As we've seen lately, discussions about the manager seem to bring about a lot of tension and disagreement. Some love Pardew, some don't. But I wonder if we should be talking about the length of time we should be giving any manager of the club?

Say what you will about Arsenal and Wenger, they have enjoyed a sustained period of competence/excellence. Man U. stuck with Ferguson, and were greatly rewarded for it - and they have struggled for stability ever since he left. Contrast that with, say, Newcastle or Villa who can't ever stick with a manager, and it seems to me that it's a good idea to aim for continuity.

Let's say for the sake of argument we are not talking about Pardew but about any manager: how long is too long if we are struggling? Do we stick with a manager no matter what, or get rid of them if everything goes too far South?

Personally, I have a lot of patience (and hope). But I understand if others are more demanding - that is not a bad thing. For me, I would stay with a manager even through relegation. I would be okay with allowing a manager to stay as long as they brought us right back up. After that, I'd knock it on the head and start again.

Stealing their women and eating their food since 1987.

The amount of time given to any manager who is struggling to get results is down to the directors of the club.

We can all guess, many have supposed ITK pals and most of us will read the newspapers or social media reports at some time or another (and not have a clue as to their veracity). However, we really know nothing of what is going on behind the scenes.

If a manager has 'lost the dressing room' then the Board will know long before we do. If the club rules are being ignored or getting lax then the Board will know before we do. If any number of issues relating to results are not being addressed then the Board will know before we do.

It therefore comes down mainly to what the Board think of the way things are being managed throughout the squad. It is they who will know if there is a problem or if poor results are something that will inevitably change for the better if we stick to whoever is the boss at the time.

Therefore, IMO, there is no specific length of time a manager is given, that is simply a 'how long is a piece of string' question.

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made. Groucho Marx

The same could also be said of Moyes during his long spell at Everton.

As is always the case during a long stint there are peaks and troughs...but that's largely due to the time it takes for a Manager to stamp his own identity on a club, its playing style, staff and recruitment.

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

For what it's worth, and before anyone comes in with an emotive opinion, I completely agree with you. I'm more in the pro-Pardew camp than the anti, he still has a lot to do to prove himself in my eyes, but, like you, I agree with being a bit patient.

I agree that patience is called for as a Manager is not able to predict injuries which take key players out. Pardew has his heart in Palace unlike previous managers like Bruce and Pulis!

In terms of managers they have had 4 managers in the last 5 years : Adkins, Pochettino, Koeman and now Puel.

Their 'Director of football', Les Reed does very well behind the scenes.

Also they have the infrastructure in place : Good ground, academy, scouting, analysis etc etc.

Edited by Willo (23 Sep 2016 10.35am)