at least he got palace promoted before doing the honourable thing and letting us relegate them
from wiki "On 21 December 2003, Dowie was appointed manager of Crystal Palace, inheriting a squad with low morale and occupying 19th place in Division One. However, under his leadership, the club went on an impressive run that included 17 wins from 23 games after he took over, until the end of the season, enabling the club to finish in sixth place in the First Division, just scraping into the play-off places. This feat was attributed to complete change in the atmosphere and training regime at the club, including a tougher disciplinary regime, introduced by Dowie"
similar to how parky took over us but with slightly different results!
[cite]Posted By: oohaahmortimer[/cite]12 games was never enough no matter what any charlton fan thinks .... If we'd left dowie in charge for 4 years I genuinely doubt we'd be as low as we are in the football ladder
Sacking him after just 12 games guaranteed that Dowie was always going to win compensation.
At best Dowie would have just kept us up with the squad he put together. Didn't someone post on here not long ago saying how Dowie still believes the likes of Traore and Faye were good signings? Says it all really.
Only job he can be properly judged on after us was at Coventry. They were 19th when he was sacked.
[cite]Posted By: Stig[/cite]The big question for me isn't why we got rid of him, but why we hired him in the first place. It was all done with such indecent haste that I can't help but wonder as to whether our motives were genuinely around thinking he'd be the right man or whether it was an opportunity to put the knife into Jordan.
Well spotted Stig.The belief always rankled with me that the decision was more to spiting Jordan and getting the Charlton audience applause.The truth was that Murray cuckholded Jordan but the decision was parochial and totally UnCharltonlike.It proved to be very,very wrong...
[cite]Posted By: Stig[/cite]The big question for me isn't why we got rid of him, but why we hired him in the first place. It was all done with such indecent haste that I can't help but wonder as to whether our motives were genuinely around thinking he'd be the right man or whether it was an opportunity to put the knife into Jordan.
Well spotted Stig.The belief always rankled with me that the decision was more to spiting Jordan and getting the Charlton audience applause.The truth was that Murray cuckholded Jordan but the decision was parochial and totally UnCharltonlike.It proved to be very,very wrong...
[cite]Posted By: Weegie Addick[/cite]Murray admitted during his evidence in the Jordan v Dowie court case that he did do it as much to get one over Jordan as anything...
Really? I don't remember hearing about that before. Are you sure?
[cite]Posted By: Stig[/cite]The big question for me isn't why we got rid of him, but why we hired him in the first place. It was all done with such indecent haste that I can't help but wonder as to whether our motives were genuinely around thinking he'd be the right man or whether it was an opportunity to put the knife into Jordan.
Well spotted Stig.The belief always rankled with me that the decision was more to spiting Jordan and getting the Charlton audience applause.The truthwas that Murray cuckholded Jordan but the decision was parochial and totally UnCharltonlike.It proved to be very,very wrong...
Is that "the truth" though - or just your hunch?
Gut Feeling on my part.Have to do a lot of decisionmaking on pure gut feelings.Never 100percent right but the great majority turn out to be near the mark.If Weegie Addick is
right then the decision had more to do with emotion than logic.
At the time Dowie was sacked, November 2006 .......I thought the word from the club was that he was '"sacked for non-footballing reasons"?. I do recollect that being said at the time,...... and a few things like the team loosing there way on a run , and being dropped off on the way home from an away match....... which i would hardly find reason to fire a manager!.
Did Peter Varney not do a review at the time of Dowie, that all seemed very strange to me!... From the moment that Jordan tried to gate crash the press announcement of Dowie this whole saga seemed very 'strange' from the outside!. I do remember that Varney promised to explain events at a supporters meeting last year!.
Why has this taken four years to sort out ? This whole matter is quite strange.
Curbs and West Ham was sorted out in Eighteen months . Why settle if you have a good case ? Why did Curbs say he could not take a job in the Eighteen months this was being considered and Dowie has managed Coventry , QPR and Hull and assisted at Newcastle since he was at Charlton , so this matter has hardly negatively affected his employability over the period of his Charlton contract.
