Mike Ashley approval rating

[manc-mag 1]

I voted no as I don't like him but I approve of his strategy in it's present guise but dislike his attitude towards the fans. That conditional approval of the current strategy is based on my own supposition of what that is, as no one knows for sure. It's that lack of communication that pisses me off the most. The reason I give a nuanced response is because I certainly approve of Pardew, Colo as our captain and the rest of the lads. As much as we are loathe to admit it, someone needs a pat on the head for appointing Pardew as it was far from an obvious or popular choice.

January'll be 'interesting' like. We've never been in this sort of position before under Ashley, in terms of league position and, arguably, playing personnel and coaching staff, scouting network etc. Even if it's just hanging onto what we have and tying down Coloccini on a new deal it'll be a big step in the right direction. If we can bring in a couple of first teamers then even more so. I'd go along with manc-mag's practical views on the Tiote situation too. I.e. his leaving could be acceptable under the right circumstances.

 

Colo is massive for so many reasons. It's entirely separate to the 'sell for a profit' debate, he could actually go simply because we don't offer to renew his wages. That wouldn't be evidence of us as being a 'selling club' (although it would be portrayed that way) it would simply confirm what is largely suspected about there being a wage cap (I would reckon at circa £50k). That then absolutely establishes the tone for how long we keep any player for-the answer simply being until anyone else is prepared to offer them more than (ie £50k pw). That in turn gives a good indication of the teams that are actually capable of coming in and offering for a player.

 

Colo would be an absolutely huge loss from a footballing point of view and the biggest argument I can think of for operating a discretion to depart from the wage cap in certain instances (in his case possibly attempting to justify it on the basis it's not an improved deal, it's just giving him parity and to offer less would be a disincentive and perverse given performance). How well that would go down in reality though with the rest of the team is another matter altogether. I suspect not well at all for fairly obvious reasons.

He might stay for less money imo. Not saying you could offer him half what he's on and he'd turn around and accept it but if he's enjoying life here and (most importantly) the team is being strengthened with additions then I could see him signing a new deal more or less in line with the wage cap you mention.

 

I would absolutely love that to be true and he should be offered every bonus under the sun if it did prove to be the case. A 'captains loyalty bonus' lump sum after year x wouldn't be a bad idea, as concocted sham wage deals go.

[ewerk 26441]

He appointed Pardew and Pardew is doing a great job (at present). Whether the decision was lucky or inspired (or both) is largely immaterial to me.

 

I think there's an argument to be made that their enthusiasm for a top flight job, having thought they were finished, can be worth twice what someone like Mark Hughes would bring. As much as Ashley deserves pillorying for appointing Kinnear, he deserves credit for Pardew...but both were total risks, based on cost rather than ability.

 

Again, no. If I go and buy a lottery ticket and win the jackpot, does that make me the world's most astute investor or does it make me incredibly lucky?

 

There are no guarantees though. At the moment I'm much happier with Pardew than I ever was with "proven quality" like Allardyce or Souness.

 

Of course there are no guarantees with any appointment but you can look at most successful appointments and see the rationale behind them. Ashley didn't sit down and take a balanced look at where we're at and then scour the world for the right manager, he appointed the guy he knew from the casino. It isn't much more complicated than that.

 

Looking back it appeared more likely to fail than to succeed but Ashley has gotten lucky, he isn't reaping the benefits of an inspired decision.

[Monkeys Fist 38804]

Three in the yes camp- it's nee sitter/stander debate tbf

[ewerk 26441]

He might stay for less money imo. Not saying you could offer him half what he's on and he'd turn around and accept it but if he's enjoying life here and (most importantly) the team is being strengthened with additions then I could see him signing a new deal more or less in line with the wage cap you mention.

 

I would absolutely love that to be true and he should be offered every bonus under the sun if it did prove to be the case. A 'captains loyalty bonus' lump sum after year x wouldn't be a bad idea, as concocted sham wage deals go.

 

Isn't that sort of what was offered to Nolan? Less money but an end of season bonus dependent on where we finished.

