That feels weirdly specific as a PR piece, clearly someone involved in the club somewhere has been looking at fan comments (maybe on here maybe elsewhere maybe both) as that's addressing things I have specifically seen stated on here.
Or someone at the club wanting to put the record straight after the article from JJ last week about needing clarity. He has clarity, the job is his, now get on and do it, stop leaking things to the press and get results.
so if that article is correct why was JJ last week asking for clarity when he knew it already exists? All a bit odd to me.
That feels weirdly specific as a PR piece, clearly someone involved in the club somewhere has been looking at fan comments (maybe on here maybe elsewhere maybe both) as that's addressing things I have specifically seen stated on here.
Or someone at the club wanting to put the record straight after the article from JJ last week about needing clarity. He has clarity, the job is his, now get on and do it, stop leaking things to the press and get results.
so if that article is correct why was JJ last week asking for clarity when he knew it already exists? All a bit odd to me.
Because he wants the fans to be demanding JJ gets a new contract.
Whether his end goal is more money, or removing the 'conpensation clause' in the existing contract. It all seems a bit underhanded to me from Jackson.
That feels weirdly specific as a PR piece, clearly someone involved in the club somewhere has been looking at fan comments (maybe on here maybe elsewhere maybe both) as that's addressing things I have specifically seen stated on here.
Or someone at the club wanting to put the record straight after the article from JJ last week about needing clarity. He has clarity, the job is his, now get on and do it, stop leaking things to the press and get results.
so if that article is correct why was JJ last week asking for clarity when he knew it already exists? All a bit odd to me.
Because he wants the fans to be demanding JJ gets a new contract.
Whether his end goal is more money, or removing the 'conpensation clause' in the existing contract. It all seems a bit underhanded to me from Jackson.
Owner and manager both as bad as each other here. Something is amiss
“I want to start moulding our squad for next season so that if we don’t quite make it this season we have a real strong promotion push next season. But there is an element of uncertainty in that regard, including myself – not knowing how it is going to pan out next season.
“We all need to have a little bit of certainty if I’m going to be involved on decision-making on players in the longer term. My own future will need addressing before too long.”
“Before we had to prioritise the window – ins and outs and how we were going to try and shape the squad for the rest of the season. When it shuts your attention can turn to next season."
“I want to start moulding our squad for next season so that if we don’t quite make it this season we have a real strong promotion push next season. But there is an element of uncertainty in that regard, including myself – not knowing how it is going to pan out next season.
“We all need to have a little bit of certainty if I’m going to be involved on decision-making on players in the longer term. My own future will need addressing before too long.”
“Before we had to prioritise the window – ins and outs and how we were going to try and shape the squad for the rest of the season. When it shuts your attention can turn to next season."
Along with the quote there was this leak:
"The Addicks boss could be out of contract this summer with a guaranteed 12-month extension only triggered based on the club’s final finish in League One."
If you don't think that was fed to Crawley by Jackson with the aim of making it look like he needs a new contract....I don't know what to tell you.
“I want to start moulding our squad for next season so that if we don’t quite make it this season we have a real strong promotion push next season. But there is an element of uncertainty in that regard, including myself – not knowing how it is going to pan out next season.
“We all need to have a little bit of certainty if I’m going to be involved on decision-making on players in the longer term. My own future will need addressing before too long.”
“Before we had to prioritise the window – ins and outs and how we were going to try and shape the squad for the rest of the season. When it shuts your attention can turn to next season."
But there's no uncertainty, he's here for next season. I don't understand how that's affecting us preparing for the next campaign.
If we're lower mid-table and out of play-off contention this time next year he'll be gone, just like any other manager would. Having a long term contract doesn't change that.
That feels weirdly specific as a PR piece, clearly someone involved in the club somewhere has been looking at fan comments (maybe on here maybe elsewhere maybe both) as that's addressing things I have specifically seen stated on here.
