I don't know the exact numbers of Liege players on loan throughout the network but I don't hear of any other Duchatelet managers getting the chop within a couple of months of the club being purchased. I fully understand why Riga was brought in. I await the clubs explanations of why not Riga for next season and why Peeters. As many have noted Ajdarevic made a key contribution to us staying up. The other network players appear to have been overvalued and the championship underestimated.
If you were trying to solve a crime one of the things you'd want to understand is motive.
What nobody has explained is what Duchatelet would be seeking to achieve if he forced his Coaches and/or Managers to play network signings who simply aren't good enough for the team they've joined.
How does such an approach add value, exactly? Why would he do it?
I have still not seen a satisfactory explanation.
This explanation may not rate as "satisfactory", but I'd still be interested in how you'd punch holes in it :-)
Well, while I basically agree with your overall scepticism, there is one rational business answer, at least as to why they were sent. They were removed from Standard's wage bill. They were added to our wage bill, but were probably cheaper than targets CP had, or wished to keep. That is an assumption about how The Network organises its cost of labour, but its a reasonable one (and of course you identified that other Standard players are out on loan in the network). If they then had playing time, and CAFC had improved their results with them playing, it would have been an early vindication of his - unproven - network strategy.
I could say that I hadn't seen your explanation, but I have to confess that I had. It may be right, of course, but I wasn't convinced.
1) I guess we don't know how the arrangements are organised when players move from one Club within the network to another, but clearly if they stay within the network there is no cost saving, simply a right pocket, left pocket transfer of cost. Contrast this with the loan of a player to a Club outside the network. Here there is a net cost saving and this is the logical thing to do with a player who is surplus to requirements, if that player can't be sold or is needed long-term.
2) There is, however, an obvious potential synergy to share back up players. Let's use goalkeepers as an example. Each Club in the network needs two GK for each match, one to start and one for the bench. Operating independently each Club may decide to have three competent keepers on the books, a clear inefficiency. Within the network, however, that third goalkeeper might be shared between, say, three or more Clubs. For example, Charlton take Thuram on loan because the alternative to sit on the bench is a kid. However, in this situation there would be no pressure to play the loanee. The objective is satisfied simply by providing somebody to sit on the bench in an emergency without incurring incremental cost. There might well be some logic in this though it wouldn't be much fun for the player shipped around and requires the player to be of the required standard.
Note: This is just an example. I'm sure Duchatelet expected Thuram to be good enough to play.
3) Intra network loans make the most sense when a player surplus to short-term requirements at a "senior" Club moves to a "junior" Club where he is good enough to play and improve the side. Astrit Ajdarevic might be a good example. Or perhaps Joe Gomez to Sint-Truiden where there may be a win-win if he gets the chance to play. As you suggest, an additional benefit here is that the receiving Club is improved without incurring additional cost at the network level. Its not hard to imagine Duchatelet seeing this as a very attractive proposition. However, he may now have realised that it's not going to be easy to make this work. Since an important part of the objective in this case is to improve the receiving Club it would not make any sense to insist that players "not good enough" play.
4) Another potential use of intra network loans may be more focused on the player than the receiving Club and there might be two variants of this. The first is the so-called "shop window" strategy. There's certainly some merit in this idea and the perceived value of Astrit Ajdarevic is probably higher today than it might have been had he been stuck in Standard's B Team, but that's because he showed his quality. I wonder, however, what's happened to Thuram's transfer value, at least in England? Being in the shop window is a double edged sword. The second possibility is player development. It makes sense to move young players around in order to assist their development, though they're not likely to develop if they are out of their depth. In any event, the controversy appears to have been about Thuram, and perhaps Reza, rather than Koc, for example.
Even where the primary focus of a loan is the player rather than the receiving Club, we shouldn't forget that Duchatelet has an important stake in the latter. In our case, it's hard to understand how the benefits, whatever they might be, of "forcing" sub-standard players into Charlton's first team could outweigh the financial consequences of relegation.
All in all, while I can see that Duchatelet may see intra network loans as a key part of his strategy, especially under 3) above perhaps, I really can't see the net value in insisting that players not good enough for the receiving team play anyway.
Finally, I'd need a lot of convincing that the explanation for the "noise" around all of this isn't a very simple one. Duchatelet thought, wrongly, that the players moved to Charlton in January were good enough and would improve the side. When they weren't picked he then assumed, again wrongly, that Chris Powell was simply being difficult or making a point. It really isn't hard to imagine how this might have happened and it has nothing to do with Yes Men, X Men or Mr Men.
