Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- Harry Genshaw
- Legend
- Posts: 9109
- Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
- Location: Half dead in Panama
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
He's had it tough, no question and I'll always be grateful that he got us up in very difficult circumstances.
For me though, his times up now. He might have been shopping in the bargain basement but ultimately these are his players and he isn't getting enough out of them. We're sleepwalking towards a pathetic relegation. If we can afford to change let's do it. We really can't do any worse now
For me though, his times up now. He might have been shopping in the bargain basement but ultimately these are his players and he isn't getting enough out of them. We're sleepwalking towards a pathetic relegation. If we can afford to change let's do it. We really can't do any worse now
"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"
- Lost Leopard Spot
- Immortal
- Posts: 18436
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
- Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
For me, his time was up a long time ago. But the reality is (unless he walks) that we won't get rid of Parky until the end of his contract or Ken goes. I can't see him walking, I've no idea when his contract ends, and there's little chance of Ken disappearing anytime soon... So we're stuck with him.
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください
頑張ってください
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36137
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
He's on a rolling yearly contract....in effect at any point you'd have to pay him a year's salary.Lost Leopard Spot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:14 pmFor me, his time was up a long time ago. But the reality is (unless he walks) that we won't get rid of Parky until the end of his contract or Ken goes. I can't see him walking, I've no idea when his contract ends, and there's little chance of Ken disappearing anytime soon... So we're stuck with him.
- Lost Leopard Spot
- Immortal
- Posts: 18436
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
- Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
In that case we're stuck with him until he walks or Ken goes.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:30 pmHe's on a rolling yearly contract....in effect at any point you'd have to pay him a year's salary.Lost Leopard Spot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:14 pmFor me, his time was up a long time ago. But the reality is (unless he walks) that we won't get rid of Parky until the end of his contract or Ken goes. I can't see him walking, I've no idea when his contract ends, and there's little chance of Ken disappearing anytime soon... So we're stuck with him.
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください
頑張ってください
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43245
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
^^This.
Let's just suppose, hypothetically, that Parky went right now and us being where we are. Who, of any managerial consequence, would want the job with our financial situation and K.A as an employer and no spending money to strengthen the squad?
And if we were to avoid relegation, what happens in between seasons (no brass, so no trips to Abu Dabai and not even the certainty of a wage packet) ? What has to happen is that somehow, with the grace of God, we manage to start playing enough football to win a few games and points. None of the rest matters a damn right now. That's a simple basic fact that can't be argued with and needs no hypothesis. Carry on as we are and we'll be getting hammered by Rochdale, Blackpool and Fleetwood next season....if we're still around, that is.
Football is, always has been and always will be, about getting one goal more than your opponents in matches. The rest are just glitter and balls on the Christmas tree.
Let's just suppose, hypothetically, that Parky went right now and us being where we are. Who, of any managerial consequence, would want the job with our financial situation and K.A as an employer and no spending money to strengthen the squad?
And if we were to avoid relegation, what happens in between seasons (no brass, so no trips to Abu Dabai and not even the certainty of a wage packet) ? What has to happen is that somehow, with the grace of God, we manage to start playing enough football to win a few games and points. None of the rest matters a damn right now. That's a simple basic fact that can't be argued with and needs no hypothesis. Carry on as we are and we'll be getting hammered by Rochdale, Blackpool and Fleetwood next season....if we're still around, that is.
Football is, always has been and always will be, about getting one goal more than your opponents in matches. The rest are just glitter and balls on the Christmas tree.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36137
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
We are going down. The fight has gone. You can sense it. Even amongst fans there is an acceptance. The bigger worry is whether the football club survives. We lose several million a year now. Go down and that increases substantially. And we know Ken isn't going to fund the losses.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:58 pm^^This.
Let's just suppose, hypothetically, that Parky went right now and us being where we are. Who, of any managerial consequence, would want the job with our financial situation and K.A as an employer and no spending money to strengthen the squad?
And if we were to avoid relegation, what happens in between seasons (no brass, so no trips to Abu Dabai and not even the certainty of a wage packet) ? What has to happen is that somehow, with the grace of God, we manage to start playing enough football to win a few games and points. None of the rest matters a damn right now. That's a simple basic fact that can't be argued with and needs no hypothesis. Carry on as we are and we'll be getting hammered by Rochdale, Blackpool and Fleetwood next season....if we're still around, that is.
