I was firmly of the view that Phil Parkinson was going to go whatever the results, the players and Christian Dailly made it easier for the board to make that change after his first match under the takeover.
Apparently after the game there was heated discussion amongst board members (rumour and speculation), so maybe the departure was brought forward. One positive (from my point of view, I realise that others feel Parkies departure was a massive positive for the club) was that the new Board had a vision and that they would be decisive and ruthless in executing it there and then.
That was nearly two weeks ago, still we have no manager, Eddie Howe being the only name that was firmly in the frame and he backed away from South London.
So if my conspiracy against Parkie theory is true then why was an instant replacement not lined up and why did we suffer the ignominy of a 33 year old novice turning us down, after all we are on the up, unlike Palace who are looking down and going down.
Was the sacking of Parkinson a knee jerk reaction to a poor result, with a a feeble excuse of results not being good enough since an 11 match un beaten run and over a period of postponed games in December. The implications, if this is the case, are that we are going to be on a roller coaster where the board react to the manager on a match to match basis and increasingly interfere with the team.
I hope that the decision was based up on a plan, which maybe was brought forward and hence the mess we are in, otherwise the financial stability that this anonymous group have brought in will be undermined by short term over reaction to events of each day.