[cite]Posted By: ThreadKiller[/cite]so is parky just a good manager on the basis that we don't have a perfect candidate immediately lined up or is he a good manager in some other way that everyone is just keeping to themselves then?
A replacement doesn't have to be perfect, but there would have to be a clear improvement.
If Parky is average, why replace him with someone else who is just as average?
Most of the names were bigger gambles than Parky, unrealistic or had a very mixed record like Parky.
I agree they would have been bigger gambles but during Parky's caretaker period hedemonstratedhe wasn't up to it. Better a gamble than a known fail in my opinion.
The fact that we don't know who might replace Parky if he went -- and how could we? -- is not a reason for keeping him.
If we believe he is not the man to get the job done, he needs to be replaced.
Sure, there are no guarantees with a replacement.
But if the guarantee is someone that is not up to the task, then that guarantee is worth shelving. Better to go for it, and be wrong, than wallow in mediocrity without achievement.
Who the replacement is can not be answered until we know there is an opening.
The question here is not who should replace Parky, but why should we keep him?
There is a definite sentiment in some quarters to keep him. But beyond continuity and he was able to bring in 'some' positive hits on a shoestring, the case does not really fill me with greater confidence that he deliver promotion.
[cite]Posted By: incorruptible addick[/cite]I think Parky's future is open to question. With his record, it would be strange if it wasn't. I think those who would sack him today regardless of last weekend's famous victory are probably wrong. But I know that those saying he has to stay whatever happens are even more misguided.
He doesn't have to stay.
This is where I agree with Dave Rudd. His replacement has to be for the longer term. So because of that, it simply has to be someone proven in some way, probably a League One or Championship manager that has done a very good job with a smaller club.
Not just someone who might do better. As when Parky signed Reid, Dailly, Richardson etc, his biggest signings, someone we are very confident will do his job well.
[cite]Posted By: incorruptible addick[/cite]But I know that those saying he has to stay whatever happens are even more misguided.
Is anyone saying he should stay whatever happens?
Well, FM has just said above that if in the New Year we are nine points off sixth place, he should stay. Nine points off would probably put us 18th, or thereabouts, and closer to relegation than promotion. It seems there are people who would accept that - in effect, saying yes, he should stay however bad it gets.
Just looked at the table from last Xmas. The top six sides then were the six sides that went up or made the play-offs come the end of the season. And nine points off sixth place - a position FM argues would justify keeping Parkinson- was Oldham. In 19th place, just above the relegations spots.
Perhaps, Floyd, you could give us the scenario under which you would drop your insistence that he has to stay in the interests of continuity?
How bad does it have to get for other factors to over-ride the continuity-is-the-most important-thing argument (which I accept was more Chizz's line than yours...)
Hypothetical, yes. But no more so than your stated view that if we were nine points off sixth place come the beginning of Feb, he would have done enough to stay - even though mkaing the plays-offs would be exceedingly improbable (although obviously not mathematically impossible) from that position.
I seem to recall Murray saying in pre-season words to the effect that play-offs were our targets this season. For all the complaints about the way the team are playing and Parky's management, we're still only ONE point away from the top six.
The way I see it, dumping Parky now would involve committing an awful lot of resources - probably three quarters of a million quid plus if you look at the cost of paying off Parky, bringing in another manager on a long-term contract, and potentially paying compo to other clubs. If we were in any danger of relegation, or if we were out of touch with the play-off places (let's say five or six points off the play-offs around Christmas time) that kind of financial risk would make sense, but doing it when we're only a point or two away from where we need to be... well it just seems to me like the potential benefits are outweighed by the potential for disaster.
[cite]Posted By: oohaahmortimer[/cite]we made the biggest mistake in our history appointing him when we did , what little chance we had of survival disappeared when someone who was clearly a part of the regime that was dragging us down under pardew was allowed to continue at the club........
Not sure about that. Perhaps the continued under investment by the Glicksten regime was the the biggest mistake. Perhaps getting ourselves into a position where we had to move to Selhurst or where we were dependant on the timely arrival of a cargo ship were bigger. If you narrow it down to Managerial appointments, I'd go for the appointment of Les Reed, not only did waste a series of games when someone could have been getting to grips with things, but it also lost us an excellent coach.
[cite]Posted By: SaoPauloAddick[/cite]The way I see it, dumping Parky now would involve committing an awful lot of resources - probably three quarters of a million quid plus if you look at the cost of paying off Parky, bringing in another manager on a long-term contract, and potentially paying compo to other clubs
LOL. Three quarters of a million quid. How much do you think Parky is on? How much do you think League 1 mamagers are paid ? And we all realise that tempting a Manager from another Club is NOT an option because of the need to pay compensation, unless their contract is close to running out.