Football is, always has been and always will be, about getting one goal more than your opponents in matches. The rest are just glitter and balls on the Christmas tree.
-
- Dedicated
- Posts: 1713
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:53 pm
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
It is definitely getting to the point where going into administration and in one way or another coming out the other side is the best case scenario....BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:02 pmWe are going down. The fight has gone. You can sense it. Even amongst fans there is an acceptance. The bigger worry is whether the football club survives. We lose several million a year now. Go down and that increases substantially. And we know Ken isn't going to fund the losses.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:58 pm^^This.
Let's just suppose, hypothetically, that Parky went right now and us being where we are. Who, of any managerial consequence, would want the job with our financial situation and K.A as an employer and no spending money to strengthen the squad?
And if we were to avoid relegation, what happens in between seasons (no brass, so no trips to Abu Dabai and not even the certainty of a wage packet) ? What has to happen is that somehow, with the grace of God, we manage to start playing enough football to win a few games and points. None of the rest matters a damn right now. That's a simple basic fact that can't be argued with and needs no hypothesis. Carry on as we are and we'll be getting hammered by Rochdale, Blackpool and Fleetwood next season....if we're still around, that is.
Football is, always has been and always will be, about getting one goal more than your opponents in matches. The rest are just glitter and balls on the Christmas tree.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36137
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
Disagree. The best case scenario is Ken selling up to someone able to financially support us (if not bankroll us).bristol_Wanderer3 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:57 pmIt is definitely getting to the point where going into administration and in one way or another coming out the other side is the best case scenario....BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:02 pmWe are going down. The fight has gone. You can sense it. Even amongst fans there is an acceptance. The bigger worry is whether the football club survives. We lose several million a year now. Go down and that increases substantially. And we know Ken isn't going to fund the losses.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:58 pm^^This.
Let's just suppose, hypothetically, that Parky went right now and us being where we are. Who, of any managerial consequence, would want the job with our financial situation and K.A as an employer and no spending money to strengthen the squad?
And if we were to avoid relegation, what happens in between seasons (no brass, so no trips to Abu Dabai and not even the certainty of a wage packet) ? What has to happen is that somehow, with the grace of God, we manage to start playing enough football to win a few games and points. None of the rest matters a damn right now. That's a simple basic fact that can't be argued with and needs no hypothesis. Carry on as we are and we'll be getting hammered by Rochdale, Blackpool and Fleetwood next season....if we're still around, that is.
Football is, always has been and always will be, about getting one goal more than your opponents in matches. The rest are just glitter and balls on the Christmas tree.
I'll repeat, there are only two options now - Ken sells or admin. By the end of next season and likely sooner than that we'll be either be under new ownership or have been in admin. Those are the only two likely solutions.
- Lost Leopard Spot
- Immortal
- Posts: 18436
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
- Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
No - there aren't only two options. The option of Ken struggling on, not only IS currently occurring, is also just as likely as the other two to be a third option proceeding into the future.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:29 pmDisagree. The best case scenario is Ken selling up to someone able to financially support us (if not bankroll us).bristol_Wanderer3 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:57 pmIt is definitely getting to the point where going into administration and in one way or another coming out the other side is the best case scenario....BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:02 pmWe are going down. The fight has gone. You can sense it. Even amongst fans there is an acceptance. The bigger worry is whether the football club survives. We lose several million a year now. Go down and that increases substantially. And we know Ken isn't going to fund the losses.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:58 pm^^This.
Let's just suppose, hypothetically, that Parky went right now and us being where we are. Who, of any managerial consequence, would want the job with our financial situation and K.A as an employer and no spending money to strengthen the squad?
And if we were to avoid relegation, what happens in between seasons (no brass, so no trips to Abu Dabai and not even the certainty of a wage packet) ? What has to happen is that somehow, with the grace of God, we manage to start playing enough football to win a few games and points. None of the rest matters a damn right now. That's a simple basic fact that can't be argued with and needs no hypothesis. Carry on as we are and we'll be getting hammered by Rochdale, Blackpool and Fleetwood next season....if we're still around, that is.
Football is, always has been and always will be, about getting one goal more than your opponents in matches. The rest are just glitter and balls on the Christmas tree.
I'll repeat, there are only two options now - Ken sells or admin. By the end of next season and likely sooner than that we'll be either be under new ownership or have been in admin. Those are the only two likely solutions.
