Thomas and Roland are both ruining our club but in every different ways, Roland did so by not caring and Thomas is doing so by his stubborn attitude and ignorance of English football, especially in L1.
Given what has been said about MS influence over transfer policy, I also don't follow the logic of the supposed conversation between Martin Sandgaard and Conor Washington.
Washington isn't being offered another contract because the new manager might not want him. But also, the new manager isn't going to get a say in squad building. They cannot both be true, can they?
Having a say and having the final say isn’t the same thing.
I don’t think that invalidates the point that these two rumours are mutually exclusive.
If the manager isn’t getting the final say, who is? And why can’t they make a decision on Washington now? If a new manager can come in and say they don’t want Washington, surely the same logic would apply to any potential new signings?
It was widely reported that Atkins had to be persuaded on Dobson.
Then Adkins DID have some input and say in transfers ?
Sorry, what player was it that leaked the news to JJ?
Conor Washington or his agent leaked the news I think.
It was Washington,he was told by MS about a possible change of manager,Washington told Jacko ,who confronted TS who told him that it was nonsence,we all know what happened next.MS also insisted that Burstow appeared for a certain amount of times in a certain amount of games due to transfer conditions,that is why our own players where on the bench .Jacko was furious ,especially as it was he who got the stick.This is totally reliable information,and confirms a lot of speculation about the involvement of MS,I repeat this will end in tears.
Tell me how Sandgaard is any different to Roland.
TS is a world apart from Roland,in as much as I do think he wants the club to succeed and will put his money in.I think he has made a monumental error in getting his son involved,when he has little in experience to offer.what does he know about players contracts etc,this sort of negotiation should be in the hands of professionals.
Martin Sandgaard is leading the analytics (not saying I agree with that), negotiating contracts has remained Gallen’s responsibility.
Remember when it was all done by the manager who often had the title, like Jimmy Seed, of General Secretary 🤔
Sorry, what player was it that leaked the news to JJ?
Conor Washington or his agent leaked the news I think.
It was Washington,he was told by MS about a possible change of manager,Washington told Jacko ,who confronted TS who told him that it was nonsence,we all know what happened next.MS also insisted that Burstow appeared for a certain amount of times in a certain amount of games due to transfer conditions,that is why our own players where on the bench .Jacko was furious ,especially as it was he who got the stick.This is totally reliable information,and confirms a lot of speculation about the involvement of MS,I repeat this will end in tears.
Tell me how Sandgaard is any different to Roland.
TS is a world apart from Roland,in as much as I do think he wants the club to succeed and will put his money in.I think he has made a monumental error in getting his son involved,when he has little in experience to offer.what does he know about players contracts etc,this sort of negotiation should be in the hands of professionals.
Martin Sandgaard is leading the analytics (not saying I agree with that), negotiating contracts has remained Gallen’s responsibility.
Remember when it was all done by the manager who often had the title, like Jimmy Seed, of General Secretary 🤔
His title was Secretary Manager. You’re thinking of the the trade unions?
Sorry, what player was it that leaked the news to JJ?
Conor Washington or his agent leaked the news I think.
It was Washington,he was told by MS about a possible change of manager,Washington told Jacko ,who confronted TS who told him that it was nonsence,we all know what happened next.MS also insisted that Burstow appeared for a certain amount of times in a certain amount of games due to transfer conditions,that is why our own players where on the bench .Jacko was furious ,especially as it was he who got the stick.This is totally reliable information,and confirms a lot of speculation about the involvement of MS,I repeat this will end in tears.
Tell me how Sandgaard is any different to Roland.
TS is a world apart from Roland,in as much as I do think he wants the club to succeed and will put his money in.I think he has made a monumental error in getting his son involved,when he has little in experience to offer.what does he know about players contracts etc,this sort of negotiation should be in the hands of professionals.
Martin Sandgaard is leading the analytics (not saying I agree with that), negotiating contracts has remained Gallen’s responsibility.
Remember when it was all done by the manager who often had the title, like Jimmy Seed, of General Secretary 🤔
Footballs a bit more complicated these days.
I suspect in the largest clubs the ‘Secretary’ is a actually a whole department.
Completely off topic but I’ve often wondered how very important back of house club employees who are probably on 30 - 40k a year and know everything about the running of the club and the smooth operation required feel when they see an 18 year old swan in on 10k per week.
If only I had a pound for every time someone on here ‘had it on good authority’. Beginning to get as bad as the other place.