I have represented people at Employment Tribunals and only something like 10% of cases go to a hearing and of those around half of them get settled on the steps when the Employment Judge gives both sides some ' friendly ' advice .
I suspect there is some embarrasing stuff for Dowie in this but Charlton now commercially need to settle to complete the takeover . If he had a better case he would have pushed for a conclusion earlier.
[cite]Posted By: Richard J[/cite]
I suspect there is some embarrasing stuff for Dowie in this but Charlton now commercially need to settle to complete the takeover . If he had a better case he would have pushed for a conclusion earlier.
It is due to the imminent takeover and settling of and any outstanding business. Dowie was an incredibly poor pick of player, what a load of money he wasted, and lacking in strategic and tactical ability in responding to events on the pitch. A bit like Parkinson in that way.
I might be wrong here but I'm sure that curbs had already tried to get jfh, traore, and Faye in the jan transfer window? And Walton and gibbs were also identified as a prospects and recommended
I always believed these deals were done whoever was coming in as manager, might be a reason that some turned it down.
it wasn't the players so much as the deals they came in on - they weren't value for money. However that was the state of the market at the time for so called prem players, as such and in hindsight a purchase policy like that just wasn't sustainable for us - we should have been bringing in good championship players with proper relegation clauses, lower wages and lower fees, etc.
Pioneer.....pretty sure Gibbs was signed while Curbishley was still at the club. Some sort of pre-contract agreement like Hreidarsson's deal from Ipswich.
As for the others, at the time of signing I thought they fitted the bill. Traore had played in a Champions League final, Faye had done a decent job at Portsmouth and Newcastle and JFH had just had a really good season at Boro. Was Traore that bad for us? He didn't play much but I don't remember him being so terrible (just fairly ordinary) and Faye started ok, only to lose it when Pardew took over (he was substituted after about 25 mins at Notts Forest...fair enough but my main memory was of Ambrose completely giving up for one of their goals and he was left on). I do agree that the wages paid would have been far too high for moderate players so I agree with Razil's point completely. It was always going to be a tough season trying to integrate so many new players into the team including a new inexperienced goalie so perhaps Dowie should have kept more of the old guard on board and not caused so much disruption. In retrospect, the gamble of new manager and players was taken a season too early. The following season was when the Sky money really went through the roof.....we missed out and the gap between us and "them" got much wider straight away. Once we failed to come back up at the first attempt, the die was cast in terms of financial burden, disruption and eventually malaise.
[quote][cite]Posted By: ken from bexley[/cite]I do remember that Varney promised to explain events at a supporters meeting last year![/quote]
If you refer to the one at Bexley Park Ken, I recall him saying that he hoped it did go to court so the truth would come out. Until such time he was advised by the lawyers not to discuss the case. He's probably legally bound now never to say anything as part of the "agreement" with Dowie.
After all the inuendo and rumours I was really hoping the truth would come out.
Instead Dowie seems to have walked away with his integrity intact; whether deserved or otherwise we'll never know.
And Murray's behaviour in the whole episode will always leave a sour taste as he has not been, as we had hoped, vindicated in a court of law.
I really don't want to believe RM brought Dowie in partly or exclusively to annoy Jordan.
Surely not. How embarrassing.
[quote][cite]Posted By: ken from bexley[/cite]I do remember that Varney promised to explain events at a supporters meeting last year![/quote]
If you refer to the one at Bexley Park Ken, I recall him saying that he hoped it did go to court so the truth would come out. Until such time he was advised by the lawyers not to discuss the case. He's probably legally bound now never to say anything as part of the "agreement" with Dowie.[/quote]
Yes I was Arry, he would know what it was that was the catalist of why they terminated his contract! as he himself carried out the review!
Not sure the truth would have come out, as these things are fought on points of law, and loaded questions, but it would have given the fans some idea as to what it was that led to this 'action'.I do not have a clear idea, I have heard speculation, but that seems to be all based on half baked assumptions, and hearsay.
