I don't agree with a lot of Neillo's observations and comments but it was a lucid and cogent presentation of his views. My responses would be:

"Who would be a football club owner ? Not only does it almost certainly mean you have to be prepared to part with millions of your own hard earned money and expect never to see it again, but trying to please fans that have different expectations. You truly can't win."

The answer to this is simple: people who want to own a football club. There's no point buying a house in Hounslow if you don't like the sound of jumbo jets taking off, after all, and it's not like you're not getting involved with your eyes open when you buy your local team. People who would be football club owners are generally flamboyant, like the limelight, crave and enjoy attention, and don't mind spending their own money for the privilege. Though Steve Parrish, Ron Noades, Simon Jordan, and Mark Goldberg were very different individuals, all shared those traits. In a word, people who would be football club owners are highly ego-driven. They do it for themselves, not to please the fans -- and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, lest you assume I'm being critical when I'm not. So of course they win...do you think Steve doesn't enjoy the game he's playing and the role he has now? Of course he bloody does. Turning up on HoL at 10pm on a Saturday night shows you exactly how much.

Steve Parish jointly saved our club. He then - uniquely - decides to interact with the fans via this site and the BBS....and then gets critisised by some for doing so ! Incredible !

He's neither the first nor the last sports team owner to speak directly to the supporters. I would agree that he is in a minority, but what he did is far from unique. That is not to discredit him for doing it, but merely to state a fact. With regard to getting criticised, I'm sorry, but you open your mouth and participate in an exchange and in my book that makes you fair game. We should not be expected to go mute simply because Steve speaks to us.
The questions re GB being given the sack were answered carefully and I thought left GB with his dignity intact. If my boss had sacked me and then had to publicly discuss it, that would be the way I would want it handled.

I thought they were handled minimally and dismissively, myself. And if my boss had sacked me, I would prefer that he kept both his own and my dignity intact by making no comment on the situation in public whatsoever. Put simply, it wasn't necessary for anything to be said about the departure.

Those that referred to GB's alleged drinking habits are deluding themselves if they thought SP would rise to that bait by even alluding to it. And if GB enjoyed a drink and Palace were top of the league would there be any reference to it at all ?

I agree with your first point. I disagree with the second one. I wouldn't want a successful alcoholic or an unsuccessful alcoholic running my club equally because either way, it would only end in tears. For proof, see Clough, Brian.

For obvious reasons SP couldn't say too much about the next appointment - it is unrealistic to expect him to. And of course he is going to be selective with the questions he answered...he'd still be on here now if he's answered every one fully, and while it's all very well asking '' Juicy '' questions, there is only so much that can be revealed about what happens behind closed doors in any business.

You're quite right, so as he had neither the ability nor the intention of saying anything that was substantive or really interesting, why come on in the first place? For the answer, see my response to your first point. Because he had a captive audience and owning a football club is all about ego is why. What Steve has is people's attention, and like any self-respecting marketer, last night he used it.

Football is of course a game of opinions and I respect other people's point of view....but I don't understand how some on here can accuse SP and Co of making a '' knee jerk '' decision. Look at our league position, away record and points tally. That's done and can't be changed. Then look at the manager and ask yourself if you think he's capable of turning things around. I saw nothing to suggest he could.

Although I personally wouldn't have fired Burley I agree with your observations above and I don't think the decision was a knee-jerk one. I'm quite sure the owners laboured long and hard over it, even if I think they ended up in the wrong place.

Those pro-Burley folks on here that have been saying we should back the manager / 2010 should get over their disappointment and now get behind SP and Co. in what happens next. I

Agree, and I hope most will.

But there is the nucleus of a half decent team already in place. It just needs organising properly so that we become more robust and harder to beat.

I hope this is true but I'm not so sure it is. The table doesn't lie.

Good post, Neillo. We might not see the world the same way but that's what makes it interesting.

I don't agree with a lot of Neillo's observations and comments but it was a lucid and cogent presentation of his views. My responses would be:

"Who would be a football club owner ? Not only does it almost certainly mean you have to be prepared to part with millions of your own hard earned money and expect never to see it again, but trying to please fans that have different expectations. You truly can't win."

The answer to this is simple: people who want to own a football club. There's no point buying a house in Hounslow if you don't like the sound of jumbo jets taking off, after all, and it's not like you're not getting involved with your eyes open when you buy your local team. People who would be football club owners are generally flamboyant, like the limelight, crave and enjoy attention, and don't mind spending their own money for the privilege. Though Steve Parrish, Ron Noades, Simon Jordan, and Mark Goldberg were very different individuals, all shared those traits. In a word, people who would be football club owners are highly ego-driven. They do it for themselves, not to please the fans -- and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, lest you assume I'm being critical when I'm not. So of course they win...do you think Steve doesn't enjoy the game he's playing and the role he has now? Of course he bloody does. Turning up on HoL at 10pm on a Saturday night shows you exactly how much.

Steve Parish jointly saved our club. He then - uniquely - decides to interact with the fans via this site and the BBS....and then gets critisised by some for doing so ! Incredible !

He's neither the first nor the last sports team owner to speak directly to the supporters. I would agree that he is in a minority, but what he did is far from unique. That is not to discredit him for doing it, but merely to state a fact. With regard to getting criticised, I'm sorry, but you open your mouth and participate in an exchange and in my book that makes you fair game. We should not be expected to go mute simply because Steve speaks to us.

The questions re GB being given the sack were answered carefully and I thought left GB with his dignity intact. If my boss had sacked me and then had to publicly discuss it, that would be the way I would want it handled.

I thought they were handled minimally and dismissively, myself. And if my boss had sacked me, I would prefer that he kept both his own and my dignity intact by making no comment on the situation in public whatsoever. Put simply, it wasn't necessary for anything to be said about the departure.

Those that referred to GB's alleged drinking habits are deluding themselves if they thought SP would rise to that bait by even alluding to it. And if GB enjoyed a drink and Palace were top of the league would there be any reference to it at all ?

I agree with your first point. I disagree with the second one. I wouldn't want a successful alcoholic or an unsuccessful alcoholic running my club equally because either way, it would only end in tears. For proof, see Clough, Brian.

For obvious reasons SP couldn't say too much about the next appointment - it is unrealistic to expect him to. And of course he is going to be selective with the questions he answered...he'd still be on here now if he's answered every one fully, and while it's all very well asking '' Juicy '' questions, there is only so much that can be revealed about what happens behind closed doors in any business.

You're quite right, so as he had neither the ability nor the intention of saying anything that was substantive or really interesting, why come on in the first place? For the answer, see my response to your first point. Because he had a captive audience and owning a football club is all about ego is why. What Steve has is people's attention, and like any self-respecting marketer, last night he used it.

Football is of course a game of opinions and I respect other people's point of view....but I don't understand how some on here can accuse SP and Co of making a '' knee jerk '' decision. Look at our league position, away record and points tally. That's done and can't be changed. Then look at the manager and ask yourself if you think he's capable of turning things around. I saw nothing to suggest he could.

Although I personally wouldn't have fired Burley I agree with your observations above and I don't think the decision was a knee-jerk one. I'm quite sure the owners laboured long and hard over it, even if I think they ended up in the wrong place.

Those pro-Burley folks on here that have been saying we should back the manager / 2010 should get over their disappointment and now get behind SP and Co. in what happens next. I

Agree, and I hope most will.

But there is the nucleus of a half decent team already in place. It just needs organising properly so that we become more robust and harder to beat.

I hope this is true but I'm not so sure it is. The table doesn't lie.

Good post, Neillo. We might not see the world the same way but that's what makes it interesting.