Or someone at the club wanting to put the record straight after the article from JJ last week about needing clarity. He has clarity, the job is his, now get on and do it, stop leaking things to the press and get results.
so if that article is correct why was JJ last week asking for clarity when he knew it already exists? All a bit odd to me.
Perhaps laying the foundation for excuses when things don't work out..
Personally, I think TS has got the right hump with JJ anyway due to his role, or non role during the Adkins disaster. I think this led directly to the, lets say `creative' contract he now has and was happy to sign just a few months ago.
These latest tit-4-tat gripes about this`uncertainty going forward' nonsense through the media will certainly not help the relationship. JJ really isn't doing himself any favours right now with this approach.
Nobody caused the confusion except the club in its own statement and briefings.
But I don't even think Jackson actually knows does he? Or at least he is saying he doesn't. Either way it doesn't read well.
If TS has put a low pay-off into the deal unless Jacko hits the threshold then it’s not really significant whether the deal automatically carries on until 2023 unless he achieves the target. I can see why Jacko would regard that as creating uncertainty now.
Otherwise all the club ever needed to say was that it was an 18 month deal. Managers can be and are sacked whenever it suits the owner.
Nobody caused the confusion except the club in its own statement and briefings.
But I don't even think Jackson actually knows does he? Or at least he is saying he doesn't. Either way it doesn't read well.
If TS has put a low pay-off into the deal unless Jacko hits the threshold then it’s not really significant whether the deal automatically carries on until 2023 unless he achieves the target. I can see why Jacko would regard that as creating uncertainty now.
Otherwise all the club ever needed to say was that it was an 18 month deal. Managers can be and are sacked whenever it suits the owner.
Of course so I am not sure why this has been made into an issue by Jackson, in the press.
Nobody caused the confusion except the club in its own statement and briefings.
But I don't even think Jackson actually knows does he? Or at least he is saying he doesn't. Either way it doesn't read well.
If TS has put a low pay-off into the deal unless Jacko hits the threshold then it’s not really significant whether the deal automatically carries on until 2023 unless he achieves the target. I can see why Jacko would regard that as creating uncertainty now.
Otherwise all the club ever needed to say was that it was an 18 month deal. Managers can be and are sacked whenever it suits the owner.
If the contract says Jackson is staying until 2023, he's staying unless TS is unhappy with his performance.
If Jackson is worried because his performance is poor, perhaps discussions privately with TS should have happened to reassure his position rather than going to the press and claiming he's out of a job if he doesn't get a specific league position which is nonsense.
Jackos situation is all ifs and buts.I doubt if any managers at our level could cope with the loss of players like he has. Stockley is a massive miss,now we have Chucks and Washington struggling,CBT had a blinder at Pompey,now injured.He is still in his first year as a manager ,he will learn,but he will need a bit more luck than he is having at the moment. Look at Clare,he has been superb all season at CD,last two games,crap free kick given away,and a crap trip in the area,to give away a penalty.Would we have conceded the last 2 set piece goals like we did,with Stockley back there.Time to judge Jacko is when he has had a run with a full squad to pick from.
The game before Clare lost his marker for the headed goal also. So that's 3 games in a row he's been responsible for a goal conceded.
And also, given that Stockley/Chucks were out in our last match, wouldn't it have been prudent to actually use a proper centre back instead of Purrington? Every set piece we defended we were up against it with only having Innis with any aerial ability.
The team selection from the last match was really poor and ill thought out.
Do please remember he’s a centre midfielder playing/ covering as a Centre back…. He’s not Rio Ferdinand
Well don't keep playing him in defence then!
I don't think it was from choice was it... and we still couldn't name 3 fit Centre backs on Saturday!
He's done a great job filling in but it's not his natural position, so maybe we should focus on the positive
We had Innis starting, Lavelle and Pearce on the bench, and Famewo and Elerewe not selected for the squad. That's 5 fit centre backs. We actually have all our defensive options available, including our goalie and defensive centre mid.
So you're wrong, Clare is very much first choice in defence now, despite gifting a goal a game for the past 3 matches.