Personally speaking I am not Dowie's greatest fan. But the chairman agreed to the players that he is so castigated about buying!. Yes they were in large very poor, but again I had 'heard' that the chairman wanted JFH......... probably another counter rumour!.
yeah.. that is right Varney said it at the Bromley that if it goes to court then then it would be good so the whole truth will come out..... However the way i read it is this:-
1) Charlton made a huge "cock-up" on this to "p o " Jordan and heart went instead of logic.
2) Dowie lied to Charlton and palace
3) This "not footballing reasons" is to to do with "dowies not footballing reason which came to light" (yes we will never know as now this has settled out of court". which is legalling binding so iut wont come out now (only the powers be will know).
4) Yes, I would love to know but I have heard from different sources but cant mention on here.
5) The fact it was going to court (did worry me as a Charlton fan), coz as much as i love Charlton I had worries that Charlton were going to lose this one.... bearing in mind (no matter how much I hate Jordan he was clever (call it intrusive or not) that he had secretly recorded a conversation he had with Dowie and had served a writ. (so jordan felt it he had a stong case).
6) However this is the MOST improtant thing, the fact that was settlled out of cout in the last week when Varney has released details to the affect that its "complicated in that they are going through our liabiities and they are with 2 different banks".. Obv this new owners will have seen this issue with Dowie and think "lets just pay him off and be done with it". gives me reason to believe that they know our currnet believe our assest and debts.. current income, forecasted incomen, potential.... etc etc and by paying him off.. its the last hurdle now before taking over... with this one it could get messy. pay him off (wether he is in the wrong or right) gets rid of that hurdle.. all clear now.....
7) we can now move onto the future.. its all history now and we can move on
[cite]Posted By: ken from bexley[/cite]Personally speaking I am not Dowie's greatest fan. But the chairman agreed to the players that he is so castigated about buying!. Yes they were in large very poor, but again I had 'heard' that the chairman wanted JFH......... probably another counter rumour!.
The chairman should never tell the manager who to sign or who not to sign. The chairman should decide on a budget for his/her manager, a set of on-field targets and run the off-field aspects of the club. By all means, the chairman should give the manager guidance about what kind of player should be signed (ie not over-the-hill gambles who *might* have one last season in them), but if the manager insists the player is needed to achieve his targets, then so be it.
I'm pretty sure that RM has always insisted that Dowie was unattached when Charlton approached him. We now know that this wasn't true, but it remains unclear as to who was deceiving who. I would have much preferred to have this whole sorry episode end with the smell of roses surrounding Charlton, PV and especially RM, and for the stinky stuff to land on Jordan and Dowie, but it's not to be. Pity.
yeah i agree still addickted.. When Murral walks awat from the culb we should all remember him for the good things rather than the cock ups he made.. without him we would have never had curbs..top fligh football etc
My recollection of events was that Jordan tried to say that Dowie knew he was off to Charlton because he had a powerpoint presentation prepared that was titled 'Advancing the Addicks', but it turned out that Dowie had just re-titled an old presentation that he'd used when he was interviewed for the Bolton (I think) job. Charltons defence was that they couldn't have tapped up Dowie because they'd already offered the job to Billy Davies at the time that Dowie left Palace.
I said at the time that the biggest mistake that Murray made was in trying to combine the new and the old. Dowie and Pardew should've been allowed to bring in their own staff instead of being made to work with 'traditional Charlton' types like Uncle Les, Mark Kinsella and Mark Robson. The other option would've been to promote totally from within, by perhaps enticing Day or Peacock to stick around, or better still trying to hang onto Glyn Snodin who'd led the reserves to the top of the league the previous two seasons.
According to the story on the South London, the case was going to a Premier League tribunal so there is no certainty that any information would have been made public unlike in a legal case before the courts.
[cite]Posted By: Simonsen[/cite]Pioneer.....pretty sure Gibbs was signed while Curbishley was still at the club. Some sort of pre-contract agreement like Hreidarsson's deal from Ipswich.