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください
頑張ってください
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36137
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
Ken struggling on likely becomes impossible upon relegation. Take a 6M hit (so he claims) on a 3M loss making business - that's a lot of cuts to make from somewhere. We've not much left to sell. I really don't see hit. He struck lucky with the Madine fee. Barring another miracle like that - there is a £9M hole to plug. And far less incentive to do it than there was last time IMHO.Lost Leopard Spot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:33 pmNo - there aren't only two options. The option of Ken struggling on, not only IS currently occurring, is also just as likely as the other two to be a third option proceeding into the future.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:29 pmDisagree. The best case scenario is Ken selling up to someone able to financially support us (if not bankroll us).bristol_Wanderer3 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:57 pmIt is definitely getting to the point where going into administration and in one way or another coming out the other side is the best case scenario....BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:02 pmWe are going down. The fight has gone. You can sense it. Even amongst fans there is an acceptance. The bigger worry is whether the football club survives. We lose several million a year now. Go down and that increases substantially. And we know Ken isn't going to fund the losses.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:58 pm^^This.
Let's just suppose, hypothetically, that Parky went right now and us being where we are. Who, of any managerial consequence, would want the job with our financial situation and K.A as an employer and no spending money to strengthen the squad?
And if we were to avoid relegation, what happens in between seasons (no brass, so no trips to Abu Dabai and not even the certainty of a wage packet) ? What has to happen is that somehow, with the grace of God, we manage to start playing enough football to win a few games and points. None of the rest matters a damn right now. That's a simple basic fact that can't be argued with and needs no hypothesis. Carry on as we are and we'll be getting hammered by Rochdale, Blackpool and Fleetwood next season....if we're still around, that is.
Football is, always has been and always will be, about getting one goal more than your opponents in matches. The rest are just glitter and balls on the Christmas tree.
I'll repeat, there are only two options now - Ken sells or admin. By the end of next season and likely sooner than that we'll be either be under new ownership or have been in admin. Those are the only two likely solutions.
-
- Dedicated
- Posts: 1713
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:53 pm
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
Well I was kind of dismissing the possibility of Ken selling up quickly, but I agree that is the best option. Unfortunately, I have become conditioned to hearing Ken's lame "I am talking to two parties" mantra as fake news, and if not, then after seeing some examples of the way Ken negotiates, very likely to fall through.
Ken struggling on is only viable for a month or two imho, unless someone wants to buy some of our players to the tune of £5m or so in the next week and a bit.
Ken struggling on is only viable for a month or two imho, unless someone wants to buy some of our players to the tune of £5m or so in the next week and a bit.
- Lost Leopard Spot
- Immortal
- Posts: 18436
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
- Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:44 pmKen struggling on likely becomes impossible upon relegation. Take a 6M hit (so he claims) on a 3M loss making business - that's a lot of cuts to make from somewhere. We've not much left to sell. I really don't see hit. He struck lucky with the Madine fee. Barring another miracle like that - there is a £9M hole to plug. And far less incentive to do it than there was last time IMHO.Lost Leopard Spot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:33 pmNo - there aren't only two options. The option of Ken struggling on, not only IS currently occurring, is also just as likely as the other two to be a third option proceeding into the future.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:29 pmDisagree. The best case scenario is Ken selling up to someone able to financially support us (if not bankroll us).bristol_Wanderer3 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:57 pmIt is definitely getting to the point where going into administration and in one way or another coming out the other side is the best case scenario....BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:02 pmWe are going down. The fight has gone. You can sense it. Even amongst fans there is an acceptance. The bigger worry is whether the football club survives. We lose several million a year now. Go down and that increases substantially. And we know Ken isn't going to fund the losses.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:58 pm^^This.
Let's just suppose, hypothetically, that Parky went right now and us being where we are. Who, of any managerial consequence, would want the job with our financial situation and K.A as an employer and no spending money to strengthen the squad?
And if we were to avoid relegation, what happens in between seasons (no brass, so no trips to Abu Dabai and not even the certainty of a wage packet) ? What has to happen is that somehow, with the grace of God, we manage to start playing enough football to win a few games and points. None of the rest matters a damn right now. That's a simple basic fact that can't be argued with and needs no hypothesis. Carry on as we are and we'll be getting hammered by Rochdale, Blackpool and Fleetwood next season....if we're still around, that is.
Football is, always has been and always will be, about getting one goal more than your opponents in matches. The rest are just glitter and balls on the Christmas tree.