You are correct: have another pound ! The worst thing for me about being ITK on occasions is what you can't say rather than what you can.
A senior pro wiping out a 18 year old in training at a premier club this season and the kid was out for 16 weeks.
The reason why Chuks Aneke always prefers to start on the bench, last season and since he came back.
I have to have direct conversation with players, coaches, or players dad's ( dad's are very bias normally !) though Joe Pigott's dad was very honest and he was the guy who told me that Joe Gomez was the best academy prospect when he was only 14.
As Rhoys Wiggins had retired from his final injury at Birmingham on loan from Bournemouth when we chatted for 45 minutes before the Donny semi final game at the valley, perhaps talking to a stranger was easier, especially one who was talking about his future as much as his past. It wasn't just the insecurity of finding another career at just 30 years old( studying sports nutrition then) with a young family when you aren't a multi millionaire but also Rhoys was still in his teens and a final year scholar when he had a bad injury in the states with Palace. The seed of doubt was in his mind that he wouldn't reach his potential of being a Premier Player. I gave it straight that he was excellent for Cafc and he would've emulated Simon Francis as an attacking full back at the higher level if not for his misfortune; I refused to call him sick note.
Even when I hear straight from the horse's mouth especially from current players and coaches you still have to be discerning.
Listen to your next door neighbour's brother who lives next door to Doris the tea lady at your peril unless Doris has been talking about the CUP.
Given what has been said about MS influence over transfer policy, I also don't follow the logic of the supposed conversation between Martin Sandgaard and Conor Washington.
Washington isn't being offered another contract because the new manager might not want him. But also, the new manager isn't going to get a say in squad building. They cannot both be true, can they?
Having a say and having the final say isn’t the same thing.
I don’t think that invalidates the point that these two rumours are mutually exclusive.
If the manager isn’t getting the final say, who is? And why can’t they make a decision on Washington now? If a new manager can come in and say they don’t want Washington, surely the same logic would apply to any potential new signings?
It was widely reported that Atkins had to be persuaded on Dobson.
Then Adkins DID have some input and say in transfers ?
Which is how the situation has always been explained. Which is still ludicrous, the manager should more than a bit part say in transfers.
I think I can honestly say I've only ever been ITK about anything Charlton related on a couple of occasions, and both of those were because someone ballsed up doing a DM. Panicked messages asking us to delete the relevant entries on the activity page ensued, and it was removed before anyone else noticed. Or if they did they were very good at keeping shtum about it.
Which reminds me, time to see if it needs tidying up...
Given what has been said about MS influence over transfer policy, I also don't follow the logic of the supposed conversation between Martin Sandgaard and Conor Washington.
Washington isn't being offered another contract because the new manager might not want him. But also, the new manager isn't going to get a say in squad building. They cannot both be true, can they?
Having a say and having the final say isn’t the same thing.
I don’t think that invalidates the point that these two rumours are mutually exclusive.
If the manager isn’t getting the final say, who is? And why can’t they make a decision on Washington now? If a new manager can come in and say they don’t want Washington, surely the same logic would apply to any potential new signings?
It was widely reported that Atkins had to be persuaded on Dobson.
Then Adkins DID have some input and say in transfers ?
Which is how the situation has always been explained. Which is still ludicrous, the manager should more than a bit part say in transfers.
Agree. All the scouting and analytics should be there to support the manager.
The Juxtaposition was Nigel Adkins was a positive person talking about the advantages of walking for your mental health (100% agree) but he was struggling to accept the status quo with the committee gang of four during his tenure. Anyone on Zoom could see Nigel's face and ramblings he wasn't happy with the arrangement and that I do agree with him.
The days of Ferguson, Wenger, and Curbishley being manager, director of football Tatics at all levels of a football club and obviously having the final say in a transfer seems like the last century.
It's all about relationships and for along time Murray, Curbishley and Varney were the dream team. Murray didn't rate Matt Holland when he was at Ipswich but Curbs did so Matt did the water carrying alongside Parker. Curbs had the final say if the transfer was within budget.
I think I can honestly say I've only ever been ITK about anything Charlton related on a couple of occasions, and both of those were because someone ballsed up doing a DM. Panicked messages asking us to delete the relevant entries on the activity page ensued, and it was removed before anyone else noticed. Or if they did they were very good at keeping shtum about it.
Which reminds me, time to see if it needs tidying up...
