The Kraken

Leftback, you've sometimes had some valid points but I think this one gets lost in your agenda. I couldn't care about the semantics of "development squad", its the reserves but if they want to call it something different, go for it. And I'd have said this match is EXACTLY why we shouldn't be playing in a ridiculous reserves league, plying our trade against Forest Green Rovers and other such luminaries on cold, wet, Tuesday evenings away from home. If calling it a development squad means that we can finally play our reserves and promising youngsters against another decent reserve outfit, then I'm all for it. There's not been enough of this type of game for the development squad, I agree. But in the case of this game I think it has served its purpose.

I think you're just being deliberately obtuse now. Calm down and re-read my post properly. I said there is a POSSIBILITY that Pardew named a number of targets. Given that there is no evidence either way, it's equally as likely as your assertion that he sat around with his feet up all summer. I fully expect Adkins to be given money to spend in January; we've filled one gap from the summer (CM cover) with the loan signing of Chaplow, and hopefully will make that one permanent. But we are still very short up front. The RM slot may be filled by Chamberlain, though I expect Adkins to be in for 2 or 3 players in the window. We'll see.

Fair enough, that's your opinion. Having Carter on trial says to be it was the opposite. I'm not necessarily disputing your opinion, I'm just conscious that, while nothing can be proved either way, there is also the possibility that Pardew named a number of targets he wanted to bring in but was rebutted by the transfer committee/Cortese. While you say the Guly 5 minute cameo was a 2 fingered salute to Cortese, I see Guly's signing as just that to Pardew; AP had spent the summer decrying the need for a new CM, direct repllacement for Antonio; and backup for Lambert. Guly is essentially none of those 3.

No, he didn't do "sod all". He took Carter on trial, which shows he was at least looking to address our problem positions. I have no idea exactly how much AP personally did about signing new recruits. He could have recommended any number of players and been refused them; or he could have sat around with his feet up most of the time. There's no way to tell either way, but given that he consistently made reference to needing players and didn't get them, the club as a whole should take a fair share of the blame, which was the point I was trying to make. Waigo agreed; I can only presume he didn't rate him and therefore didn't want him. I actually agree, I was never a fan of Waigo anyway. Though saying that I'd rather have him than nobody, as we currently have. Antonio; I'm not sure what more was possible for Pardew to do. He told the chairman he wanted to sign him, from then on it's the chairman's decision whether to meet Reading's valuation. As it turned out, from his point of view Antonio probably thought he was doing the best thing for his career, playing a division above and being given plenty of chances in the first team to break through.

Add in corporate sales and it's probably about right in terms of our revenue increase.

I think its a bit too easy to solely blame Pardew. Throughout the summer AP was constantly banging the drum about the need to bring in new players, and to replace Antonio/Waigo, so he clearly knew there were gaps to be filled. We also supposedly have a transfer committee including Cortese, Les Reed and others still at the club, so its disingenuous to solely blame Pardew for the squad's current deficiencies.

Not quite. Adkins first game was the defeat to MK Dons; as of today his record stands at W3 D2 L2, 11 points, 1.57 points per game which would give us 72 points over the season. Not good enough. I thoroughly agree with your last sentence though.

Incorrect. In this thread alone I have admitted that I do not know for sure that the club statement is 100% truthful. The difference is, I am choosing to believe the statement until I see evidence that proves otherwise. In any case, this argument has run its course (I'm actually not even sure what was being talked about half the time). Time will tell if Adkins is a better manager, but I've certainly been impressed so far, and I hope our progress continues with a win today; that would definitely be a real achievement.

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. All your own supposition. And all baseless in fact. Upon what are basing your opinion on, apart from your own opinion? The only factor you have taken into account is your own opinion. No facts at all, none.

It just does

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Never mind Staplewood. Remember the days when we played reserve games at St Mary's and once got a crowd above 10K against Spuds? And almost the same against Arsenal. Heady days indeed. Bring back free reserve game weeknights!! Although, Im not sure the cost benefit analysis of opening up the turnstiles against Forest Green Rovers for a rainy Tuesday night encounter quite stacks up.....

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

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

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

Yes, it has. You just don't want to see it. Why do you think it was a mutual termination? The club have said they looked at the management structure and hence evaluated the contracts of 3 football management staff and termed them inappropriate, so looked elsewhere. How is that a mutual termination?

You can read this when you get back then. I feel like I'm whacking my head against a wall anyway. The crazy thing is this: I think you're telling me to look at the facts, and not to jump to any conclusions. But you're then telling me not to believe the facts laid before me by the club, via a public statement, that it was a footballing decision. I'll re-iterate that; the club have said it was a footballing decision. They really have. You cherry picked a bit of the club statement, but look at it in its entirity; it is clearly a statement that says the club can find better elsewhere, and that is what they'll do. I find it utterly incredible that, in this thread, you choose to pick on me for reading things which apparently aren't there. Yet you have absolutely nothing to say about the people who still cling to the belief that AP and staff were sacked for gross misconduct. You have nothing to say about the rumours that persist about AP having ex-marital affairs with playing staff. And nothing to say about other accusations of transgressions by the management team. Yet me, taking a club statement fully on its merits, is cause for you to take issue. I'll admit, I'm thoroughly confused. Anyway, the weekend has landed.

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

It's all very good saying that now; why not say it before?

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