So who is Clare "filling in" for? And if this is the best defensive structure that JJ thinks we can put together, why do we have 2 clean sheets in what... 9 or 10 matches?
Nobody caused the confusion except the club in its own statement and briefings.
But I don't even think Jackson actually knows does he? Or at least he is saying he doesn't. Either way it doesn't read well.
If TS has put a low pay-off into the deal unless Jacko hits the threshold then it’s not really significant whether the deal automatically carries on until 2023 unless he achieves the target. I can see why Jacko would regard that as creating uncertainty now.
Otherwise all the club ever needed to say was that it was an 18 month deal. Managers can be and are sacked whenever it suits the owner.
If the contract says Jackson is staying until 2023, he's staying unless TS is unhappy with his performance.
If Jackson is worried because his performance is poor, perhaps discussions privately with TS should have happened to reassure his position rather than going to the press and claiming he's out of a job if he doesn't get a specific league position which is nonsense.
It's never been the public case that he was out of a job unless he achieves a specific position even on the version originally put out by the club. I'm not aware Jacko has said that either. It was always about giving the owner a better option financially if he wanted to make a change, which is still the case. All that has changed is that there is now clarity the contract runs until 2023 regardless.
Nobody caused the confusion except the club in its own statement and briefings.
But I don't even think Jackson actually knows does he? Or at least he is saying he doesn't. Either way it doesn't read well.
If TS has put a low pay-off into the deal unless Jacko hits the threshold then it’s not really significant whether the deal automatically carries on until 2023 unless he achieves the target. I can see why Jacko would regard that as creating uncertainty now.
Otherwise all the club ever needed to say was that it was an 18 month deal. Managers can be and are sacked whenever it suits the owner.
If the contract says Jackson is staying until 2023, he's staying unless TS is unhappy with his performance.
If Jackson is worried because his performance is poor, perhaps discussions privately with TS should have happened to reassure his position rather than going to the press and claiming he's out of a job if he doesn't get a specific league position which is nonsense.
It's never been the case that he was out of a job unless he achieves a specific position even on the version originally put out by the club. I'm not aware Jacko has said that either. It was always about giving the owner a better option financially if he wanted to make a change, which is still the case. All that has changed is that there is now clarity the contract runs until 2023 regardless.
"The Addicks boss could be out of contract this summer with a guaranteed 12-month extension only triggered based on the club’s final finish in League One."
Certainly makes for a different reading than the reality actually is.
Nobody caused the confusion except the club in its own statement and briefings.
But I don't even think Jackson actually knows does he? Or at least he is saying he doesn't. Either way it doesn't read well.
If TS has put a low pay-off into the deal unless Jacko hits the threshold then it’s not really significant whether the deal automatically carries on until 2023 unless he achieves the target. I can see why Jacko would regard that as creating uncertainty now.
Otherwise all the club ever needed to say was that it was an 18 month deal. Managers can be and are sacked whenever it suits the owner.
If the contract says Jackson is staying until 2023, he's staying unless TS is unhappy with his performance.
If Jackson is worried because his performance is poor, perhaps discussions privately with TS should have happened to reassure his position rather than going to the press and claiming he's out of a job if he doesn't get a specific league position which is nonsense.
Nobody caused the confusion except the club in its own statement and briefings.
But I don't even think Jackson actually knows does he? Or at least he is saying he doesn't. Either way it doesn't read well.
If TS has put a low pay-off into the deal unless Jacko hits the threshold then it’s not really significant whether the deal automatically carries on until 2023 unless he achieves the target. I can see why Jacko would regard that as creating uncertainty now.
Otherwise all the club ever needed to say was that it was an 18 month deal. Managers can be and are sacked whenever it suits the owner.
If the contract says Jackson is staying until 2023, he's staying unless TS is unhappy with his performance.
If Jackson is worried because his performance is poor, perhaps discussions privately with TS should have happened to reassure his position rather than going to the press and claiming he's out of a job if he doesn't get a specific league position which is nonsense.