As for the others, at the time of signing I thought they fitted the bill. Traore had played in a Champions League final, Faye had done a decent job at Portsmouth and Newcastle and JFH had just had a really good season at Boro. Was Traore that bad for us? He didn't play much but I don't remember him being so terrible (just fairly ordinary) and Faye started ok, only to lose it when Pardew took over (he was substituted after about 25 mins at Notts Forest...fair enough but my main memory was of Ambrose completely giving up for one of their goals and he was left on). I do agree that the wages paid would have been far too high for moderate players so I agree with Razil's point completely. It was always going to be a tough season trying to integrate so many new players into the team including a new inexperienced goalie so perhaps Dowie should have kept more of the old guard on board and not caused so much disruption. In retrospect, the gamble of new manager and players was taken a season too early. The following season was when the Sky money really went through the roof.....we missed out and the gap between us and "them" got much wider straight away. Once we failed to come back up at the first attempt, the die was cast in terms of financial burden, disruption and eventually malaise.
Think that is pretty much spot on.
Don't forget Curbs also holds the record for most spent on one player.
Comments
from wiki "On 21 December 2003, Dowie was appointed manager of Crystal Palace, inheriting a squad with low morale and occupying 19th place in Division One. However, under his leadership, the club went on an impressive run that included 17 wins from 23 games after he took over, until the end of the season, enabling the club to finish in sixth place in the First Division, just scraping into the play-off places. This feat was attributed to complete change in the atmosphere and training regime at the club, including a tougher disciplinary regime, introduced by Dowie"
similar to how parky took over us but with slightly different results!
Sacking him after just 12 games guaranteed that Dowie was always going to win compensation.
Only job he can be properly judged on after us was at Coventry. They were 19th when he was sacked.
Well spotted Stig.The belief always rankled with me that the decision was more to spiting Jordan and getting the Charlton audience applause.The truth was that Murray cuckholded Jordan but the decision was parochial and totally UnCharltonlike.It proved to be very,very wrong...
Is that "the truth" though - or just your hunch?
Really? I don't remember hearing about that before. Are you sure?
Gut Feeling on my part.Have to do a lot of decisionmaking on pure gut feelings.Never 100percent right but the great majority turn out to be near the mark.If Weegie Addick is
right then the decision had more to do with emotion than logic.
I do recollect that being said at the time,...... and a few things like the team loosing there way on a run , and being dropped off on the way home from an away match....... which i would hardly find reason to fire a manager!.
Did Peter Varney not do a review at the time of Dowie, that all seemed very strange to me!... From the moment that Jordan tried to gate crash the press announcement of Dowie this whole saga seemed very 'strange' from the outside!. I do remember that Varney promised to explain events at a supporters meeting last year!.
Cannot see that happening now!
Curbs and West Ham was sorted out in Eighteen months . Why settle if you have a good case ? Why did Curbs say he could not take a job in the Eighteen months this was being considered and Dowie has managed Coventry , QPR and Hull and assisted at Newcastle since he was at Charlton , so this matter has hardly negatively affected his employability over the period of his Charlton contract.
I have represented people at Employment Tribunals and only something like 10% of cases go to a hearing and of those around half of them get settled on the steps when the Employment Judge gives both sides some ' friendly ' advice .
I suspect there is some embarrasing stuff for Dowie in this but Charlton now commercially need to settle to complete the takeover . If he had a better case he would have pushed for a conclusion earlier.
That was what I was thinking too.
I always believed these deals were done whoever was coming in as manager, might be a reason that some turned it down.
As for the others, at the time of signing I thought they fitted the bill. Traore had played in a Champions League final, Faye had done a decent job at Portsmouth and Newcastle and JFH had just had a really good season at Boro. Was Traore that bad for us? He didn't play much but I don't remember him being so terrible (just fairly ordinary) and Faye started ok, only to lose it when Pardew took over (he was substituted after about 25 mins at Notts Forest...fair enough but my main memory was of Ambrose completely giving up for one of their goals and he was left on). I do agree that the wages paid would have been far too high for moderate players so I agree with Razil's point completely. It was always going to be a tough season trying to integrate so many new players into the team including a new inexperienced goalie so perhaps Dowie should have kept more of the old guard on board and not caused so much disruption. In retrospect, the gamble of new manager and players was taken a season too early. The following season was when the Sky money really went through the roof.....we missed out and the gap between us and "them" got much wider straight away. Once we failed to come back up at the first attempt, the die was cast in terms of financial burden, disruption and eventually malaise.