[cite]Posted By: incorruptible addick[/cite]How bad does it have to get for other factors to over-rule the continuity-is-the-most important-thing argument (which I accept was more Chizz's line than yours...)
I think this is the wrong question we should be asking. The question should be: will it get better if we hire a new manager? If that is unlikely, we should not replace Parky. If it is likely, we should replace him. Given our board's recent choices of manager (and I sort of include Parky in that bracket), I'm not sure we can rely on them to make the correct decision. I am still happier with PP as our manager than when Dowie, Reed or Pardew were in charge.
[cite]Posted By: Stu of HU5[/cite]
[cite]Posted By: Floyd Montana[/cite]It seems to me many are suggesting he is a good manager within the current constraints, actually
Despite the fact he's failed to reach any of his targets??
This is a very black and white way of looking at things. If every club were to look at it like this there would be even more sackings.
[quote][cite]Posted By: LargeAddick[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: SaoPauloAddick[/cite]The way I see it, dumping Parky now would involve committing an awful lot of resources - probably three quarters of a million quid plus if you look at the cost of paying off Parky, bringing in another manager on a long-term contract, and potentially paying compo to other clubs[/quote]
LOL. Three quarters of a million quid. How much do you think Parky is on? How much do you think League 1 mamagers are paid ? And we all realise that tempting a Manager from another Club is NOT an option because of the need to pay compensation, unless their contract is close to running out.[/quote]
Well I'm estimating that the salary for a 'big' League One club is going to be in the region of 150-200k, though happy to be corrected if you've got better info!
So my three quarters of a million quid is the amount we'd have to commit to spending if we gave somebody a three year contract, plus the amount we'd have to pay Parky for the rest of his contract, plus anything we'd have to pay to buy a new manager out of their contract with an existing club. I agree with you that getting somebody from another club is not an option, but others on this thread and elsewhere are championing managers who ARE currently with other clubs, including one or two Championship managers, so I'm just trying to point out what the financial outlay would be.
"It seems to me many are suggesting he is a good manager within the current constraints, actually"
Some of these constraints seem to be imagined or exagerated though. We are not the poorest club in the league with the least amount of resources so this isn't really an excuse.
If Parky is sacked we should have fresh start and also sack Kinsella, Breacker and maybe Chapple and Woodman. That'll cost a fair bit and that's before replacing them.
That's not a reason to keep Parky, but it'll cost more than just his contract.
[cite]Posted By: DRF[/cite]"It seems to me many are suggesting he is a good manager within the current constraints, actually"
Some of these constraints seem to be imagined or exagerated though. We are not the poorest club in the league with the least amount of resources so this isn't really an excuse.
Unfortunately, the fact that we have decent resources (ground, training ground etc) means it is more of a burden (financially) than other clubs in the league.
[cite]Posted By: SaoPauloAddick[/cite][Well I'm estimating that the salary for a 'big' League One club is going to be in the region of 150-200k, though happy to be corrected if you've got better info!
So my three quarters of a million quid is the amount we'd have to commit to spending if we gave somebody a three year contract, plus the amount we'd have to pay Parky for the rest of his contract, plus anything we'd have to pay to buy a new manager out of their contract with an existing club. I agree with you that getting somebody from another club is not an option, but others on this thread and elsewhere are championing managers who ARE currently with other clubs, including one or two Championship managers, so I'm just trying to point out what the financial outlay would be.
You can't count the salary we'd pay for a manager for the next 3 years unless you think Parky will be willing to work for free for those years.
Is Parky a good manager?
If the original question is a simple binary, yes/no question, then my answer is yes.
But it's also perfectly reasonable to compare Parky with whoever else might reasonably replace him. A bit like a car. My car, for instance is good enough for me. It's certainly not as good as the car I would like (Aston Martin DB9, in case anyone wants to know). But in my opinion, it's the best I can afford right now. If I were to change it, I would only be able to afford a car in the same price range. And I have (in my opinion) the best one in that range.
Parky, likewise, probably meets most or all of Richard Murray's criteria, for a manager in Charlton's current price range. I don't know what those criteria are (and I would guess that no-one on CL knows either). But I would be prepared to guess that they include:
1. being able to assemble a competitive squad, within Charlton's current budget
2. being able to articulate what is required in up-coming transwer windows in order to plan recruitment
3. ensuring the football club includes minimal "wasted resource" (e.g. players like Thomas, Mou2, etc -talented, but disruptive)
4. ensuring the club meets pre-defined points targets at certain points of the season (Key Performance Indicators - KPIs)
I also would not know what those KPIs are, but I would also hazard a guess that they include being at, or close to, the play-off positions at this stage of the season.