I'll repeat, there are only two options now - Ken sells or admin. By the end of next season and likely sooner than that we'll be either be under new ownership or have been in admin. Those are the only two likely solutions.
Goodness knows what the end will be
Oh I don't know where I'm at
It looks as though we'll just shout
About something that that will come about
You say neither and I say either
You say either and I say neither
Neither, either, neither, either
Let's call the whole thing off
You like impossible, I'm like it's possible
I say it's possible, you say impossible
Possible, impossible, impossible, possible
Let's call the whole thing off
(Although what we all agree on is we need our very own Russian oligarch with fingers in mungbean pies, or similar).
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください
頑張ってください
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28658
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
A year's payout is unusually small. Not many managers are in the last year of their contract. Perhaps this is partly because they get paid less than players - they are economically not as important on the balance sheet - but as we all also know, it's often the case that you need to get rid of a manager much more quickly than a player.Lost Leopard Spot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:49 pmIn that case we're stuck with him until he walks or Ken goes.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:30 pmHe's on a rolling yearly contract....in effect at any point you'd have to pay him a year's salary.
And yet, even now, the ayes still don't have it on this poll. Perhaps if Parky didn't have the accidental (and unwanted) smokescreen of Ken Anderson's three-ring circus to distract attention, more of the fans who so volubly protested last night would have the manager in their sights. As it is, partly because Ken has become The Enemy, partly because that reflects sympathetically on a badly struggling manager, Parky is still (very!) arguably our most popular manager since Sam Allardyce. Imagine if he won a game more than once every two months...
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43245
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
Just purely for interest's sake and based on the B.N pictures, I wonder how many of the stated 2000 fans who marched around the stadium last night were regulat attendees or, S.T holders and not fist waving under eighteens and junior schoolkids there for the fun of it all? Just wondering?
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
-
- Promising
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:18 pm
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
Since jumping ship I have been ridiculed for not attending anymore but, I'm so glad I'm not subjected to that each week.
Make no mistake, Phill Parkinson is the source of the problems on field. His stubbornness to play two forwards is a frustration in itself. It isn't too late to rectify issues but, the powers that be are simply not interested in the teams performance hence Parky in charge.
Surely PP sees what we see (or does he?) Donaldson, for all his hard work will struggle to score playing as a single forward he needs a partner along side.
I know many Wanderers fans who share the same views and have now become as peed off as I got. PP continues to tell us to get behind the lads but you can shout until your blue in the face and it makes no difference. I watched the WBA game on TV and I couldn't fault the sides effort but the lack of quality was there for all to see. I'm sure despite the lack of quality some one that witnesses what we do can rectify things before it is too late. Who would replace PP we say? anyone from within the club could offer what we want, whats to lose?
Make no mistake, Phill Parkinson is the source of the problems on field. His stubbornness to play two forwards is a frustration in itself. It isn't too late to rectify issues but, the powers that be are simply not interested in the teams performance hence Parky in charge.
Surely PP sees what we see (or does he?) Donaldson, for all his hard work will struggle to score playing as a single forward he needs a partner along side.
I know many Wanderers fans who share the same views and have now become as peed off as I got. PP continues to tell us to get behind the lads but you can shout until your blue in the face and it makes no difference. I watched the WBA game on TV and I couldn't fault the sides effort but the lack of quality was there for all to see. I'm sure despite the lack of quality some one that witnesses what we do can rectify things before it is too late. Who would replace PP we say? anyone from within the club could offer what we want, whats to lose?
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36137
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
1) Are you going to pay Parky and his staff off? Because Ken sure as hell isn't.Athertonian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:06 amSince jumping ship I have been ridiculed for not attending anymore but, I'm so glad I'm not subjected to that each week.
Make no mistake, Phill Parkinson is the source of the problems on field. His stubbornness to play two forwards is a frustration in itself. It isn't too late to rectify issues but, the powers that be are simply not interested in the teams performance hence Parky in charge.
Surely PP sees what we see (or does he?) Donaldson, for all his hard work will struggle to score playing as a single forward he needs a partner along side.
I know many Wanderers fans who share the same views and have now become as peed off as I got. PP continues to tell us to get behind the lads but you can shout until your blue in the face and it makes no difference. I watched the WBA game on TV and I couldn't fault the sides effort but the lack of quality was there for all to see. I'm sure despite the lack of quality some one that witnesses what we do can rectify things before it is too late. Who would replace PP we say? anyone from within the club could offer what we want, whats to lose?
