Give me one reason why Parkinson should keep his job.

Up until the Leeds game we actually had a better record without Madine than with him. And £6m was way more than he was worth, it had to be accepted.

Some people seem to be making the Madine saga as the whole reason we are going down, but players getting sold or long term injured is part of football. No, we're going down because the manager has failed to make the best of what he has.

Don’t blame ken for selling, very good money. 

It’s simply not true to say it’s part of management though. A well run club who aren’t absolutely desperate wouldn’t sell without a plan in place. Selling your most important player has an affect, even if it’s just limiting the options available to you.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Don’t blame ken for selling, very good money. 

It’s simply not true to say it’s part of management though. A well run club who aren’t absolutely desperate wouldn’t sell without a plan in place. Selling your most important player has an affect, even if it’s just limiting the options available to you.

Any club outside of the big Premier League clubs would have sold their "best" striker if the offer was more than double his perceived value. Even if they had no replacement.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Don’t blame ken for selling, very good money. 

It’s simply not true to say it’s part of management though. A well run club who aren’t absolutely desperate wouldn’t sell without a plan in place. Selling your most important player has an affect, even if it’s just limiting the options available to you.

Madine handed in a transfer request the week before deadline day, the club had ample time to get like for like, whether that be Parkinson's or Kens fault we don't know, however what I have seen from the likes of Sunderland, they are integrating kids into the first team readying them for next season, and they're doing ok, Parkinson doesn't have the bottle to do the same, starting with Wilbraham is an absolute joke, he's a waste of a shirt, Hall, and or Obasi would be a better option, but Parkinson knows best.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:Don’t blame ken for selling, very good money. 

It’s simply not true to say it’s part of management though. A well run club who aren’t absolutely desperate wouldn’t sell without a plan in place. Selling your most important player has an affect, even if it’s just limiting the options available to you.

Any club outside of the big Premier League clubs would have sold their "best" striker if the offer was more than double his perceived value. Even if they had no replacement.

Sorry but that is just completely untrue. Clubs rarely sell unless there’s a plan in place and time to get a replacement in.

MartinBWFC wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:Don’t blame ken for selling, very good money. 

It’s simply not true to say it’s part of management though. A well run club who aren’t absolutely desperate wouldn’t sell without a plan in place. Selling your most important player has an affect, even if it’s just limiting the options available to you.

Madine handed in a transfer request the week before deadline day, the club had ample time to get like for like, whether that be Parkinson's or Kens fault we don't know, however what I have seen from the likes of Sunderland, they are integrating kids into the first team readying them for next season, and they're doing ok, Parkinson doesn't have the bottle to do the same, starting with Wilbraham is an absolute joke, he's a waste of a shirt, Hall, and or Obasi would be a better option, but Parkinson knows best.

Of course we know who’s responsible for transfers, it’s the Andersons this is no secret.

Again you are just inventing things here - you’ve never seen Obasi play, or Hall I’d imagine. How do you know they’re a better option? Neither of them are a target man either.

T.R.O.Y wrote:
Sorry but that is just completely untrue. Clubs rarely sell unless there’s a plan in place and time to get a replacement in.

So in a nutshell you believe we should have kept a player who's head was turned by a better offer? then let him go for nothing at the end of the season, think I'd trust Kens judgement over yours.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Sorry but that is just completely untrue. Clubs rarely sell unless there’s a plan in place and time to get a replacement in.

Of course it's true. If someone offered £300m for Mo Salah Liverpool would probably sell.

Money talks in football.

T.R.O.Y wrote:
Of course we know who’s responsible for transfers, it’s the Andersons this is no secret.

Again you are just inventing things here - you’ve never seen Obasi play, or Hall I’d imagine. How do you know they’re a better option? Neither of them are a target man either.

Inventing? what are you going on about? I have seen enough of Wilbraham to know he's a waste of a shirt, how could putting Obasi and Hall on the bench instead of Wilbraham and Buckley be detrimental to the team? you don't need to see a professional footballer to know they must be better than them two.

MartinBWFC wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:Don’t blame ken for selling, very good money. 

It’s simply not true to say it’s part of management though. A well run club who aren’t absolutely desperate wouldn’t sell without a plan in place. Selling your most important player has an affect, even if it’s just limiting the options available to you.

Madine handed in a transfer request the week before deadline day, the club had ample time to get like for like, whether that be Parkinson's or Kens fault we don't know, however what I have seen from the likes of Sunderland, they are integrating kids into the first team readying them for next season, and they're doing ok, Parkinson doesn't have the bottle to do the same, starting with Wilbraham is an absolute joke, he's a waste of a shirt, Hall, and or Obasi would be a better option, but Parkinson knows best.