So, measured on those criteria, he clearly *is* a good manager.
Other people may apply different criteria - you pays your money...
Longevity
I made a comment about longevity. Actually this was prompted by one of Curbs' interview answers where he said his longevity was one of the things he was most proud of. And, I think Charlton should also have been proud of that too. Maybe the point I made was not properly picked up. It was this: to have any kind of long-term success, a football club must havestability, and not chop and change their manager. Three times in Charlton's history, we have had a manager who, after two years could easily have been shown the door and replaced. Each time that decision would probably have gone un-criticised. And each time it would have been the wrong decision. So, in 1935, 1985 and 1997 we could have made a catastrophic decision, but fortunately chose to stick with a manager that turned out to be a genius.
I am not saying that this means Phil Parkinson will turn out to be as good a manager as any of those three. I am, however, saying two things:
1. if we sack him now, we will have failed to see any potential and, more importantly
2. even if we replace him with someone as good as Jimmy, Lennie or Curbs, we will almost certain be no better off in two years' time than we are now; and probably much worse off
Sussex_Addick quite rightly says you can't automatically assume that longevity breeds success. But, you also can't automatically assume that changing manager will produce any improvement (and recent history demonstrates the opposite is almost always true). He also asks: I would personally say that if the worst happened and we're flirting with relegation by Christmas, then his position would be untenable. I'd be interested what would be your own personal tolerance level, or do you believe in sticking with the manager by default?
My answer to that is that, like everyone else on CL, I am in the lucky position not to have to make that call! However, if I was in RM's position, I would ensure Parkey knew exactly where we had to be at regular intervals across the season (including league position, points total, cup draw, attendances and cashflow). So Parky would always know whether he's meeting, failing to meet or axceeding those targets. And probably mid-December would be one of the more important season land marks. I also think that Richard Murray is a genius at running businesses and would therefore ensure that his key management employee would know exactly what's expected of him to the letter.
So, in short, I would not wait until "x" date before making a "change-now" decision; I would monitor these KPIs throughout the season. And, if you were to ask me, I think Parky's probably at - or very close to - his targets.
DRF
I think you have this the wrong way round, you seem to be suggesting that these managers are the most successful because they were the longest serving.
I would suggest that they were the longest serving because they were the most successful.
The point I was making was that with Lawrence and Curbishley (less so with Seed) you could argue that they could (some would say should) have been sacked after about two years. In other words, thus far into their management they were not successful. It was only by giving them time that they became successful.
BournemouthAddick
I hope the ab ove goes some way to explain why I think he actually is a good manager.
ThreadKiller
so is parky just a good manager on the basis that we don't have a perfect candidate immediately lined up or is he a good manager in some other way that everyone is just keeping to themselves then?
Well i hope I have answered this. But it is also perfectly reasonable to compare. I think he's good; but who is the reasonable, logical alternative aginst whom to compare him? He's probably not as good as Alex Ferguson, Arsene Wenger or Fabio Capello, but we don't even know how good they would be under Charlton's current circumstances. So I think it's entirely reasonable to ask who his alternatives might be.
incorruptible addick
The quesion about extending his contract is a really good one! For me, I wouldn't do that now. But it would be clear that a contract offer would be in place as long as he meets the KPIs set out at the start of the season (which *might* include promotion).
oohahmortimer
(Well I have had a go at answering everony else's sensible comments; I might as well try the daft one as well). we made the biggest mistake in our history appointing him when we did
Selhurst. Dowie. Marcus Bent. Amady Faye. Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink. Hulyer. Chief Nzeribe. New England Tea Men. Broncos. Michael Turner. Simonsen. Rob Lee. Pardew. Catford.
we are lucky enough to have this 'nice bloke' in charge during the worse period in our history .........sorry?
Proud
These, of course, are just my views and I am no more entitled to them than anyone else with Charlton's history and future at heart. But I am quite proud that we can have an informed, educated, intersting debate about it. (I can imagine some of our neighbours either ripping up seats or having another go at scarfy).
I am too young to remember Jimmy Seed. But Lennie Lawrence and Alan Curbishley both succeeded, in part, because they were Charlton managers. I don't think either would have had the success they did at other clubs. In fact for both of them, management after Charlton was never so good. There was synergy between Charlton and its manager.
I would like to see Parky succeed. I think he's a very "Charlton" manager. An intelligent, patient, feet-on-the-gound type bloke. I think he deserves success and I am very sure that Richard Murray deserves it too. The club's more important than him and I think he knows that. So, for me it's more important that we succeed. So, if success can only be achieved after he's gone, then so be it. But I think Charlton and Parky can succeed together. And, more important, I think they will.
