Wes Tender

Originally Posted by PES: You're just ****ing in the wind. You know nothing at all about NC and neither do the wind-up merchants who claim to be in the know about him. Put up or shut up. Because your club is a cesspit and has been associated with the dodgiest characters in British football and has become an embarassment, you're jealous that we have decent honest people running us properly snf efficiently without debt.

Because they were his lieutenants? Because the new man would want people that he could work with? Because they were implicated also with some misdemeanour with Pardew? Look, I don't know any more than you, but surely you are as capable of conjecture as anybody else? Perhaps not.

Regarding the first point, nobody on here knows for a fact what transpired to culminate in Pardew's dismissal along with his lieutenants. But the form of words used in the statement on the OS might well have been a device to deflect attention away from the real reasons, thus avoiding media attention and further repercussions. Who knows? As to the timing, even if the OS statement were true, you'd be quite happy to allow that management team to stay the entire year, would you, rather than fixing the situation immediately, allowing the new man plenty of time to make his own impact on the team early? Whether we would have secured those 9 points under Pardew is pure conjecture on your part. I personally do not reckon that he would have achieved them without Lallana, Barnard and an off form Lambert. Saying that automatic promotion is unlikely at this stage is bizarre. Check out where Sunderland were at Christmas when Keane came in.

Was the timing awful? It was at the beginning of the season, with plenty of time to turn things around. And surely the more awful the timing, the more credence is placed on the theory that something serious must have precipitated it. I'm not suggesting anything beyond looking at the other side of the coin. I'm glad that you feel qualified to talk on behalf of most on this board. You must have even more support as a fans' mouthpiece than Nick Illingworth. The way that I see it is that the initial knee-jerk reaction supports your position, but that once people had the chance to consider the dismissal and accept that there must have been good reasons behind it, whatever they were, opinions have shifted somewhat. You're correct that people are judged by what they do. I wonder what the position would have been had Pardew remained to lose the three games after his dismissal. Would you be saying that he should be given more time to deliver and how long would that be? Judging Cortese by what he has done, he has taken a difficult decision because he wishes the best for this club. He has acted with a quiet dignity and has placed his trust in Adkins. So what exactly makes you believe that Adkins will not be given the time to build his team? Would you have accepted that Pardew should be allowed another year if he didn't manage to get us up this year too? And what makes you believe that the Chairman should be responsible for motivating a manager? Surely it is only his job to select the manager and from there onwards the best motivation for the manager is the risk of losing his job if he in turn cannot motivate his players. Who will get the credit if we achieve our ambition to return to the Premiership in 4 years? The Chairman or the manager? Somehow I'm going to guess you'll be crediting the manager, which is fair enough, but in the interests of balance, be good enough to also credit the one who has the faith in his abilities to appoint him in the first place.

Ditto. About 10 feet from the dugout.

No, he's a sensible and intelligent man. He'll dismiss this sort of rambling idiocy for the trash it is, as most on here do.

There, I've highlighted the bits for you that indicate to others that it is entirely feasible that what you have written has no basis of fact and is therefore just pure conjecture on your part. I am equally entitled to speculate that Howe decided for himself that as he did not have much managerial experience, let alone at this level, that he wasn't up to it. As for Adkins, unless anything else surfaces to prove otherwise, it appears that Adkins has not turned down the opportunity to manage us and indeed might not even have been offered the job.

Well, you have this information from a source that you trust and I remain sceptical that Cortese would physically go all the way to London and spend 3 hours with some journo, when a telephone call would have been entirely sufficient. I don't have a blind hatred of the Sun. I dismiss it as a comic, so scorn or disdain might be more appropriate. It certainly isn't what anybody would call a serious newspaper.

What precisely leads you to conclude that the Echo has obtained information specifically from the club? I see nothing in what they have written that isn't in the public domain from the OS, or that could not be arrived at by conjecture. And once more I question whether the club needs the Echo more than the Echo needs them, especially on matters of interest to the Saints supporting Echo readers, who will have gleaned far more accurately what the situation is from the OS.

What a surprise and happening so soon after Cortese had to grovel to the press to mend fences with the media if some on here are to believed. Apparently we need them more than us. If relationships between the press and the club are restored, then this fiasco could have all been avoided instead of the media having egg all over their faces.

Pardon me for remaining a sceptic, but I do not see any concrete evidence that Cortese had met up with executives in the media to rebuild bridges. I still take it as a rumour, unsubstantiated. We can all see where it gets us, going off at half-c*ck today with this Adkins fiasco. We have heard the version from the Chairman of Sc*nthorpe and we have the version from the OS. Which do we believe? I still reckon that the Sun would have looked ridiculous (more so than usual) had they persisted with the South Coast club with this story. That's my opinion and frankly I couldn't care a toss if anybody disagrees, which is their right. I also disagree that we need them onside. We don't.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that it is the club that has backed down? Far more likely that it is the comic. Probably people were telling them how ridiculous they were making themselves look. It is one think acting childishly on a match report, but they would have looked ludicrous with headlines shouting South Coast club to appoint new manager today.

LOL at the bit highlighted. Just imagine for one moment that you are a journalist of a red top comic (such as the Sun for example) and you hear that statement made by the club. Now there's potentially a very newsworthy story in there somewhere, quite probably back page headlines for the journalist who scoops the inside story. So we have dozens of journos hanging around the club, the training ground, following the players about pestering them to leak details of what went on behind closed doors. This is all of course a hypothetical scenario based on a situation that may or may not have taken place, but the very best reason for the club not admitting that the dismissal was for gross misconduct, even it was the reason. I don't believe for one moment that the club's reputation has suffered much at all. Most will believe that there are very good reasons for Pardew going, even if they don't know exactly what those reasons are. And it isn't as if football managers getting sacked periodically is such an unusual event.