[ewerk 26441]

Three in the yes camp- it's nee sitter/stander debate tbf

 

Though I'm fairly sure that a venn diagram would reveal that all three of the yes men are standers.

[McFaul 35]

Appointing Pardew was little more inspired than appointing Kinnear tbh. Neither were anything more than cheaper options who'd gladly tow the line to get an opportunity back in the game. Our start doesn't mean Ashley saw anything in the bloke the rest of us didn't.

I think Pardew has a better reputation in football than that mate, but yeah, it wasn't an inspired decision that he made after deliberating and agonising over the options.

Has he? I think he has now, but sacked from West Ham, sacked from Charlton, sacked from Southampton. Goes through players wives more frequently than Kevin goes through clean underpants. His CV is hardly glittering.

[McFaul 35]

Are the three who voted yes going to own up as to who they are?

[Guest alex]

He appointed Pardew and Pardew is doing a great job (at present). Whether the decision was lucky or inspired (or both) is largely immaterial to me.

 

I think there's an argument to be made that their enthusiasm for a top flight job, having thought they were finished, can be worth twice what someone like Mark Hughes would bring. As much as Ashley deserves pillorying for appointing Kinnear, he dereves credit for Pardew...but both were total risks, based on cost rather than ability.

I'm not sure I agree. Kinnear was reputed to be on a lot of money, with an additional big bonus if we stayed up. Now, I'm not suggesting for a second it was a good decision, it was a crazy decision at the time and in even dafter in retrospect. I still struggle to believe he did it when I think about it sometimes. As for Pardew, bringing him in and getting rid of Hughton was more expensive than just keeping Hughton until the end of the season.

I totally accept both decisions were risky (and I didn't agree with either of them) but the logic that it was done purely to save money doesn't quite add up for me.

 

I don't think Kinnear was anywhere close to Keegan money....or Hughton was close to Shearer money after going down. Giving Pardew a 5 year contract was cheaper than improving Hughton's for 5 years when he was far exceeding expectations.

 

Adds up from where I'm standing.

Fair enough, I'm not crediting him with genius planning or anything. Kinnear was just plain daft, but giving Hughton the gig then would've been cheaper. I also think he thought Pardew was the man for the job (or would be a better bet than Hughton anyway). I think money was a consideration but he was probably just as concerned with getting in someone he thought wouldn't rock the boat and was prepared to work within the constraints at the club too. It's difficult to make sense of most of his decisions like.

[Monkeys Fist 38804]

if they don't, name and shame mods

[Happy Face 29]

He appointed Pardew and Pardew is doing a great job (at present). Whether the decision was lucky or inspired (or both) is largely immaterial to me.

 

I think there's an argument to be made that their enthusiasm for a top flight job, having thought they were finished, can be worth twice what someone like Mark Hughes would bring. As much as Ashley deserves pillorying for appointing Kinnear, he deserves credit for Pardew...but both were total risks, based on cost rather than ability.

 

Again, no. If I go and buy a lottery ticket and win the jackpot, does that make me the world's most astute investor or does it make me incredibly lucky?

 

There are no guarantees though. At the moment I'm much happier with Pardew than I ever was with "proven quality" like Allardyce or Souness.

 

Of course there are no guarantees with any appointment but you can look at most successful appointments and see the rationale behind them. Ashley didn't sit down and take a balanced look at where we're at and then scour the world for the right manager, he appointed the guy he knew from the casino. It isn't much more complicated than that.

 

Looking back it appeared more likely to fail than to succeed but Ashley has gotten lucky, he isn't reaping the benefits of an inspired decision.

 

He's reaping the benefits of his decision though. Whatever the rationale for it. Elsewhere in the thread you'll see I'm in total agreement that he deserves no credit for his rationale at that time, despite others trying to suggest he saw something in Pardew none of us could see, but when a risk is paying off you have to hold your hands up and recognise the achievement, despite expectation.