And the six million pound striker couldn't score an equalizer with an extra time penalty kick.

MartinBWFC wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:
Sorry but that is just completely untrue. Clubs rarely sell unless there’s a plan in place and time to get a replacement in.

So in a nutshell you believe we should have kept a player who's head was turned by a better offer? then let him go for nothing at the end of the season, think I'd trust Kens judgement over yours.

Getting a bit fed up with you not reading comments. I’ve said multiple times selling was the right thing to do we need the money. But that doesn’t change the fact the most important player was sold by Anderson and no plan in place for the aftermath.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:Sorry but that is just completely untrue. Clubs rarely sell unless there’s a plan in place and time to get a replacement in.

Of course it's true. If someone offered £300m for Mo Salah Liverpool would probably sell.

Money talks in football.

I’m sure they would, but not before getting a replacement. Dembele /Neymar /Barca /PSG is a case in point.

MartinBWFC wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:
Of course we know who’s responsible for transfers, it’s the Andersons this is no secret.

Again you are just inventing things here - you’ve never seen Obasi play, or Hall I’d imagine. How do you know they’re a better option? Neither of them are a target man either.

Inventing? what are you going on about? I have seen enough of Wilbraham to know he's a waste of a shirt, how could putting Obasi and Hall on the bench instead of Wilbraham and Buckley be detrimental to the team? you don't need to see a professional footballer to know they must be better than them two.

You’re inventing that Obasi is a better option, you haven’t seen him play. He’s also not a target man, which is what we actually need.

T.R.O.Y wrote:I’m sure they would, but not before getting a replacement. Dembele /Neymar /Barca /PSG is a case in point.

Not sure why you're using two of the richest clubs in the world to make your point.

Liverpool sold Coutinho because it was a silly amount of money. They didn't replace him.

Unless you're City, PSG etc you have to accept that sometimes you're going to lose your best player to a sale or injury. You can't use it as an excuse for being shit.

T.R.O.Y wrote:
You’re inventing that Obasi is a better option, you haven’t seen him play. He’s also not a target man, which is what we actually need.

You don't half chat some shit, Wilbraham offers less than fuck all, so how could putting a 20 year old or Obasi  on the bench be detrimental I asked, you don't seem to be able to offer any answers, target man or not Wilbraham is dogshit, not hard to improve on.

It does seem a bit mental to bring Obasi on board and not at least have him on the bench.

Coutinho didn’t need to be replaced their system doesn’t use a 10. In relative terms Madine’s worth to us was higher. 

Losing Madine isn’t the sole reason we’re struggling (obviously) but I think it highlights the shit sandwich PP had been handed. By all rights we should be getting relegated this year, I’ve said that since the beginning of the season. So I just can’t knock him when he has us in the position we are in.

MartinBWFC wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:
You’re inventing that Obasi is a better option, you haven’t seen him play. He’s also not a target man, which is what we actually need.

You don't half chat some shit, Wilbraham offers less than fuck all, so how could putting a 20 year old or Obasi  on the bench be detrimental I asked, you don't seem to be able to offer any answers, target man or not Wilbraham is dogshit, not hard to improve on.

No need to start getting aggressive. I haven’t said it would be detrimental, you need to read my posts. All I’ve said is you have no basis at all to say he’s a better option, he could be the worst footballer in the world. 

I don’t rate Wilbraham at all - but we don’t have another target man in the squad so I see why he’s getting chances at least.

Natasha Whittam wrote:It does seem a bit mental to bring Obasi on board and not at least have him on the bench.

After yesterday's debacle, Obasi and Hall can't be worse than a 38-year old in front.

T.R.O.Y wrote:We could (and IMO should) be doing worse than we are, this squad and our resources should have us bottom 3 incredible that we’re not. 

This argument has been trotted out a lot but I have wonder on what basis you come to this conclusion seeing as there are 5 Championship teams with a lower  squad value than us? 
On top of that, history has shown time and time again that money isn't everything and that less expensive players can win against more expensive ones providing that they are organised properly, adopt a system that plays to their strengths and are given the motivation to perform to the best of their ability.
It's easy to blame the players especially when they come from the bargain basement, but I find it hard to see what the manager contributes because I don't believe he has them organised properly, playing a system that plays to their strengths or are motivated to perform to their best.
So to turn the question slightly, where is the evidence that Parky is doing any of these things?