2) What's to lose? An inexperienced clueless flop like David Lee being in charge means we could lose an awful lot.
3) A new manager would need to be an inspirational genius to get us out of this. Those managers are in short supply and not queuing up to manage a penniless club with fans protesting against the owner and the owner taking jabs back.
-
- Promising
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:18 pm
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
I'm sure David lee will be a better option than what PP currently offers, he can't be any worse. Keep PP in place with his strange team selections will surely end up with relegation.
So the solution is to keep PP and go down. I stull believe with someone else at the helm things will change. They still pay PP and his staff and they still pay David Lee, whats to lose?
I'm sure a change would be welcome by those fans. No matter who you ask PP is the problem.
So the solution is to keep PP and go down. I stull believe with someone else at the helm things will change. They still pay PP and his staff and they still pay David Lee, whats to lose?
I'm sure a change would be welcome by those fans. No matter who you ask PP is the problem.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36137
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
Do you remember the fans baying for Mr positive Owen Coyle....look how bad that was.Athertonian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:34 amI'm sure David lee will be a better option than what PP currently offers, he can't be any worse. Keep PP in place with his strange team selections will surely end up with relegation.
So the solution is to keep PP and go down. I stull believe with someone else at the helm things will change. They still pay PP and his staff and they still pay David Lee, whats to lose?
I'm sure a change would be welcome by those fans. No matter who you ask PP is the problem.
The fact is that in the current situation with the squad we've got you can bring virtually any available manager in and it won't make a difference. It is incredibly naive to think it would. More naive however, to think you can promote Lee on his current salary whilst binning off Parky and his team. The real world simply doesn't work like that.
-
- Promising
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:18 pm
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
Looking back to when Coyle was manager we all know now what his style of management was.
As for this current regime I stand with my opinion that the team would get better results with someone less stubborn who will play two forwards and two wide men to get crosses in. As it stands PP believes this to be outdated. Should he continue to keep his formation not only the fans will become more peed off, the less likely they will be there next season.
Since I relinquished my ST I have had offers of free tickets to go but, I simply do not want to sit through any more of that shite they serve up. I never thought I'd ever get like this but by getting out the habit it will take a minor miracle to get me there again.
I still believe someone else can get better results than this stubborn guy.
As for this current regime I stand with my opinion that the team would get better results with someone less stubborn who will play two forwards and two wide men to get crosses in. As it stands PP believes this to be outdated. Should he continue to keep his formation not only the fans will become more peed off, the less likely they will be there next season.
Since I relinquished my ST I have had offers of free tickets to go but, I simply do not want to sit through any more of that shite they serve up. I never thought I'd ever get like this but by getting out the habit it will take a minor miracle to get me there again.
I still believe someone else can get better results than this stubborn guy.
- Lost Leopard Spot
- Immortal
- Posts: 18436
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 11:14 am
- Location: In the long grass, hunting for a watering hole.
Re: Should Phil Parkinson be sacked?
The Noes do still have it. It's incredibly frustrating (almost as much I presume as being a Remainer: Just imagine being both a Remainer and a Parkyouter!)Dave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:24 pmA year's payout is unusually small. Not many managers are in the last year of their contract. Perhaps this is partly because they get paid less than players - they are economically not as important on the balance sheet - but as we all also know, it's often the case that you need to get rid of a manager much more quickly than a player.Lost Leopard Spot wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:49 pmIn that case we're stuck with him until he walks or Ken goes.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:30 pmHe's on a rolling yearly contract....in effect at any point you'd have to pay him a year's salary.
And yet, even now, the ayes still don't have it on this poll. Perhaps if Parky didn't have the accidental (and unwanted) smokescreen of Ken Anderson's three-ring circus to distract attention, more of the fans who so volubly protested last night would have the manager in their sights. As it is, partly because Ken has become The Enemy, partly because that reflects sympathetically on a badly struggling manager, Parky is still (very!) arguably our most popular manager since Sam Allardyce. Imagine if he won a game more than once every two months...
As for how little it would cost Ken, I would turn the microscope around into a telescope, and state that Ken would only entertain 'negative' or at best neutral outgoings on this score...
That's not a leopard!
頑張ってください
頑張ってください
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: knobpolisher and 184 guests