It's never been the case that he was out of a job unless he achieves a specific position even on the version originally put out by the club. I'm not aware Jacko has said that either. It was always about giving the owner a better option financially if he wanted to make a change, which is still the case. All that has changed is that there is now clarity the contract runs until 2023 regardless.
"The Addicks boss could be out of contract this summer with a guaranteed 12-month extension only triggered based on the club’s final finish in League One."
Certainly makes for a different reading than the reality actually is.
Out of contract does not mean out of a job; it means a decision would have had to be made about a new contract. But the club misled the press and public on this point. It's no good blaming those who reported what the club was telling it, since the press can't review the contract themselves.
I don't take these things without a pinch of salt because the next story will contradict something in this one.
Saying that I don't think all is well in the relationship between Jackson and Thomas. What ever the reason it needs sorting now. Not May or August.
How do you work that out .. if there was a problem JJ would not be in the job … this all started by poor journalism basically getting the story completely wrong
Nobody caused the confusion except the club in its own statement and briefings.
But I don't even think Jackson actually knows does he? Or at least he is saying he doesn't. Either way it doesn't read well.
If TS has put a low pay-off into the deal unless Jacko hits the threshold then it’s not really significant whether the deal automatically carries on until 2023 unless he achieves the target. I can see why Jacko would regard that as creating uncertainty now.
Otherwise all the club ever needed to say was that it was an 18 month deal. Managers can be and are sacked whenever it suits the owner.
If the contract says Jackson is staying until 2023, he's staying unless TS is unhappy with his performance.
If Jackson is worried because his performance is poor, perhaps discussions privately with TS should have happened to reassure his position rather than going to the press and claiming he's out of a job if he doesn't get a specific league position which is nonsense.
It's never been the case that he was out of a job unless he achieves a specific position even on the version originally put out by the club. I'm not aware Jacko has said that either. It was always about giving the owner a better option financially if he wanted to make a change, which is still the case. All that has changed is that there is now clarity the contract runs until 2023 regardless.
"The Addicks boss could be out of contract this summer with a guaranteed 12-month extension only triggered based on the club’s final finish in League One."
Certainly makes for a different reading than the reality actually is.
Out of contract does not mean out of a job; it means a decision would have had to be made about a new contract. But the club misled the press and public on this point. It's no good blaming those who reported what the club was telling it, since the press can't review the contract themselves.
That statement wasn't made by the club though. The club said:
"The 39-year-old has signed a contract which will automatically renew at the end of each of the next two seasons based on success on the pitch for the Addicks."
Which we all took to mean JJ's contract was initially for the end of next season. That's turned out to be true. It's the "source" feeding the South London Press which has been inaccurate.
I don't take these things without a pinch of salt because the next story will contradict something in this one.
Saying that I don't think all is well in the relationship between Jackson and Thomas. What ever the reason it needs sorting now. Not May or August.
How do you work that out .. if there was a problem JJ would not be in the job … this all started by poor journalism basically getting the story completely wrong
It started when a quote from TS on the OS suggested he initially only had a contract until the end of this season.
Sandgaard explained: “His contract initially runs until the end of the season. If he does well, it automatically triggers for another season and if he does that well, it automatically triggers for another season. So there is two-and-a-half years in this. If he doesn’t do, points-wise, enough to automatically trigger an extension, the club has the right to extend the contract for another couple of years under the same terms.
I don't take these things without a pinch of salt because the next story will contradict something in this one.
Saying that I don't think all is well in the relationship between Jackson and Thomas. What ever the reason it needs sorting now. Not May or August.
How do you work that out .. if there was a problem JJ would not be in the job … this all started by poor journalism basically getting the story completely wrong
So you want me to believe that either your right or Cawley and the OS are right........
Your be telling us Adkins got sacked in about 3 months time.
I cant see the point in this news. What football manager has certain stability ? I think JJ is trying to turn up the pressure by getting the fans on his side to extend his contract. Not that I or anyone else knows the contractual facts as they exist but perhaps JJ thinks we will not finish in a position where he gets his contract extended ?