I have some sympathy for owners. Average lifespan of a manager at a particular club in the English leagues is less than 2.5 years. As an owner do you want somebody who isn't going to last 3 seasons having the controlling say in how the squad is built? Do you want to pay for a rebuild every other year?
Or do you say "this is the way we want to play", "these are players that fit that style", "you can certainly influence who we hire and fire, but there's no way you can dictate everything when they're going to be here longer than you are, and we'll still be paying for them long after you've gone"
It would seem sensible to have in place a system, independent of the manger, or identifying players. By all means give the manager final approval of players who come out of that system, but getting the system right should be the focus.
It looks like the club/TS was a bit too prescriptive on playing style with Adkins, possibly going as far as dictating preferred formation, but the idea itself is sound. Hopefully everybody involved has learned from the last 15 months and the system has been tweaked accordingly. We know it's changed, this season will tell us if it's for the better or not.
Given what has been said about MS influence over transfer policy, I also don't follow the logic of the supposed conversation between Martin Sandgaard and Conor Washington.
Washington isn't being offered another contract because the new manager might not want him. But also, the new manager isn't going to get a say in squad building. They cannot both be true, can they?
Having a say and having the final say isn’t the same thing.
I don’t think that invalidates the point that these two rumours are mutually exclusive.
If the manager isn’t getting the final say, who is? And why can’t they make a decision on Washington now? If a new manager can come in and say they don’t want Washington, surely the same logic would apply to any potential new signings?
It was widely reported that Atkins had to be persuaded on Dobson.
Then Adkins DID have some input and say in transfers ?
Which is how the situation has always been explained. Which is still ludicrous, the manager should more than a bit part say in transfers.
Agree. All the scouting and analytics should be there to support the manager.
The issue can be that a manager looks very short term and a Club often has to think longer term. Good old Harry rocked up and spent money on good players who were on the way down, on huge wages but with no sell on. He then buggered off over the hills two years later leaving the club looking for a paddle. There is a balance somewhere. Finding it is the tricky bit.
I have some sympathy for owners. Average lifespan of a manager at a particular club in the English leagues is less than 2.5 years. As an owner do you want somebody who isn't going to last 3 seasons having the controlling say in how the squad is built? Do you want to pay for a rebuild every other year?
Or do you say "this is the way we want to play", "these are players that fit that style", "you can certainly influence who we hire and fire, but there's no way you can have dictate everything when they're going to be here longer than you are, and we'll still be paying for them long after you've gone"
It would seem sensible to have in place a system, independent of the manger, or identifying players. By all means give the manager final approval of players who come out of that system, but getting the system right should be the focus.
It looks like the club/TS was a bit too prescriptive on playing style with Adkins, possibly going as far as dictating preferred formation, but the idea itself is sound. Hopefully everybody involved has learned from the last 15 months and the system has been tweaked accordingly. We know it's changed, this season will tell us if it's for the better or not.
Agree. There’s more than one way to successfully run a football club.
In some ways I hope we appoint a young head coach who makes it clear he’s happy to not have total control over recruitment, and TS gives him time to develop a style of play that balances being entertaining with getting results.
It could be the right approach for the longer term, my concern is neither TS or our fanbase have the patience to allow it to happen.
I really enjoyed seeing my neighbour take my missus up the OXO tower. She enjoyed it that much I've still got the pictures. We often show the pictures to our new friends to show them how much fun we've had in the past.
I have some sympathy for owners. Average lifespan of a manager at a particular club in the English leagues is less than 2.5 years. As an owner do you want somebody who isn't going to last 3 seasons having the controlling say in how the squad is built? Do you want to pay for a rebuild every other year?
Or do you say "this is the way we want to play", "these are players that fit that style", "you can certainly influence who we hire and fire, but there's no way you can dictate everything when they're going to be here longer than you are, and we'll still be paying for them long after you've gone"
It would seem sensible to have in place a system, independent of the manger, or identifying players. By all means give the manager final approval of players who come out of that system, but getting the system right should be the focus.
It looks like the club/TS was a bit too prescriptive on playing style with Adkins, possibly going as far as dictating preferred formation, but the idea itself is sound. Hopefully everybody involved has learned from the last 15 months and the system has been tweaked accordingly. We know it's changed, this season will tell us if it's for the better or not.
Tweeting about a person or situation without actually naming them is known as a subtweet. I'm not sure if there's an equivalent term for blogposts, but Peter Varney appears to have managed both here:
Given what has been said about MS influence over transfer policy, I also don't follow the logic of the supposed conversation between Martin Sandgaard and Conor Washington.