Up the Addicks!
Well done Chizz; you have articulated that nicely. It appears that most of the anti-Parky posters have failed to read the detail on pages 1 & 2 of this thread, because there are some excellent posts there setting out a number of reasons why a lot of supporters DO think that Parky is a good manager.
I am sad that this issue is causing such a huge split among our support. I have witnessed at least 2 punches being thrown at games where people, one of whom was me, had the temerity to disagree with a loudmouth buffoon shouting "Parky Out". The chump who threw a punch at me was quickly removed and has not been seen at any games since.
I will support Parky wholeheartedly until Richard Murray decides it is time for a change. I just wish some more of our supporters would actually get behind him instead of slagging him off at every opportunity.
Good post, Chizz. Thoughtful, logical and reasoned.
Only marred by your persisitence with this view:
''Three times in Charlton's history, we have had a manager who, after two years could easily have been shown the door and replaced. Each time that decision would probably have gone un-criticised. And each time it would have been the wrong decision. So, in 1935, 1985 and 1997 we could have made a catastrophic decision, but fortunately chose to stick with a manager that turned out to be a genius.''
Why could Jimmy Seed ''have easily been shown the door'' in 1935? He had just got Charlton promoted as champions in his second season in charge !
And why might we have wanted to sack Lennie after two seasons?
He took over from Ken Craggs on Nov 20, 1982 following a 5-1 home defeat. He won two of his first four games and kept us up in Div Two.
Parky took over from Pardew on Nov 20, 2008 following a 5-2 home defeat, failed to win a single game for months and got us relegated to Div Three.
And I don't understand the 1997 reference in relation to Curbishley. He'd been in charge for six years by then?
Crucially, there was a sense of progress during the early years of Seed, Lawrence and Curbishley. Under Parkinson that simply hasn't been the case.
Not going to dignify Red Pete's wind-up with a response...to characterise some very thoughtful posts here about Parkinson which have attempted rationally to discuss both his plus points and his shortcomings as ''slagging him off at every opportunity'' really lowers the tone of what has been an excellent and impressively non-rancourous debate.
Jints - nope, I don't think Parky will work for nothing.
I'm just trying to point out the sort of financial risk involved in changing managers. If we bring somebody new in on, say, - a three year contract, then that's a sum of money we're committed to paying regardless - i.e. if it all goes pear shaped and we have to sack him too, then would have to pay him off and start over again.
I'm sure there will be lots of people who will see this as negative or too cautious, but in our current financial situation, and when the manager we've got right now has already got us to within a point or two of where we're aiming for, why take that kind of risk?
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite] oohahmortimer
(Well I have had a go at answering everony else's sensible comments; I might as well try the daft one as well). we made the biggest mistake in our history appointing him when we did
Selhurst. Dowie. Marcus Bent. Amady Faye. Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink. Hulyer. Chief Nzeribe. New England Tea Men. Broncos. Michael Turner. Simonsen. Rob Lee. Pardew. Catford.
we are lucky enough to have this 'nice bloke' in charge duringthe worse period in our history.........sorry?
]
ok i shold have referred to biggest footballing mistake .....
12 games was fair for dowie..... hardly longevity is it
marcus bent, amady faye, jimmy floyd all came with reasonable reputations and failed
rob lee ?? the £750k sale that helped us get back to the valley wtf (still your other great manager who walked out on us lennie offered us £250k for him )
pardew the man that brought parky to the club
ok IF we're not taken up this year this will equal our worst "footballing period" in our history,imo, since we first left the third tier after entering it but becomes the worst, imo, due to the fact it is so close on the heels of relative success for us and parkys 20 months during pardews reign cannot be just swept under the carpet
Like most of the longer Parky debate threads in the last year and a half, what this has really shown is how hard a decision it is for Murray and the board. Even more so with their record of choosing managers.
[cite]Posted By: Scoham[/cite]Like most of the longer Parky debate threads in the last year and a half, what this has really shown is how hard a decision it is for Murray and the board. Even more so with their record of choosing managers.
exactly but one thing i would say most would agree on was that he should NEVER have been given the job in the first place when a new broom was required, his own failures with us make him a more attractive proposition IYKWIM
Good post Chizz and really getting to the heart of the mater. That it not to say that I agree, just that I have a clearer understanding now of where you are coming from. We are of course all different and the reason (not that you're probably interested) that I don't agree are these key points:
1. being able to assemble a competitive squad, within Charlton's current budget
I don't agree that the squad we have is as competitive on the pitch as it is on paper and I would have to blame that on the manager.
