Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Next manager - Ben Garner confirmed (p256)
Comments
-
Nile John might get some minutes with Powell in charge though?11
-
All these people moaning about Garner should beware, if this falls through we will probably end up with someone nobody has heard of.6
-
Well if it’s from Big Alf we should probably take it very seriously.1
-
The "deity" who is the subject of a huge thread on here called "Powell's football is terrible"? That deity? If this forum had a decent search engine and I had nothing better to do, I'd dig it out, and find your own contributions to it...Swisdom said:1 -
Powell's career has progressed well. Time for another reality check Valiants.2
-
"Geez"......
😄😄😄😄😄0 -
Oof. I was just about to congratulate @Henry Irving on finally rising to the challenge of producing an example of a "good agent"soapboxsam said:Henry Irving said:In case you're not aware Luke Rooney is Mason Burstow's mentor/agent.
Luke Rooney is a 31 year old journeyman footballer who has been named as Glebe's (Chislehurst) new manager in the "Kent League"
I saw him play for Erith & Belvedere in a 5-3 defeat to Glebe last season at Welling United's ground in a mid week fixture
Luke Rooney knows Ben Garner and the two coaches and I'm pleased he is redressing the balance of the typical negative reaction of many Cafc fans/critics on social media.
Tutt-Tutt and Swisdom know how the football grapevine works.
. Either way I'm liking the cut of Mr Rooney's jib. 0 -
Which is why I SPECIFICALLY said as director of Football. Not manager.PragueAddick said:
The "deity" who is the subject of a huge thread on here called "Powell's football is terrible"? That deity? If this forum had a decent search engine and I had nothing better to do, I'd dig it out, and find your own contributions to it...Swisdom said:
There can be no doubt whatsoever about his contacts, networking and people skills and they would all be of use in a D of F role.
save your energy and time trying to prove something irrelevant to this particular situation.1 -
This means TS will be here Monday and Garner has already left. Thanks BexleyBoyWum.RonnieMoore said:The club just wanted to keep it under wraps till TS comes over next Wed /Thurs out of respect to Swindon and Garner who has yet to leave the club …2 -
Gotta trust a TV star....JamesSeed said:Well if it’s from Big Alf we should probably take it very seriously.
2 - Sponsored links:
-
Exactly. I reckon some people think he turned up with his boots, Clipboard and whistle expecting to take a full on training session.Bolderhumphreyreid said:
This needs context.Airman Brown said:
MS certainly tried at least once last season.Jac_52 said:MuttleyCAFC said:I haven't got an issue with the owner suggesting the style of football he wants to see us play and promising to back the manager in getting the players needed to achieve it. It becomes more worrying when it gets like Roland explaining football tactics to a manager who is an ex England international. If Sandgaard thinks he has discovered the secret of success in terms of a playing style it is worrying in the extreme. There are many different paths but his backing is needed. With limited resources the approach has to always be a pragmatic one based on what you have and how your best players play.
The problem is, I don't know which of these is correct and I doubt many of us do. There are lingering doubts about Sandgaard based on genuine clues. I would say not yet definitive but that in itself is worrying. And we should be open to this possibility.
I agree with this. The turning point for me would be if Sandgaard is issuing Roland-esque emails or trying to dictate how training sessions should go.
Currently I have no reason to think that this is the case and if anyone knows differently then they should be making it public very very quickly. Until then we have to accept that there is nothing wrong with an owner wanting a certain type of football and finding the staff to implement it.
If he was at the training ground and saw a lacklustre group of players who were not putting a shift in then he’s more than got a right to ask for more surely?If he was there to effectively ask JJ to try something different in training then that wouldn’t be on.
Context please.6 -
Here is Glebe's crest.
It's a great crest!