Funnily enough we had our first meal at Corianders before the match Saturday. Mind you, having lost so dismally, I might have to consider it a bad omen and stop going match days. But I was impressed with their buffet, the service and the decor of the place. Very good food at reasonable prices, also many Asians eating there which is a good recommendation in itself and many who greeted the manager/proprietor, or who were greeted warmly by him, all evidence of contented regular customers. A Chinese buffet is a travesty, as the food deteriorates from standing around. But an Indian buffet is no problem, as the flavours develop with the extra heating. A good selection of dishes to, with some things I had not tried before. The Mango Lassi drink is highly recommended. Promising and we'll go there again.

There are some things that one doesn't need to think about before responding, because one holds opinions about them that have been considered beforehand. There are other occasions where some individuals are capable of quick thought, instinctively reaching the right decision thinking on their feet. Then there are others like many on here who responded with the knee-jerk reaction to Pardew's dismissal without knowing the circumstances that brought it about. In the case of Alpine's response, I don't see anything about it that required deep thought beforehand. He is quite right that it would be sensible for Fonte to wait and see who came in before hailing a taxi away. He is also right that we have a say in the matter also and do not have to sell him if we don't want to. So your response smacks of you having a dislike of Alpine rather than having anything constructive to debate regarding what he posted.

I agree with you. It was mainly the Northam anyway and as it happened I looked around to see that it wasn't more than half of them. Many like me raised my eyebrows at the inanity of it, as it might have been indicative of frustration, but was hardly going to give the players a boost. Regardless of it, Pardew will not be coming back and it was also futile because the team not performing on the pitch was Pardew's team. What would have happened had that same team (which would also have been exactly the one that he would have selected) not performed under him? There have been boos for a team under him before, so I really don't see much difference apart from a few idiots believing that they were showing theri displeasure at Pardew's departure without even knowing the reason for it.

Firstly I would not place credence on MLT knowing what was going on in the club, as most of the personnel have changed since he was there. Secondly, I would not place much credence on his ability to judge whether the Chairman was fit or not to run the club. His judgement on several business ventures that have failed and his association with Pinnacle hardly points to his outstanding business nous, does it? As for whether Lowe was a shining example of how to deal with the press, then people either have very short, or very selective memories. I treasure happy memories of MLT as a footballer and also enjoy his TV punditry. However, that is where the line should be drawn, or else he will alienate those who loved him.

If you did not actually speak to him in person, yourself, then it calls into question the validity of the whole thread. So, I'll tell you where I am with this. I'm afraid I won't be investing any belief in your assertion, so I'm out.

I'm amazed that your love affair with Saints has endured through the Lowe era, the fall from the Premiership, then the fall through the Championship and into the third division, the return of Lowe and the Quisling, the dismissal of Pearson, the appointment of the Dutch jokers, etc and yet it is only now failing when we on the way back in an upwards direction. Weird.

Well, Pardew's record this season was not much better than the monkey's either, was it? And as you could not forecast what Pardew might have managed without Lallana, without Barnard and with Lambert off colour, your post is totally meaningless.

Well, as you're too naive to realise that the OS will publish their line that shows them in the most favourable light and that the press have a well-deserved reputation as muck-rakers and sensationalists more often then not, then it seems that it is me who is more open-minded to recognise these things. But if you wish to believe everything you read either on the OS or in the press, then good luck to you.

I have been consistent in berating others for jumping to conclusions as to the circumstances that precipitated Pardew's departure. You only need to look a few posts above to see that is the position I took with Daren W and the journos. So quite what agenda I have is beyond me. Pardew has gone and will not be coming back. He did some good things, but also had some failings too. But I keep an open mind as to what caused his sacking and do not believe something just because it is posted on the OS any more than I believe the stories in the press or rumours on here.

I used to be that naive when I was younger, but with age comes the realisation that everything is not as it seems and that expediency governs the actions of organisations who wish to be preceived as one thing when being another. If you don't believe that the OS is capable of propaganda, or of obfuscation because it might suit both them and Pardew, then that's up to you. Did you watch that excellent programme about the internal politics of Westminster, "House of Cards"? As Francis Urquhart was fond of saying when somebody had come up with the truth behind the camouflage, "You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment." The Club's statement IMO is the camouflage to deflect the press whilst some mutually convenient accommodation has been facilitated to keep both parties happy without the fallout of a scandal. The press can bluster all they want about the strangeness of the decision, but they know no more than you or I. Pardew isn't exactly broadcasting from the rooftops how unfair it all is, which ought to furnish you with another clue that everything is not as it seems.

Ah! Another in the know. Can you not reveal your source? Was it Cortese, Reed, Pardew? Anybody who might be considered an unimpeachable authority? No, I thought not. So there is never a parting of the ways that is dressed up as something else to stop the gutter press swarming around like flies on sh*t? No agreements signed for non-disclosure, no altering of reasons to protect the reputations of individuals, to prevent besmirching of somebody's character, to avoid tribunals, etc? Right. They just parted company because there was an incompatability issue that apparently took over a season to emerge, but when it did, there was absolutely no time to have organised a replacement manager.

So it's wrong for a fan to speculate on the reasons for Pardew's dismissals, but perfectly in order for a journalist to opine that the club was wrong to sack him without knowing why? Some consistency might be beneficial if you are to achieve credibility in criticising somebody for the same thing. Sometimes, from the behaviour of some posters on here, I really do believe we get the sort of club that some sort of fans deserve.... Hang your heads in shame... Are we really any different from the fans from other clubs then? Why would that be then?