4. ensuring the club meets pre-defined points targets at certain points of the season (Key Performance Indicators - KPIs)
You do shy away a little on giving us your opinion on this and hide a little behind RAM being the person to decide but you do say
"but I would also hazard a guess that they include being at, or close to, the play-off positions at this stage of the season. "
On this I would disagree, I believe our goal for this season (and last) would be to be in the automatic or play-off promotion positions.
This season we are failing. Last season we came close but I think our expectations would have been much more weighted towards the automatic spots. Indeed we would have been in them if we have converted just one of the mediocre draws into a win.
So, yes it is close, but I believe Parky is falling short and has therefore not been successful and therefore not a good manager. Not, I might add, a terrible one, but not a good one. A good one could have seen us out of this league last season, a terrible one would have seen us out of the playoff spots last season. It's all relative as you point out.
I also still can't agree with the idea that Parky as a good or bad manager can be measured by what has transpired with other managers in other season, with other expectations and limitations.
But all in all, a good debate, where - as with most internet forums - no-one's mind will ever be changed!
I don't think we can really judge if Parky is succeeding or failing based on the league table this early on in the season.
If we had beaten Dagenham we'd have 2 more points and would be 5th, but the same concerns about Parky would still be there.
We've had an ok start when it comes to results (not so much performances). This early on when one result can make the season look better/worse, it's not so important exactly where we are, just close enough as a minimum. Of course that expectation changes as the season goes on and the league isn't so close.
Could say one of those draws or defeats could make all the difference come the end of the season (as we saw last season), but we have another 33 league games in which to get points in. If we're second sometime in the next month, I don't think you'd say Parky was failing but now he's succeeding, it will still be too early in the season for it to really mean anything.
[cite]Posted By: Scoham[/cite]I don't think we can really judge if Parky is succeeding or failing based on the league table this early on in the season.
Oddly not the view of the happy clappies when we made our winning start to last season.
[cite]Posted By: Scoham[/cite]If we had beaten Dagenham we'd have 2 more points and would be 5th, but the same concerns about Parky would still be there.
And if we'd drawn games against Carlisle and Notts we'd have 4 less, so not sure this is valid.
[cite]Posted By: Scoham[/cite]We've had an ok start when it comes to results (not so much performances). This early on when one result can make the season look better/worse, it's not so important exactly
where we are, just close enough as a minimum. Of course that expectation changes as the season goes on and the league isn't so close.
I think the real issue is that many people don't think losing against Exeter and Shrews (after being 3 up), getting absolutely battered by Brighton and drawing against Dagenham constitutes "ok". Maybe I've got a touch of the rose tints myself, but I think my club and the team that they can put out, are way better than that.
I guess after years of mismanagement I've just had enough of being told that I really ought to be more measured and waiting for yet more failure (at which point someone will be making some new excuses anyway).
Comments
The fact that we don't know who might replace Parky if he went -- and how could we? -- is not a reason for keeping him.
If we believe he is not the man to get the job done, he needs to be replaced.
Sure, there are no guarantees with a replacement.
But if the guarantee is someone that is not up to the task, then that guarantee is worth shelving. Better to go for it, and be wrong, than wallow in mediocrity without achievement.
Who the replacement is can not be answered until we know there is an opening.
The question here is not who should replace Parky, but why should we keep him?
There is a definite sentiment in some quarters to keep him. But beyond continuity and he was able to bring in 'some' positive hits on a shoestring, the case does not really fill me with greater confidence that he deliver promotion.
This is where I agree with Dave Rudd. His replacement has to be for the longer term. So because of that, it simply has to be someone proven in some way, probably a League One or Championship manager that has done a very good job with a smaller club.
Not just someone who might do better. As when Parky signed Reid, Dailly, Richardson etc, his biggest signings, someone we are very confident will do his job well.
It seems to me many are suggesting he is a good manager within the current constraints, actually
IA - Can you find anyone who has said he has to stay whatever happens??
Well, FM has just said above that if in the New Year we are nine points off sixth place, he should stay. Nine points off would probably put us 18th, or thereabouts, and closer to relegation than promotion. It seems there are people who would accept that - in effect, saying yes, he should stay however bad it gets.
Just looked at the table from last Xmas. The top six sides then were the six sides that went up or made the play-offs come the end of the season. And nine points off sixth place - a position FM argues would justify keeping Parkinson- was Oldham. In 19th place, just above the relegations spots.
Perhaps, Floyd, you could give us the scenario under which you would drop your insistence that he has to stay in the interests of continuity?