Washington isn't being offered another contract because the new manager might not want him. But also, the new manager isn't going to get a say in squad building. They cannot both be true, can they?
Having a say and having the final say isn’t the same thing.
I don’t think that invalidates the point that these two rumours are mutually exclusive.
If the manager isn’t getting the final say, who is? And why can’t they make a decision on Washington now? If a new manager can come in and say they don’t want Washington, surely the same logic would apply to any potential new signings?
One of the problems last summer was you had multiple people working with different, conflicting, sets of priorities.
One person's priority was to put together a football team.
One person's priority was to establish pathways for both players and coaches.
One person's priority was to find under valued players in the market.
Adkins did technically have a veto but when the choice is presented as cut your arm off, cut your leg off or a kick in the bollocks most people would take the kick. No matter how much they knew it would hurt.
I would say signing Washington effects no one else's agenda one way or the other so probably is the managers choice, as we're some, not all, of last seasons release/retains.
Comments
You are correct: have another pound !
The worst thing for me about being ITK on occasions is what you can't say rather than what you can.
A senior pro wiping out a 18 year old in training at a premier club this season and the kid was out for 16 weeks.
The reason why Chuks Aneke always prefers to start on the bench, last season and since he came back.
I have to have direct conversation with players, coaches, or players dad's ( dad's are very bias normally !) though Joe Pigott's dad was very honest and he was the guy who told me that Joe Gomez was the best academy prospect when he was only 14.
As Rhoys Wiggins had retired from his final injury at Birmingham on loan from Bournemouth when we chatted for 45 minutes before the Donny semi final game at the valley, perhaps talking to a stranger was easier, especially one who was talking about his future as much as his past. It wasn't just the insecurity of finding another career at just 30 years old( studying sports nutrition then) with a young family when you aren't a multi millionaire but also Rhoys was still in his teens and a final year scholar when he had a bad injury in the states with Palace. The seed of doubt was in his mind that he wouldn't reach his potential of being a Premier Player. I gave it straight that he was excellent for Cafc and he would've emulated Simon Francis as an attacking full back at the higher level if not for his misfortune; I refused to call him sick note.
Even when I hear straight from the horse's mouth especially from current players and coaches you still have to be discerning.
Listen to your next door neighbour's brother who lives next door to Doris the tea lady at your peril unless Doris has been talking about the CUP.
The days of Ferguson, Wenger, and Curbishley being manager, director of football Tatics at all levels of a football club and obviously having the final say in a transfer seems like the last century.
It's all about relationships and for along time Murray, Curbishley and Varney were the dream team. Murray didn't rate Matt Holland when he was at Ipswich but Curbs did so Matt did the water carrying alongside Parker. Curbs had the final say if the transfer was within budget.
Or do you say "this is the way we want to play", "these are players that fit that style", "you can certainly influence who we hire and fire, but there's no way you can dictate everything when they're going to be here longer than you are, and we'll still be paying for them long after you've gone"
It would seem sensible to have in place a system, independent of the manger, or identifying players. By all means give the manager final approval of players who come out of that system, but getting the system right should be the focus.
It looks like the club/TS was a bit too prescriptive on playing style with Adkins, possibly going as far as dictating preferred formation, but the idea itself is sound. Hopefully everybody involved has learned from the last 15 months and the system has been tweaked accordingly. We know it's changed, this season will tell us if it's for the better or not.
Good old Harry rocked up and spent money on good players who were on the way down, on huge wages but with no sell on. He then buggered off over the hills two years later leaving the club looking for a paddle.
There is a balance somewhere. Finding it is the tricky bit.
In some ways I hope we appoint a young head coach who makes it clear he’s happy to not have total control over recruitment, and TS gives him time to develop a style of play that balances being entertaining with getting results.
It could be the right approach for the longer term, my concern is neither TS or our fanbase have the patience to allow it to happen.
Oo er missus.
One person's priority was to put together a football team.
One person's priority was to establish pathways for both players and coaches.
One person's priority was to find under valued players in the market.
Adkins did technically have a veto but when the choice is presented as cut your arm off, cut your leg off or a kick in the bollocks most people would take the kick. No matter how much they knew it would hurt.
I would say signing Washington effects no one else's agenda one way or the other so probably is the managers choice, as we're some, not all, of last seasons release/retains.