Pardew was in charge of charlton when they were in trouble, and he was in charge of them as they were relegated AND he was in charge of them for a full season and more in the championship, so trying to take away any blame is just feeble. If you had just said "pardew never done well at charlton" then you would have showed yourself to be making fair points, instead you took the feeble option and used feeble excuses to shift blame away from Pardew. At least the Newcastle fan admitted Pardew had failures and in turn suggested he learned from them, thats the right way to go about it. Anyhow, this is all getting rather tedious and everyone has made their points so its best to end the discussion.
lennypops Southampton: First season they have a 10-point deduction but they still nearly make the play-off places in League One. They also win the Football League Trophy. To be fair, they also spend a lot of money. He's sacked the next summer, not sure why. ...shagging someone's missus....seriously....he's serial shagger...seriously!...he's just not newsworthy though, well it was, but no-one was interested really.
Oh yeah - right. That was then, was it? If attractive women are a distraction for him could this explain his success at Newcastle? (Sorry - cheap shot I couldn't resist).
...and I'll start the countdown now for the indignant first mention of Cheryl Cole or someone else from Girls Aloud.
As far as I'm aware, you guys don't seem to have the financial muscle at the moment to compete with the likes of Man Utd, Chelsea, Man City and so on. There's been some HEAVY spending in some years, but a lot of it has involved book balancing as well. For that reason, I'm not even sure if it's the wisest move to bring in one of these 'big name' managers who are so used to spending ****ing fortunes on players. When have they ever shown (or when have they ever needed to show) anything in-terms of value for money deals? When the sky is the limit they can just slap down the cash for the superstar footballers without much thought. Pardew, on the other hand, has built his success around great value for money, so just imagine combining his knack for that with the larger budget Spurs has compared to Newcastle. He's in quite a similar mould to Arsene Wenger, who has always got value for money out of Arsenal's comparatively lower budget. Personally I'd love to see what Pardew could do when given a squad of Spurs' calibre. He's a modern manager with modern tactics and a fan of continental flair which makes for some great attacking football with the right players. Looking at your team, I think it would fit him like a glove and he would do rather well.
My posting on here will make 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% difference to whether Spurs will hire him or not (which they won't) so I have full freedom to admit that he would be a good fit for your side. If I was having a chat with Daniel Levy, I might be a little more coy.
Thought I'd better just set the record straight about Spurs'/Arsenal's spending. With regards wages Spurs are (on last available data) 7th in the Prem. Spurs spend about £70m a year, Arsenal about £110 or something. Oh - here's the numbers. From the 09-10 season I think: http://www.myfootballfacts.com/PremierLeagueFinances.html Teams like Chelsea, Man Utd, Man City spend twice as much as us on wages, never mind transfer fees. You'd be surprised at how net transfer spends compare regarding Arsenal, Spurs too. Can't be bothered to do all the sums (again) but it's really not that different. Though after last summer it might look more favourable for Arsenal. Point is that Wenger only does stuff on a shoestring budget with regards to transfer fees and only when compared to City, Man Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea. Cos Arsenal spend a ****-load more than us and every other Prem club every season.
This is from someone's blog, but the figures are based upon Deloitte's, so they should be accurate: please log in to view this image Small budget? Not really.
I absolutely agree. We've tried the "big name" manager approach, and it's never worked for us. Indeed, on too many occasions it's almost been the death of us, as recent experiences have proven. "Big" is always beautiful, in football.
Where'd you get those figures from? I've never seen one where the wages of Newcastle were higher than Spurs. Also every comparison I've seen have had Liverpool often above Arsenal. The Guardian publish them every year. Here's last year's: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/05/18/sportscribddoc.pdf Forgot to bookmark this year's - maybe someone can find a link. Also this website is excellent for all things regarding football finances: http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/ That's not where you got that graph from is it, PNP?
Aye, and the reason is he doesn't match our ambitions, it has nothing to do with him being a big name, or not, if Pardew is to get the big jobs he has to have consistent success in the top flight over the next 2 years before any club will consider him. Before the start of the season would anyone here have touted Pardew for the spurs job if redknapp went? Of course not, yet he has been a manager since 1999, yet one good season with Newcastle and now fans are over rating, when they never rated him before. Also, i took this from an article Now were was all Pardews "great tactical nous" back then? did he keep it in a shoebox under his bed saving it for the newcastle job? i mean try and be honest and accept pardew hasn't done enough to warrant all this praise he is getting and if he is as good as you believe he is, then next season he will prove it, won't he?
I got it from a random blog, Lenny. Looks accurate to me and I generally pay a bit of attention to the figures. Here's a link to another blog with figures that also appear accurate, also using the Deloitte figures, which compares Arsenal and Liverpool's wages: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2011/09/exclusive-liverpool-vs-arsenal-wage.html Arsenal's have generally been higher for the 2000s, though the Scousers have overtaken them recently. This Guardian link, which uses the Deloitte figures again, shows the wages for the 07/08 season. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/table/2009/jun/03/premier-league-turnover-wages-debt Spurs: £52.9m, Newcastle: £74.6m. Much, much higher than ours and they were relegated the following year, too. Ashley's done quite a few things wrong at Newcastle, but he saved them financially, as far as I can see.
City's have gone through the roof, of course, but Newcastle's are harder to get hold of, unfortunately. Ashley seems to have given them a more sensible budget though, so you'd expect a drop. West Ham's were higher than ours a couple of years ago.
Whaaa?! OK - here's the figures from that excellent Swiss Rambler Blog: So I was wrong about Newcastle. Blimey - football finance is a very smoke and mirrors affair, isn't it. But apparently West Ham's wages have not been higher than Spurs' in the last few years. you weren't thinking about Aston Villa were you?
Oh - those tables are just a bit too small aren't they? Sorry. If you click on them you'll see a larger version.
West Ham's were higher in 2008, Lenny. £63.3m to £52.9m. The tables are a little off because West Ham's miss a year or two, as they're not in the Premier League.
I stand corrected (by my own tables). Rushing a little when I put them up and didn't read them properly. Jesus. Christ.
