it came to matters outside of his expertise, like transfers.

 

Whether Mr. Pardew can be a Sir Alex redux remains to be seen, though he did leave his previous job at Southampton precisely because he did not have the kind of wide-ranging powers he craved. In that sense, it's a match made in heaven, for both men.

 

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.

macotti wrote the wsj piece so thats why its interesting

[EthiGeordie]

In the full Nolan interview on the BBC website he clarifies that it was Llambias who spoke to the players, not Ashley.

 

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:

 

Instead, according to reports in the English media, the soft-spoken Mr. Hughton was let go because he was thought to be more of a "coach" than a "manager."

 

And here is another example of how English soccer remains different from the rest of the world, where there isn't much of a distinction between the two. Whether you're manager or coach, the job is the same: lead the training sessions, determine the tactics, sit on the bench and make decisions during games. Traditionally, however, an English manager is much more than that. He's basically a general manager and coach rolled into one. He's also responsible for negotiating contracts and signing players. It's a legacy from the late 1800s, when managers often wore suits, waistcoats and top hats and let the players train by themselves.

 

Some English clubs have strayed from the model. Yet the cult of the all-powerful British manager—the one who controls every aspect of a club, right down to the youth team, medical staff and the janitor—still endures, possibly because the most successful manager in English football, Manchester United's Sir Alex Ferguson, runs his club that way. Of course, Sir Alex earned that omnipotence by winning no fewer than 46 major trophies.

 

Mr. Ashley evidently wanted a Sir Alex-type, and Mr. Hughton did not fit the bill. All he did was keep an often fractious locker room together, win plaudits from the fans and overachieve on the pitch. He was also happy to delegate and defer to others when it came to matters outside of his expertise, like transfers.

 

Whether Mr. Pardew can be a Sir Alex redux remains to be seen, though he did leave his previous job at Southampton precisely because he did not have the kind of wide-ranging powers he craved. In that sense, it's a match made in heaven, for both men.

 

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...

[Parky]

Mourinho quote about Benzema with Higuain being out...

 

"Sometimes you need to go hunting and you don't have your dog, but you do have a cat," Mr. Mourinho said, turning zoological about Mr. Benzema's role. "So you take your cat hunting. It's better than hunting alone." 

[alexf]

Mourinho quote about Benzema with Higuain being out...

 

"Sometimes you need to go hunting and you don't have your dog, but you do have a cat," Mr. Mourinho said, turning zoological about Mr. Benzema's role. "So you take your cat hunting. It's better than hunting alone." 

 

that's really out of order, Benzema is a really talented young player you just needs faith and confidence shown in him but when i see him play lately he looks shit scared of making a mistake and is always looking towards the bench in fear of Jose.  Mourinho is an amazing manager but thats a souness-like comment there.

[Hanshithispantz]

Mourinho quote about Benzema with Higuain being out...

 

"Sometimes you need to go hunting and you don't have your dog, but you do have a cat," Mr. Mourinho said, turning zoological about Mr. Benzema's role. "So you take your cat hunting. It's better than hunting alone." 

quality

[colinmk]

Decent take on things.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/philmcnulty/2010/12/pardews_perfect_start.html

 

That's totally spot on.

[TaylorJ_01]

that's mint. But yes, I do agree with alexf.

[colinmk]

Mourinho quote about Benzema with Higuain being out...

 

"Sometimes you need to go hunting and you don't have your dog, but you do have a cat," Mr. Mourinho said, turning zoological about Mr. Benzema's role. "So you take your cat hunting. It's better than hunting alone." 

 

that's really out of order, Benzema is a really talented young player you just needs faith and confidence shown in him but when i see him play lately he looks shit scared of making a mistake and is always looking towards the bench in fear of Jose.  Mourinho is an amazing manager but thats a souness-like comment there.

 

He doesn't care, he's getting a new striker in a couple of weeks anyway.

[diggining]

In the full Nolan interview on the BBC website he clarifies that it was Llambias who spoke to the players, not Ashley.

 

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:

 

Instead, according to reports in the English media, the soft-spoken Mr. Hughton was let go because he was thought to be more of a "coach" than a "manager."

 

And here is another example of how English soccer remains different from the rest of the world, where there isn't much of a distinction between the two. Whether you're manager or coach, the job is the same: lead the training sessions, determine the tactics, sit on the bench and make decisions during games. Traditionally, however, an English manager is much more than that. He's basically a general manager and coach rolled into one. He's also responsible for negotiating contracts and signing players. It's a legacy from the late 1800s, when managers often wore suits, waistcoats and top hats and let the players train by themselves.

 

Some English clubs have strayed from the model. Yet the cult of the all-powerful British manager—the one who controls every aspect of a club, right down to the youth team, medical staff and the janitor—still endures, possibly because the most successful manager in English football, Manchester United's Sir Alex Ferguson, runs his club that way. Of course, Sir Alex earned that omnipotence by winning no fewer than 46 major trophies.

 

Mr. Ashley evidently wanted a Sir Alex-type, and Mr. Hughton did not fit the bill. All he did was keep an often fractious locker room together, win plaudits from the fans and overachieve on the pitch. He was also happy to delegate and defer to others when it came to matters outside of his expertise, like transfers.

 

Whether Mr. Pardew can be a Sir Alex redux remains to be seen, though he did leave his previous job at Southampton precisely because he did not have the kind of wide-ranging powers he craved. In that sense, it's a match made in heaven, for both men.

 

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?

[Cronky]

In the full Nolan interview on the BBC website he clarifies that it was Llambias who spoke to the players, not Ashley.

 

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:

 

Instead, according to reports in the English media, the soft-spoken Mr. Hughton was let go because he was thought to be more of a "coach" than a "manager."

 

And here is another example of how English soccer remains different from the rest of the world, where there isn't much of a distinction between the two. Whether you're manager or coach, the job is the same: lead the training sessions, determine the tactics, sit on the bench and make decisions during games. Traditionally, however, an English manager is much more than that. He's basically a general manager and coach rolled into one. He's also responsible for negotiating contracts and signing players. It's a legacy from the late 1800s, when managers often wore suits, waistcoats and top hats and let the players train by themselves.

 

Some English clubs have strayed from the model. Yet the cult of the all-powerful British managerthe one who controls every aspect of a club, right down to the youth team, medical staff and the janitorstill endures, possibly because the most successful manager in English football, Manchester United's Sir Alex Ferguson, runs his club that way. Of course, Sir Alex earned that omnipotence by winning no fewer than 46 major trophies.

 

Mr. Ashley evidently wanted a Sir Alex-type, and Mr. Hughton did not fit the bill. All he did was keep an often fractious locker room together, win plaudits from the fans and overachieve on the pitch. He was also happy to delegate and defer to others when it came to matters outside of his expertise, like transfers.

 

Whether Mr. Pardew can be a Sir Alex redux remains to be seen, though he did leave his previous job at Southampton precisely because he did not have the kind of wide-ranging powers he craved. In that sense, it's a match made in heaven, for both men.

 

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.

 

The article seems to suggest that Hughton was content to be a first team coach and let others get involved in the player recruitment side, but that wasn't my impression at all. He seemed to be very involved in all aspects of managerial activity (eg his crucial involvement in the Ben Arfa saga)

 

I don't think swapping Hughton for Pardew represents a change of strategy or job description. I think Ashley just sees Pardew as the better manager, taking into account the full range of a manager's duties.