If you refer to the one at Bexley Park Ken, I recall him saying that he hoped it did go to court so the truth would come out. Until such time he was advised by the lawyers not to discuss the case. He's probably legally bound now never to say anything as part of the "agreement" with Dowie.
Instead Dowie seems to have walked away with his integrity intact; whether deserved or otherwise we'll never know.
And Murray's behaviour in the whole episode will always leave a sour taste as he has not been, as we had hoped, vindicated in a court of law.
I really don't want to believe RM brought Dowie in partly or exclusively to annoy Jordan.
Surely not. How embarrassing.
If you refer to the one at Bexley Park Ken, I recall him saying that he hoped it did go to court so the truth would come out. Until such time he was advised by the lawyers not to discuss the case. He's probably legally bound now never to say anything as part of the "agreement" with Dowie.[/quote]
Yes I was Arry, he would know what it was that was the catalist of why they terminated his contract! as he himself carried out the review!
Not sure the truth would have come out, as these things are fought on points of law, and loaded questions, but it would have given the fans some idea as to what it was that led to this 'action'.I do not have a clear idea, I have heard speculation, but that seems to be all based on half baked assumptions, and hearsay.
Personally speaking I am not Dowie's greatest fan. But the chairman agreed to the players that he is so castigated about buying!. Yes they were in large very poor, but again I had 'heard' that the chairman wanted JFH......... probably another counter rumour!.
1) Charlton made a huge "cock-up" on this to "p o " Jordan and heart went instead of logic.
2) Dowie lied to Charlton and palace
3) This "not footballing reasons" is to to do with "dowies not footballing reason which came to light" (yes we will never know as now this has settled out of court". which is legalling binding so iut wont come out now (only the powers be will know).
4) Yes, I would love to know but I have heard from different sources but cant mention on here.
5) The fact it was going to court (did worry me as a Charlton fan), coz as much as i love Charlton I had worries that Charlton were going to lose this one.... bearing in mind (no matter how much I hate Jordan he was clever (call it intrusive or not) that he had secretly recorded a conversation he had with Dowie and had served a writ. (so jordan felt it he had a stong case).
6) However this is the MOST improtant thing, the fact that was settlled out of cout in the last week when Varney has released details to the affect that its "complicated in that they are going through our liabiities and they are with 2 different banks".. Obv this new owners will have seen this issue with Dowie and think "lets just pay him off and be done with it". gives me reason to believe that they know our currnet believe our assest and debts.. current income, forecasted incomen, potential.... etc etc and by paying him off.. its the last hurdle now before taking over... with this one it could get messy. pay him off (wether he is in the wrong or right) gets rid of that hurdle.. all clear now.....
7) we can now move onto the future.. its all history now and we can move on
The chairman should never tell the manager who to sign or who not to sign. The chairman should decide on a budget for his/her manager, a set of on-field targets and run the off-field aspects of the club. By all means, the chairman should give the manager guidance about what kind of player should be signed (ie not over-the-hill gambles who *might* have one last season in them), but if the manager insists the player is needed to achieve his targets, then so be it.
I said at the time that the biggest mistake that Murray made was in trying to combine the new and the old. Dowie and Pardew should've been allowed to bring in their own staff instead of being made to work with 'traditional Charlton' types like Uncle Les, Mark Kinsella and Mark Robson. The other option would've been to promote totally from within, by perhaps enticing Day or Peacock to stick around, or better still trying to hang onto Glyn Snodin who'd led the reserves to the top of the league the previous two seasons.
Think that is pretty much spot on.
Don't forget Curbs also holds the record for most spent on one player.
Disagree. I think that Euell was overpriced. Not saying he was a bad player, far from it, but overpriced nonetheless.