[manc-mag 1]

He might stay for less money imo. Not saying you could offer him half what he's on and he'd turn around and accept it but if he's enjoying life here and (most importantly) the team is being strengthened with additions then I could see him signing a new deal more or less in line with the wage cap you mention.

 

I would absolutely love that to be true and he should be offered every bonus under the sun if it did prove to be the case. A 'captains loyalty bonus' lump sum after year x wouldn't be a bad idea, as concocted sham wage deals go.

 

Isn't that sort of what was offered to Nolan? Less money but an end of season bonus dependent on where we finished.

 

Not sure exactly but I wouldn't make it dependent on league finish in Colo's case, I mean something you could tell him as an absolute contractual certainty. Entirely concocted but it's a way around it that lets him sign for less without being massively worse off ultimately.

 

I'm all for win (performance) bonuses generally, across the team but it's something else I'd be thinking of in the case of Colo specifically. I hope theyre doing mental gymnastics trying to think of ways to make it financially non-derisory for him while not contradicting policies they've set out to other players during their own recent negotiations.

[ewerk 26441]

He's reaping the benefits of his decision though. Whatever the rationale for it. Elsewhere in the thread you'll see I'm in total agreement that he deserves no credit for his rationale at that time, despite others trying to suggest he saw something in Pardew none of us could see, but when a risk is paying off you have to hold your hands up and recognise the achievement, despite expectation.

 

I'm not sure what the achievement is though, is it just recognition that he got lucky?

 

On the other hand he sacked a manager who had stabilised the club and was doing a great job, his decision could have just as easily seen us go into meltdown and end up relegated. As his decisions had done two years previously.

 

I'll recognise that he's a risk-taker but I won't give him any credit for it.

[ChezGiven 0]

The 'luck' angle is full of shit because it only holds up if you think that no effort was made in his appointment. Basically it says he met Pardew in a casino and thought yeah, fuck it, let's bring him in and see what happens. The only event that possibly supports this bizarre and unheard of decision-making process is the appointment of Kinnear. If you've ever sat in on senior management appointments they are never made in haste in any big organisation. Whether Ashley is an idiot from a footballing perspective is irrelevant here. The corporate culture of SD will have determined his how he recruits and without doubt, a rigorous process is used to appoint senior managers in SD. If you want to argue otherwise against that I want to see your CV as it's fucking nonsense to suggest otherwise.

 

So that still leaves us with Kinnear, how could he have rigorous recruitment processes and still appoint him? A question I have asked myself. The answer is, no-one wanted the job and he had no time to leave the position open. He was desperate and had to find someone within a week or two. Pardew on the other hand, as we all know was 'tapped up' many weeks if not months before he was appointed. Rather than indicating that Pardew is a bastard as the more one-eyed of you wanted to say, it actually just proves what I am saying is correct. This was a decision that they took their time over and one that they wanted to make. As Alex rightly points out, it was more expensive than keeping Hughton and was another piece of the 'Moneyball' type strategy which we have seen with the player recruitment. Pardew has a good reputation in the game and was known for his tactical and man-management skills, just because it's gone better than expected does not mean that the appointment was luck.

[ewerk 26441]

He might stay for less money imo. Not saying you could offer him half what he's on and he'd turn around and accept it but if he's enjoying life here and (most importantly) the team is being strengthened with additions then I could see him signing a new deal more or less in line with the wage cap you mention.

 

I would absolutely love that to be true and he should be offered every bonus under the sun if it did prove to be the case. A 'captains loyalty bonus' lump sum after year x wouldn't be a bad idea, as concocted sham wage deals go.

 

Isn't that sort of what was offered to Nolan? Less money but an end of season bonus dependent on where we finished.

 

Not sure exactly but I wouldn't make it dependent on league finish in Colo's case, I mean something you could tell him as an absolute contractual certainty. Entirely concocted but it's a way around it that lets him sign for less without being massively worse off ultimately.

 

I'm all for win (performance) bonuses generally, across the team but it's something else I'd be thinking of in the case of Colo specifically. I hope theyre doing mental gymnastics trying to think of ways to make it financially non-derisory for him while not contradicting policies they've set out to other players during their own recent negotiations.