Great crested Glebe26 -
Questioning coaches in training is bad enoughValleyGary said:
Exactly. I reckon some people think he turned up with his boots, Clipboard and whistle expecting to take a full on training session.Bolderhumphreyreid said:
This needs context.Airman Brown said:
MS certainly tried at least once last season.Jac_52 said:MuttleyCAFC said:I haven't got an issue with the owner suggesting the style of football he wants to see us play and promising to back the manager in getting the players needed to achieve it. It becomes more worrying when it gets like Roland explaining football tactics to a manager who is an ex England international. If Sandgaard thinks he has discovered the secret of success in terms of a playing style it is worrying in the extreme. There are many different paths but his backing is needed. With limited resources the approach has to always be a pragmatic one based on what you have and how your best players play.
The problem is, I don't know which of these is correct and I doubt many of us do. There are lingering doubts about Sandgaard based on genuine clues. I would say not yet definitive but that in itself is worrying. And we should be open to this possibility.
I agree with this. The turning point for me would be if Sandgaard is issuing Roland-esque emails or trying to dictate how training sessions should go.
Currently I have no reason to think that this is the case and if anyone knows differently then they should be making it public very very quickly. Until then we have to accept that there is nothing wrong with an owner wanting a certain type of football and finding the staff to implement it.
If he was at the training ground and saw a lacklustre group of players who were not putting a shift in then he’s more than got a right to ask for more surely?If he was there to effectively ask JJ to try something different in training then that wouldn’t be on.
Context please.3 -
What right does he have to involve himself on training effort, or lack of?Bolderhumphreyreid said:
This needs context.Airman Brown said:
MS certainly tried at least once last season.Jac_52 said:MuttleyCAFC said:I haven't got an issue with the owner suggesting the style of football he wants to see us play and promising to back the manager in getting the players needed to achieve it. It becomes more worrying when it gets like Roland explaining football tactics to a manager who is an ex England international. If Sandgaard thinks he has discovered the secret of success in terms of a playing style it is worrying in the extreme. There are many different paths but his backing is needed. With limited resources the approach has to always be a pragmatic one based on what you have and how your best players play.
The problem is, I don't know which of these is correct and I doubt many of us do. There are lingering doubts about Sandgaard based on genuine clues. I would say not yet definitive but that in itself is worrying. And we should be open to this possibility.
I agree with this. The turning point for me would be if Sandgaard is issuing Roland-esque emails or trying to dictate how training sessions should go.
Currently I have no reason to think that this is the case and if anyone knows differently then they should be making it public very very quickly. Until then we have to accept that there is nothing wrong with an owner wanting a certain type of football and finding the staff to implement it.
If he was at the training ground and saw a lacklustre group of players who were not putting a shift in then he’s more than got a right to ask for more surely?If he was there to effectively ask JJ to try something different in training then that wouldn’t be on.
Context please.
He’s an analyst, not his remit6 -
Yes certain "insiders" here like to drop a crumb of incomplete info to cause more of a stir. Very transparent agenda.ValleyGary said:
Exactly. I reckon some people think he turned up with his boots, Clipboard and whistle expecting to take a full on training session.Bolderhumphreyreid said:
This needs context.Airman Brown said:
MS certainly tried at least once last season.Jac_52 said:MuttleyCAFC said:I haven't got an issue with the owner suggesting the style of football he wants to see us play and promising to back the manager in getting the players needed to achieve it. It becomes more worrying when it gets like Roland explaining football tactics to a manager who is an ex England international. If Sandgaard thinks he has discovered the secret of success in terms of a playing style it is worrying in the extreme. There are many different paths but his backing is needed. With limited resources the approach has to always be a pragmatic one based on what you have and how your best players play.
The problem is, I don't know which of these is correct and I doubt many of us do. There are lingering doubts about Sandgaard based on genuine clues. I would say not yet definitive but that in itself is worrying. And we should be open to this possibility.
I agree with this. The turning point for me would be if Sandgaard is issuing Roland-esque emails or trying to dictate how training sessions should go.
Currently I have no reason to think that this is the case and if anyone knows differently then they should be making it public very very quickly. Until then we have to accept that there is nothing wrong with an owner wanting a certain type of football and finding the staff to implement it.
If he was at the training ground and saw a lacklustre group of players who were not putting a shift in then he’s more than got a right to ask for more surely?If he was there to effectively ask JJ to try something different in training then that wouldn’t be on.