Just my view.
A thoughtful post as ever MF.
However, I'm not sure about the explanation in your final paragraph. As I've posted on another thread, as early as February 20th in the round of interviews he gave, Duchatelet said of the players that had left and those recruited from the ‘network:
“We had some talks with the players [Kermorgant and Stephen] to offer them a new contract but we couldn’t agree and so consequently they left.
“That’s always a balancing act. In this case they left the club, we brought in some other players and maybe they are not so good but in football this is always a problem”.
While in the same interviews praising Powell as a coach and announcing:
“We are discussing right now to renew his contract for the coming years…I hope we can reach an agreement soon.”
I guess we'll never know quite what happened in the weeks running up to Chris Powell's departure from the Club - we'll never get to hear Duchatelet's version that's for sure - but I too find it hard to reconcile the noise and rumour around their relationship with the statement above.
I do wonder whether Duchatelet ever really intended to retain Powell beyond the end of last season. There is a bit of a paradox here. Given what we now know I'd conclude that if Duchatelet was trying to retain Chris Powell he was making a big mistake. It was never going to work. Perhaps he was always going to be damned if he did and damned if he didn't?
As far as Stephens and Kermorgant are concerned, I suspect the explanation is much more straightforward. Stephens wanted out, it seems, and it made sense to cash in. As far as Kermorgant was concerned, Duchatelet wasn't prepared to pay the asking price (including contract length) and so he went too. Our owner, it seems, intends to retain robust financial discipline and when our better players move on, for whatever reason, their replacements, at least initially, are not going to be as good. I don't think there is any more to it than that. Even if Diego Poyet signs a new contract, he's unlikely to stay long and when he leaves his replacement won't be as good. Duchatelet is simply saying that this is how it works.
Operating sustainably in the bottom half of the Championship is, of course, no easy matter and this is probably Duchatelet's initial, primary focus. However, the real challenge is how the Club progresses within this paradigm. How do we ever develop a squad with Play-Off potential if the owner is not going to "speculate to accumulate"? I imagine that be believes that the answer is to have a strong academy and to acquire players with a view to developing and improving them. I'd be surprised, therefore, if we sign many established, proven players. If we do it will be to provide balance and experience rather than being central to the development of the squad. Having the right Head Coach and one that is completely aligned with the Club's strategic goals is key to this potentially risky approach.
All speculation, but I guess it keeps us interested and entertained!!
I think we will need to see some activity (which could happen tbf) for it to be scary. Scary would be good as it will mean we have all these unknown players who could come good. As things have happened so far, I won't be scared, more resigned! I pray for scared!
I guess we'll never know quite what happened in the weeks running up to Chris Powell's departure from the Club - we'll never get to hear Duchatelet's version that's for sure - but I too find it hard to reconcile the noise and rumour around their relationship with the statement above.
I do wonder whether Duchatelet ever really intended to retain Powell beyond the end of last season. There is a bit of a paradox here. Given what we now know I'd conclude that if Duchatelet was trying to retain Chris Powell he was making a big mistake. It was never going to work. Perhaps he was always going to be damned if he did and damned if he didn't?
As far as Stephens and Kermorgant are concerned, I suspect the explanation is much more straightforward. Stephens wanted out, it seems, and it made sense to cash in. As far as Kermorgant was concerned, Duchatelet wasn't prepared to pay the asking price (including contract length) and so he went too. Our owner, it seems, intends to retain robust financial discipline and when our better players move on, for whatever reason, their replacements, at least initially, are not going to be as good. I don't think there is any more to it than that. Even if Diego Poyet signs a new contract, he's unlikely to stay long and when he leaves his replacement won't be as good. Duchatelet is simply saying that this is how it works.
Operating sustainably in the bottom half of the Championship is, of course, no easy matter and this is probably Duchatelet's initial, primary focus. However, the real challenge is how the Club progresses within this paradigm. How do we ever develop a squad with Play-Off potential if the owner is not going to "speculate to accumulate"? I imagine that be believes that the answer is to have a strong academy and to acquire players with a view to developing and improving them. I'd be surprised, therefore, if we sign many established, proven players. If we do it will be to provide balance and experience rather than being central to the development of the squad. Having the right Head Coach and one that is completely aligned with the Club's strategic goals is key to this potentially risky approach.