I don't take these things without a pinch of salt because the next story will contradict something in this one.
Saying that I don't think all is well in the relationship between Jackson and Thomas. What ever the reason it needs sorting now. Not May or August.
How do you work that out .. if there was a problem JJ would not be in the job … this all started by poor journalism basically getting the story completely wrong
It started when a quote from TS on the OS suggested he initially only had a contract until the end of this season.
Sandgaard explained: “His contract initially runs until the end of the season. If he does well, it automatically triggers for another season and if he does that well, it automatically triggers for another season. So there is two-and-a-half years in this. If he doesn’t do, points-wise, enough to automatically trigger an extension, the club has the right to extend the contract for another couple of years under the same terms.
So basically JJ has a 2.5yr contract. If he does really well he can renegotiate his terms (payrise), but if he doesn't hit his target TS can still trigger an extension to the contract at the same rate (no payrise). So, performance related pay.
Comments
Whether his end goal is more money, or removing the 'conpensation clause' in the existing contract. It all seems a bit underhanded to me from Jackson.
“I want to start moulding our squad for next season so that if we don’t quite make it this season we have a real strong promotion push next season. But there is an element of uncertainty in that regard, including myself – not knowing how it is going to pan out next season.
“We all need to have a little bit of certainty if I’m going to be involved on decision-making on players in the longer term. My own future will need addressing before too long.”
“Before we had to prioritise the window – ins and outs and how we were going to try and shape the squad for the rest of the season. When it shuts your attention can turn to next season."
"The Addicks boss could be out of contract this summer with a guaranteed 12-month extension only triggered based on the club’s final finish in League One."
If we're lower mid-table and out of play-off contention this time next year he'll be gone, just like any other manager would. Having a long term contract doesn't change that.
It's not to say Sandgaard good/JJ bad, but there is certainly a bit of game playing/politicking going on from all sides which does not bode well.
These latest tit-4-tat gripes about this`uncertainty going forward' nonsense through the media will certainly not help the relationship. JJ really isn't doing himself any favours right now with this approach.
Otherwise all the club ever needed to say was that it was an 18 month deal. Managers can be and are sacked whenever it suits the owner.
If Jackson is worried because his performance is poor, perhaps discussions privately with TS should have happened to reassure his position rather than going to the press and claiming he's out of a job if he doesn't get a specific league position which is nonsense.
So you're wrong, Clare is very much first choice in defence now, despite gifting a goal a game for the past 3 matches.
So who is Clare "filling in" for? And if this is the best defensive structure that JJ thinks we can put together, why do we have 2 clean sheets in what... 9 or 10 matches?
Certainly makes for a different reading than the reality actually is.
"The 39-year-old has signed a contract which will automatically renew at the end of each of the next two seasons based on success on the pitch for the Addicks."
Which we all took to mean JJ's contract was initially for the end of next season. That's turned out to be true. It's the "source" feeding the South London Press which has been inaccurate.
https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/61bc93b9a6376/sandgaard-on-jackson-im-very-excited-about-everything-that-he-has-done
Sandgaard explained: “His contract initially runs until the end of the season. If he does well, it automatically triggers for another season and if he does that well, it automatically triggers for another season. So there is two-and-a-half years in this. If he doesn’t do, points-wise, enough to automatically trigger an extension, the club has the right to extend the contract for another couple of years under the same terms.
Your be telling us Adkins got sacked in about 3 months time.
Seems like JJ is the third manager out of three that’s fallen out with Sandgaard. I wonder what’s the connection.
"Sandgaard has the final call on recruitment but has input from Jackson and his son Martin Sandgaard, appointed director of analysis in December".
So JJ is discussing recruitment with 2 x people who know very little about English football who just happen to be father and son.
Does final say mean signing off a transfer? As the owner he’s the one paying for it.
Or are TS and MS turning down signings and pushing for players they’ve identified?