 

Anything like that could not be a contractual entitlement though, there'd have to be some form of qualification such as a certain number of appearances to be made. If his form goes down the shitter then the last thing we want is a player determined to hang on until the end of his contract purely to collect his loyalty bonus.

[Guest alex]

When you boil it down he replaced a manager who was doing well with one who has performed even better. That deserves credit. Daft to argue otherwise imo.

[Happy Face 29]

He's reaping the benefits of his decision though. Whatever the rationale for it. Elsewhere in the thread you'll see I'm in total agreement that he deserves no credit for his rationale at that time, despite others trying to suggest he saw something in Pardew none of us could see, but when a risk is paying off you have to hold your hands up and recognise the achievement, despite expectation.

 

I'm not sure what the achievement is though, is it just recognition that he got lucky?

 

On the other hand he sacked a manager who had stabilised the club and was doing a great job, his decision could have just as easily seen us go into meltdown and end up relegated. As his decisions had done two years previously.

 

I'll recognise that he's a risk-taker but I won't give him any credit for it.

 

I just think it's fair. If you slate every decision irrespective of outcome then you're just Leazes

[ewerk 26441]

The 'luck' angle is full of shit because it only holds up if you think that no effort was made in his appointment. Basically it says he met Pardew in a casino and thought yeah, fuck it, let's bring him in and see what happens. The only event that possibly supports this bizarre and unheard of decision-making process is the appointment of Kinnear. If you've ever sat in on senior management appointments they are never made in haste in any big organisation. Whether Ashley is an idiot from a footballing perspective is irrelevant here. The corporate culture of SD will have determined his how he recruits and without doubt, a rigorous process is used to appoint senior managers in SD. If you want to argue otherwise against that I want to see your CV as it's fucking nonsense to suggest otherwise.

 

So that still leaves us with Kinnear, how could he have rigorous recruitment processes and still appoint him? A question I have asked myself. The answer is, no-one wanted the job and he had no time to leave the position open. He was desperate and had to find someone within a week or two. Pardew on the other hand, as we all know was 'tapped up' many weeks if not months before he was appointed. Rather than indicating that Pardew is a bastard as the more one-eyed of you wanted to say, it actually just proves what I am saying is correct. This was a decision that they took their time over and one that they wanted to make. As Alex rightly points out, it was more expensive than keeping Hughton and was another piece of the 'Moneyball' type strategy which we have seen with the player recruitment. Pardew has a good reputation in the game and was known for his tactical and man-management skills, just because it's gone better than expected does not mean that the appointment was luck.

 

I have to disagree totally. Look at his appointments and dismissals and tell me which ones looked to be to be the result of a carefully thought out plan?

 

Keegan was out of left field and was always destined for disaster given the way that Ashley wanted to run the club. Kinnear was just bizarre. Shearer's appointment was out of desperation and Hughton's appointment was the easiest one possible.

 

I have yet to see one ounce of good decision making from Mike Ashley, his plan appears to be cut costs until a point where we're operations are running at break even level.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

Now I'm not being funny Happy Face, but where's the 50 Cent option?

[ewerk 26441]

When you boil it down he replaced a manager who was doing well with one who has performed even better. That deserves credit. Daft to argue otherwise imo.

 

If I bet my house on a flip of a coin and win then do I deserve credit for that? Or was it a risky act of gambling?

[Guest alex]

When you boil it down he replaced a manager who was doing well with one who has performed even better. That deserves credit. Daft to argue otherwise imo.

 

If I bet my house on a flip of a coin and win then do I deserve credit for that? Or was it a risky act of gambling?

Just like the lottery ticket thing, it's a daft analogy tbh.

[manc-mag 1]

He might stay for less money imo. Not saying you could offer him half what he's on and he'd turn around and accept it but if he's enjoying life here and (most importantly) the team is being strengthened with additions then I could see him signing a new deal more or less in line with the wage cap you mention.