Its a world of difference to say I would have the opinion that he should stay if we are three wins off play offs
to you claiming that I am one of
is quite ridiculous and spoils the value of much of your reasoned contributions
Lets deal with your suppositions in the New Year shall we?
How bad does it have to get for other factors to over-ride the continuity-is-the-most important-thing argument (which I accept was more Chizz's line than yours...)
Hypothetical, yes. But no more so than your stated view that if we were nine points off sixth place come the beginning of Feb, he would have done enough to stay - even though mkaing the plays-offs would be exceedingly improbable (although obviously not mathematically impossible) from that position.
Despite the fact he's failed to reach any of his targets??
The way I see it, dumping Parky now would involve committing an awful lot of resources - probably three quarters of a million quid plus if you look at the cost of paying off Parky, bringing in another manager on a long-term contract, and potentially paying compo to other clubs. If we were in any danger of relegation, or if we were out of touch with the play-off places (let's say five or six points off the play-offs around Christmas time) that kind of financial risk would make sense, but doing it when we're only a point or two away from where we need to be... well it just seems to me like the potential benefits are outweighed by the potential for disaster.
LOL. Three quarters of a million quid. How much do you think Parky is on? How much do you think League 1 mamagers are paid ? And we all realise that tempting a Manager from another Club is NOT an option because of the need to pay compensation, unless their contract is close to running out.
I think this is the wrong question we should be asking. The question should be: will it get better if we hire a new manager? If that is unlikely, we should not replace Parky. If it is likely, we should replace him. Given our board's recent choices of manager (and I sort of include Parky in that bracket), I'm not sure we can rely on them to make the correct decision. I am still happier with PP as our manager than when Dowie, Reed or Pardew were in charge.
This is a very black and white way of looking at things. If every club were to look at it like this there would be even more sackings.
LOL. Three quarters of a million quid. How much do you think Parky is on? How much do you think League 1 mamagers are paid ? And we all realise that tempting a Manager from another Club is NOT an option because of the need to pay compensation, unless their contract is close to running out.[/quote]
Well I'm estimating that the salary for a 'big' League One club is going to be in the region of 150-200k, though happy to be corrected if you've got better info!
So my three quarters of a million quid is the amount we'd have to commit to spending if we gave somebody a three year contract, plus the amount we'd have to pay Parky for the rest of his contract, plus anything we'd have to pay to buy a new manager out of their contract with an existing club. I agree with you that getting somebody from another club is not an option, but others on this thread and elsewhere are championing managers who ARE currently with other clubs, including one or two Championship managers, so I'm just trying to point out what the financial outlay would be.
Some of these constraints seem to be imagined or exagerated though. We are not the poorest club in the league with the least amount of resources so this isn't really an excuse.
That's not a reason to keep Parky, but it'll cost more than just his contract.
You can't count the salary we'd pay for a manager for the next 3 years unless you think Parky will be willing to work for free for those years.
If the original question is a simple binary, yes/no question, then my answer is yes.
But it's also perfectly reasonable to compare Parky with whoever else might reasonably replace him. A bit like a car. My car, for instance is good enough for me. It's certainly not as good as the car I would like (Aston Martin DB9, in case anyone wants to know). But in my opinion, it's the best I can afford right now. If I were to change it, I would only be able to afford a car in the same price range. And I have (in my opinion) the best one in that range.
Parky, likewise, probably meets most or all of Richard Murray's criteria, for a manager in Charlton's current price range. I don't know what those criteria are (and I would guess that no-one on CL knows either). But I would be prepared to guess that they include:
1. being able to assemble a competitive squad, within Charlton's current budget
2. being able to articulate what is required in up-coming transwer windows in order to plan recruitment
3. ensuring the football club includes minimal "wasted resource" (e.g. players like Thomas, Mou2, etc -talented, but disruptive)
4. ensuring the club meets pre-defined points targets at certain points of the season (Key Performance Indicators - KPIs)
I also would not know what those KPIs are, but I would also hazard a guess that they include being at, or close to, the play-off positions at this stage of the season.
So, measured on those criteria, he clearly *is* a good manager.
Other people may apply different criteria - you pays your money...
Longevity
I made a comment about longevity. Actually this was prompted by one of Curbs' interview answers where he said his longevity was one of the things he was most proud of. And, I think Charlton should also have been proud of that too. Maybe the point I made was not properly picked up. It was this: to have any kind of long-term success, a football club must havestability, and not chop and change their manager. Three times in Charlton's history, we have had a manager who, after two years could easily have been shown the door and replaced. Each time that decision would probably have gone un-criticised. And each time it would have been the wrong decision. So, in 1935, 1985 and 1997 we could have made a catastrophic decision, but fortunately chose to stick with a manager that turned out to be a genius.