All speculation, but I guess it keeps us interested and entertained!!
I make you right in general, but my concern lies in the highlighted bit above. I would agree with this in principle, but you don't sell your best players and bring in worse if your team is already short of being competitive at its level. We got lucky - Poyet turned out to be a decent replacement for Stephens, albeit without the goals.
It's a bit like managing a forest. Over the long term you have enough forest to allow you to rotate clearing sections for logging, regeneration, etc, and it will regrow over time. But doing this before your forest is big, strong or mature enough to sustain this practice and you'll not have the resources to remain viable.
During Curbs' reign we were always prone to our best players leaving. In fact, as long as I've supported Charlton this has been the case, although we were powerful enough in our Prem days to be able to poach lesser clubs' players and to take a gamble with a little money. We were rarely strengthened as a result, Danny Mills's departure being the most obvious example where we strengthened the squad by selling one player (Dean Kiely and Graham Stuart just two of the arrivals, if memory serves).
So I have no issues with being a selling club - but if this approach is to succeed, it requires a good foundation and time to grow. Fingers crossed.
Comments
However, I'm not sure about the explanation in your final paragraph. As I've posted on another thread, as early as February 20th in the round of interviews he gave, Duchatelet said of the players that had left and those recruited from the ‘network:
“We had some talks with the players [Kermorgant and Stephen] to offer them a new contract but we couldn’t agree and so consequently they left.
“That’s always a balancing act. In this case they left the club, we brought in some other players and maybe they are not so good but in football this is always a problem”.
While in the same interviews praising Powell as a coach and announcing:
“We are discussing right now to renew his contract for the coming years…I hope we can reach an agreement soon.”
http://www.southlondon-today.co.uk/sport.cfm?id=6042&headline=Charlton owner Roland Duchâtelet confirms Powell talks
I guess we'll never know quite what happened in the weeks running up to Chris Powell's departure from the Club - we'll never get to hear Duchatelet's version that's for sure - but I too find it hard to reconcile the noise and rumour around their relationship with the statement above.
I do wonder whether Duchatelet ever really intended to retain Powell beyond the end of last season. There is a bit of a paradox here. Given what we now know I'd conclude that if Duchatelet was trying to retain Chris Powell he was making a big mistake. It was never going to work. Perhaps he was always going to be damned if he did and damned if he didn't?
As far as Stephens and Kermorgant are concerned, I suspect the explanation is much more straightforward. Stephens wanted out, it seems, and it made sense to cash in. As far as Kermorgant was concerned, Duchatelet wasn't prepared to pay the asking price (including contract length) and so he went too. Our owner, it seems, intends to retain robust financial discipline and when our better players move on, for whatever reason, their replacements, at least initially, are not going to be as good. I don't think there is any more to it than that. Even if Diego Poyet signs a new contract, he's unlikely to stay long and when he leaves his replacement won't be as good. Duchatelet is simply saying that this is how it works.
Operating sustainably in the bottom half of the Championship is, of course, no easy matter and this is probably Duchatelet's initial, primary focus. However, the real challenge is how the Club progresses within this paradigm. How do we ever develop a squad with Play-Off potential if the owner is not going to "speculate to accumulate"? I imagine that be believes that the answer is to have a strong academy and to acquire players with a view to developing and improving them. I'd be surprised, therefore, if we sign many established, proven players. If we do it will be to provide balance and experience rather than being central to the development of the squad. Having the right Head Coach and one that is completely aligned with the Club's strategic goals is key to this potentially risky approach.
All speculation, but I guess it keeps us interested and entertained!!
It's a bit like managing a forest. Over the long term you have enough forest to allow you to rotate clearing sections for logging, regeneration, etc, and it will regrow over time. But doing this before your forest is big, strong or mature enough to sustain this practice and you'll not have the resources to remain viable.
During Curbs' reign we were always prone to our best players leaving. In fact, as long as I've supported Charlton this has been the case, although we were powerful enough in our Prem days to be able to poach lesser clubs' players and to take a gamble with a little money. We were rarely strengthened as a result, Danny Mills's departure being the most obvious example where we strengthened the squad by selling one player (Dean Kiely and Graham Stuart just two of the arrivals, if memory serves).
So I have no issues with being a selling club - but if this approach is to succeed, it requires a good foundation and time to grow. Fingers crossed.