The Kraken

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.

There's just nothing I can do with hyperbole like that.

Well, we're going to have to agree to differ then. I believe they have given plenty of reason for the departure. I'll try and be clear for you my interpretation of what they've said, but this is exactly what I replied to you in a previous post (so much so that I've cut and pasted it). we've looked at our management team; we think our chances of promotion are better served with a different management team in charge We want the 1st team and the development centre to be an integrated unit. We want to bring in a new management team who can better achieve those aims. Seriously, that's all I'm reading from the club statement; that the club believed we would be much better served in achieving promotion by ditching our current management team and bringing in a new one. I'm genuinely confused as to why you're questioning my stance on it, and asking me not to "read more into it"? I'm only reading what's there. Is any of my analysis above wrong? The club clearly got rid of an existing management team, stated why, and brought someone else in who they clearly believe better helps them achieve their stated objectives.

Stop talking common sense.

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

I'm not reading more into it; in fact I'm one person advocating people NOT reading more into it. The statement says to me " We have targets of promotion; we've looked at our management team; we think our chances of promotion are better served with a different management team in charge; we want the 1st team and the development centre to be an integrated unit; we want to bring in a new management team who can better achieve those aims". I believe I'm reading nothing in to it apart from teh black and white of the information presented to me.

I was referring more to his first paragraph or two, more about the footballing reasons for sacking rather than foundationless personal accusations about AP. That said, I'm not sure there's too much difference between what Prof said and I did; he said AP et al were dimsissed for footballing reasons, which is what the club quotes backs up. I just believe that the club statement did indeed justify the action, and I believe was as honest as a club statement on a manager's dismissal needs to be.

The worse pitches in this league aren't ploughed fields. It was stated last season that we couldn't beat these teams away because of the state of the pitch, but it's not as if we passed the ball around like Arsenal, we were always quite a direct side. There will be some pitches worse than others, but we may even benefit from that as NA is trying to get us to play with more width, where the surface will be better than a congested middle. I think NA is also smart enough to realise that we will need to adapt our style of play slightly to whoever we are playing.

The "assumption" that Pardew was sacked for footballing reasons comes from the club's statement, where they said: “Following a review of the status in and around the first team, the club has decided that, to achieve its well-known targets, it is essential to make changes to the first-team management and coaching. These targets for sustained and significant progress embrace both the first team and the football development and support centre as integrated, co-operative units." "We recognise that frequent changes to the football management are unlikely to assist in the winning of trophies and promotions. "However, we are taking these steps to achieve our aims, which we share with all supporters, to get promoted this season, and secure long term stability and progress for our football operations." That's pretty clear to me. (Edited to add the full statement)

I'm not so sure. Both full backs were also always dropping off for a short ball, as was Fonte and on occasions Seaborne. Clearly Tranmere allowed us more space here and better teams will try to close us down more, but if there is a really strong desire to play it short its a real risk to go for a blitz to try and cut that out, as it leaves a big hole in behind.

Agreed. I find the desire by others to continually try to see more into the situation and refuse to believe the statements made by the club and the manager as quite weird. If there was a gross misconduct charge, why on earth would the club publicly lie to the national press? There is absolutely nothing to gain from the club lying about the reasons why 3 staff have had their contracts terminated. In fact, it would distinctly to the club's disadvantage to do so. The logical course in such an event would have seen Pardew, Downes and Murdoch sacked with no further comment made by the club. Often the case people will just believe what they want to believe, though.

Get what exactly? Pardew had his contract terminated by the club, and the club announced the reasons why (according to the statement, the decisions were taken to help the club "achieve its well-known targets" following "a review of the current status in and around the first team"). The club then enter a period of negotiation with Pardew to determine the terms of his compensation for termination of contract. What's not to get?

Are those not footballing reasons then?