I am not saying that this means Phil Parkinson will turn out to be as good a manager as any of those three. I am, however, saying two things:
1. if we sack him now, we will have failed to see any potential and, more importantly
2. even if we replace him with someone as good as Jimmy, Lennie or Curbs, we will almost certain be no better off in two years' time than we are now; and probably much worse off
Sussex_Addick quite rightly says you can't automatically assume that longevity breeds success. But, you also can't automatically assume that changing manager will produce any improvement (and recent history demonstrates the opposite is almost always true). He also asks: I would personally say that if the worst happened and we're flirting with relegation by Christmas, then his position would be untenable. I'd be interested what would be your own personal tolerance level, or do you believe in sticking with the manager by default?
My answer to that is that, like everyone else on CL, I am in the lucky position not to have to make that call! However, if I was in RM's position, I would ensure Parkey knew exactly where we had to be at regular intervals across the season (including league position, points total, cup draw, attendances and cashflow). So Parky would always know whether he's meeting, failing to meet or axceeding those targets. And probably mid-December would be one of the more important season land marks. I also think that Richard Murray is a genius at running businesses and would therefore ensure that his key management employee would know exactly what's expected of him to the letter.
So, in short, I would not wait until "x" date before making a "change-now" decision; I would monitor these KPIs throughout the season. And, if you were to ask me, I think Parky's probably at - or very close to - his targets.
DRF
I think you have this the wrong way round, you seem to be suggesting that these managers are the most successful because they were the longest serving.
I would suggest that they were the longest serving because they were the most successful.
The point I was making was that with Lawrence and Curbishley (less so with Seed) you could argue that they could (some would say should) have been sacked after about two years. In other words, thus far into their management they were not successful. It was only by giving them time that they became successful.
BournemouthAddick
I hope the ab ove goes some way to explain why I think he actually is a good manager.
ThreadKiller
so is parky just a good manager on the basis that we don't have a perfect candidate immediately lined up or is he a good manager in some other way that everyone is just keeping to themselves then?
Well i hope I have answered this. But it is also perfectly reasonable to compare. I think he's good; but who is the reasonable, logical alternative aginst whom to compare him? He's probably not as good as Alex Ferguson, Arsene Wenger or Fabio Capello, but we don't even know how good they would be under Charlton's current circumstances. So I think it's entirely reasonable to ask who his alternatives might be.
incorruptible addick
The quesion about extending his contract is a really good one! For me, I wouldn't do that now. But it would be clear that a contract offer would be in place as long as he meets the KPIs set out at the start of the season (which *might* include promotion).
oohahmortimer
(Well I have had a go at answering everony else's sensible comments; I might as well try the daft one as well).
we made the biggest mistake in our history appointing him when we did
Selhurst. Dowie. Marcus Bent. Amady Faye. Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink. Hulyer. Chief Nzeribe. New England Tea Men. Broncos. Michael Turner. Simonsen. Rob Lee. Pardew. Catford.
we are lucky enough to have this 'nice bloke' in charge during the worse period in our history .........sorry?
Proud
These, of course, are just my views and I am no more entitled to them than anyone else with Charlton's history and future at heart. But I am quite proud that we can have an informed, educated, intersting debate about it. (I can imagine some of our neighbours either ripping up seats or having another go at scarfy).
I am too young to remember Jimmy Seed. But Lennie Lawrence and Alan Curbishley both succeeded, in part, because they were Charlton managers. I don't think either would have had the success they did at other clubs. In fact for both of them, management after Charlton was never so good. There was synergy between Charlton and its manager.
I would like to see Parky succeed. I think he's a very "Charlton" manager. An intelligent, patient, feet-on-the-gound type bloke. I think he deserves success and I am very sure that Richard Murray deserves it too. The club's more important than him and I think he knows that. So, for me it's more important that we succeed. So, if success can only be achieved after he's gone, then so be it. But I think Charlton and Parky can succeed together. And, more important, I think they will.
Up the Addicks!
I am sad that this issue is causing such a huge split among our support. I have witnessed at least 2 punches being thrown at games where people, one of whom was me, had the temerity to disagree with a loudmouth buffoon shouting "Parky Out". The chump who threw a punch at me was quickly removed and has not been seen at any games since.
I will support Parky wholeheartedly until Richard Murray decides it is time for a change. I just wish some more of our supporters would actually get behind him instead of slagging him off at every opportunity.
Only marred by your persisitence with this view:
''Three times in Charlton's history, we have had a manager who, after two years could easily have been shown the door and replaced. Each time that decision would probably have gone un-criticised. And each time it would have been the wrong decision. So, in 1935, 1985 and 1997 we could have made a catastrophic decision, but fortunately chose to stick with a manager that turned out to be a genius.''