 

I would absolutely love that to be true and he should be offered every bonus under the sun if it did prove to be the case. A 'captains loyalty bonus' lump sum after year x wouldn't be a bad idea, as concocted sham wage deals go.

 

Isn't that sort of what was offered to Nolan? Less money but an end of season bonus dependent on where we finished.

 

Not sure exactly but I wouldn't make it dependent on league finish in Colo's case, I mean something you could tell him as an absolute contractual certainty. Entirely concocted but it's a way around it that lets him sign for less without being massively worse off ultimately.

 

I'm all for win (performance) bonuses generally, across the team but it's something else I'd be thinking of in the case of Colo specifically. I hope theyre doing mental gymnastics trying to think of ways to make it financially non-derisory for him while not contradicting policies they've set out to other players during their own recent negotiations.

 

Anything like that could not be a contractual entitlement though, there'd have to be some form of qualification such as a certain number of appearances to be made. If his form goes down the shitter then the last thing we want is a player determined to hang on until the end of his contract purely to collect his loyalty bonus.

 

It's not perfect but then I don't imagine a perfect solution exists. What you say is right but then it might be a couple of million down the drain. The alternative (match his pay and then ultimately have to bring everyone else up to Colo's level of wages over time (or at least half the first team), as would probably be inevitable) might cost an extra £12 million a season, so that won't happen. My point is simply that every option should be explored in his case as the 'risk' associated is worth it.

 

Theres ways and means to make it a contractual certainty, that of itself isn't an issue at all.

[ewerk 26441]

He's reaping the benefits of his decision though. Whatever the rationale for it. Elsewhere in the thread you'll see I'm in total agreement that he deserves no credit for his rationale at that time, despite others trying to suggest he saw something in Pardew none of us could see, but when a risk is paying off you have to hold your hands up and recognise the achievement, despite expectation.

 

I'm not sure what the achievement is though, is it just recognition that he got lucky?

 

On the other hand he sacked a manager who had stabilised the club and was doing a great job, his decision could have just as easily seen us go into meltdown and end up relegated. As his decisions had done two years previously.

 

I'll recognise that he's a risk-taker but I won't give him any credit for it.

 

I just think it's fair. If you slate every decision irrespective of outcome then you're just Leazes

 

It's all about the reasoning and rationale behind such decisions and with the Pardew scenario that reasoning was flawed and simply more evidence that he has not learned his lesson at all.

[ewerk 26441]

It's not perfect but then I don't imagine a perfect solution exists. What you say is right but then it might be a couple of million down the drain. The alternative (match his pay and then ultimately have to bring everyone else up to Colo's level of wages over time (or at least half the first team), as would probably be inevitable) might cost an extra £12 million a season, so that won't happen. My point is simply that every option should be explored in his case as the 'risk' associated is worth it.

 

Theres ways and means to make it a contractual certainty, that of itself isn't an issue at all.

 

Sorry, it would have been better to phrase it as 'should not' rather than 'could not'.

 

My answer is to find out whatever the fuck Spurs are doing and copy it.

[ewerk 26441]

When you boil it down he replaced a manager who was doing well with one who has performed even better. That deserves credit. Daft to argue otherwise imo.

 

If I bet my house on a flip of a coin and win then do I deserve credit for that? Or was it a risky act of gambling?

Just like the lottery ticket thing, it's a daft analogy tbh.

 

My point was that it was a needless gamble. Yes it paid off but it could have turned out disastrously. I'd rather that such unnecessary risks weren't taken with the club.

[ChezGiven 0]

You are kidding me ewerk? Llambias is a slimy cunt, a perfect appointment to absorb all the negative flack, he doesn't want a popular chairman, he wants a punchball. A shit appointment for us, clever for him. Keegan, went wrong but could have been a success if it handnt been for his mistake in appointing Wise. Shearer, didn't work out but was a popular choice. Hughton worked out well, Graham Carr has been a success, Carver, Stone and Beardsley have been good appointments and so has Pardew.

 

You don't need to see a carefully thought out strategy from day one to understand that appointments going better than they were anticipated does not equate to luck, it equates to good decision making.