Why could Jimmy Seed ''have easily been shown the door'' in 1935? He had just got Charlton promoted as champions in his second season in charge !
And why might we have wanted to sack Lennie after two seasons?
He took over from Ken Craggs on Nov 20, 1982 following a 5-1 home defeat. He won two of his first four games and kept us up in Div Two.
Parky took over from Pardew on Nov 20, 2008 following a 5-2 home defeat, failed to win a single game for months and got us relegated to Div Three.
And I don't understand the 1997 reference in relation to Curbishley. He'd been in charge for six years by then?
Crucially, there was a sense of progress during the early years of Seed, Lawrence and Curbishley. Under Parkinson that simply hasn't been the case.
Not going to dignify Red Pete's wind-up with a response...to characterise some very thoughtful posts here about Parkinson which have attempted rationally to discuss both his plus points and his shortcomings as ''slagging him off at every opportunity'' really lowers the tone of what has been an excellent and impressively non-rancourous debate.
I'm just trying to point out the sort of financial risk involved in changing managers. If we bring somebody new in on, say, - a three year contract, then that's a sum of money we're committed to paying regardless - i.e. if it all goes pear shaped and we have to sack him too, then would have to pay him off and start over again.
I'm sure there will be lots of people who will see this as negative or too cautious, but in our current financial situation, and when the manager we've got right now has already got us to within a point or two of where we're aiming for, why take that kind of risk?
Also Chizz - top post!
ok i shold have referred to biggest footballing mistake .....
12 games was fair for dowie..... hardly longevity is it
marcus bent, amady faye, jimmy floyd all came with reasonable reputations and failed
rob lee ?? the £750k sale that helped us get back to the valley wtf (still your other great manager who walked out on us lennie offered us £250k for him )
pardew the man that brought parky to the club
ok IF we're not taken up this year this will equal our worst "footballing period" in our history,imo, since we first left the third tier after entering it but becomes the worst, imo, due to the fact it is so close on the heels of relative success for us and parkys 20 months during pardews reign cannot be just swept under the carpet
exactly but one thing i would say most would agree on was that he should NEVER have been given the job in the first place when a new broom was required, his own failures with us make him a more attractive proposition IYKWIM
1. being able to assemble a competitive squad, within Charlton's current budget
I don't agree that the squad we have is as competitive on the pitch as it is on paper and I would have to blame that on the manager.
4. ensuring the club meets pre-defined points targets at certain points of the season (Key Performance Indicators - KPIs)
You do shy away a little on giving us your opinion on this and hide a little behind RAM being the person to decide but you do say
"but I would also hazard a guess that they include being at, or close to, the play-off positions at this stage of the season. "
On this I would disagree, I believe our goal for this season (and last) would be to be in the automatic or play-off promotion positions.
This season we are failing. Last season we came close but I think our expectations would have been much more weighted towards the automatic spots. Indeed we would have been in them if we have converted just one of the mediocre draws into a win.
So, yes it is close, but I believe Parky is falling short and has therefore not been successful and therefore not a good manager. Not, I might add, a terrible one, but not a good one. A good one could have seen us out of this league last season, a terrible one would have seen us out of the playoff spots last season. It's all relative as you point out.
I also still can't agree with the idea that Parky as a good or bad manager can be measured by what has transpired with other managers in other season, with other expectations and limitations.
But all in all, a good debate, where - as with most internet forums - no-one's mind will ever be changed!
If we had beaten Dagenham we'd have 2 more points and would be 5th, but the same concerns about Parky would still be there.
We've had an ok start when it comes to results (not so much performances). This early on when one result can make the season look better/worse, it's not so important exactly where we are, just close enough as a minimum. Of course that expectation changes as the season goes on and the league isn't so close.
Could say one of those draws or defeats could make all the difference come the end of the season (as we saw last season), but we have another 33 league games in which to get points in. If we're second sometime in the next month, I don't think you'd say Parky was failing but now he's succeeding, it will still be too early in the season for it to really mean anything.
Does that include his time as caretaker?
And if we'd drawn games against Carlisle and Notts we'd have 4 less, so not sure this is valid.
I think the real issue is that many people don't think losing against Exeter and Shrews (after being 3 up), getting absolutely battered by Brighton and drawing against Dagenham constitutes "ok". Maybe I've got a touch of the rose tints myself, but I think my club and the team that they can put out, are way better than that.
I guess after years of mismanagement I've just had enough of being told that I really ought to be more measured and waiting for yet more failure (at which point someone will be making some new excuses anyway).