Context please.9 -
In my opinion, yesSwisdom said: Mo0 -
Every time we went on a bad run there would be speculation that Powell is going to take over as manager.Swisdom said:
Which is why I SPECIFICALLY said as director of Football. Not manager.PragueAddick said:
The "deity" who is the subject of a huge thread on here called "Powell's football is terrible"? That deity? If this forum had a decent search engine and I had nothing better to do, I'd dig it out, and find your own contributions to it...Swisdom said:
There can be no doubt whatsoever about his contacts, networking and people skills and they would all be of use in a D of F role.
save your energy and time trying to prove something irrelevant to this particular situation.
Not sure we need another voice at that level either. Could potentially complicate things more than it helps.2 -
Hurry up and confirm the newspaper reports TS.
I think that's how it works as Owner of a Club (assets or no assets).0 -
If you are an owner that wants to know everything about the club then you probably would turn up to training. Then when you witness a light jovial session whilst your club are on a bad run, you have a right to enquire why it occurred. However any queries have to be owner to manager, anything else is dangerous and detrimental.0
-
Do you mean in training as in, in front of players?The Red Robin said:
Questioning coaches in training is bad enoughValleyGary said:
Exactly. I reckon some people think he turned up with his boots, Clipboard and whistle expecting to take a full on training session.Bolderhumphreyreid said:
This needs context.Airman Brown said:
MS certainly tried at least once last season.Jac_52 said:MuttleyCAFC said:I haven't got an issue with the owner suggesting the style of football he wants to see us play and promising to back the manager in getting the players needed to achieve it. It becomes more worrying when it gets like Roland explaining football tactics to a manager who is an ex England international. If Sandgaard thinks he has discovered the secret of success in terms of a playing style it is worrying in the extreme. There are many different paths but his backing is needed. With limited resources the approach has to always be a pragmatic one based on what you have and how your best players play.
The problem is, I don't know which of these is correct and I doubt many of us do. There are lingering doubts about Sandgaard based on genuine clues. I would say not yet definitive but that in itself is worrying. And we should be open to this possibility.
I agree with this. The turning point for me would be if Sandgaard is issuing Roland-esque emails or trying to dictate how training sessions should go.
Currently I have no reason to think that this is the case and if anyone knows differently then they should be making it public very very quickly. Until then we have to accept that there is nothing wrong with an owner wanting a certain type of football and finding the staff to implement it.
If he was at the training ground and saw a lacklustre group of players who were not putting a shift in then he’s more than got a right to ask for more surely?If he was there to effectively ask JJ to try something different in training then that wouldn’t be on.
Context please.
If so, I'd agree, but how do you know that's what happened with MS and JJ?
Need to be careful because there'll be Noddy's claiming that was 100% what happened, spouting off all over social media, in no time and getting it completely wrong.3 - Sponsored links:
-
Apparently there are no agendas, just flagging up that we may be repeating history, but then don’t give any facts.🤷🏻♂️balham red said:
Yes certain "insiders" here like to drop a crumb of incomplete info to cause more of a stir. Very transparent agenda.ValleyGary said:
Exactly. I reckon some people think he turned up with his boots, Clipboard and whistle expecting to take a full on training session.Bolderhumphreyreid said:
This needs context.Airman Brown said:
MS certainly tried at least once last season.Jac_52 said:MuttleyCAFC said:I haven't got an issue with the owner suggesting the style of football he wants to see us play and promising to back the manager in getting the players needed to achieve it. It becomes more worrying when it gets like Roland explaining football tactics to a manager who is an ex England international. If Sandgaard thinks he has discovered the secret of success in terms of a playing style it is worrying in the extreme. There are many different paths but his backing is needed. With limited resources the approach has to always be a pragmatic one based on what you have and how your best players play.
The problem is, I don't know which of these is correct and I doubt many of us do. There are lingering doubts about Sandgaard based on genuine clues. I would say not yet definitive but that in itself is worrying. And we should be open to this possibility.
I agree with this. The turning point for me would be if Sandgaard is issuing Roland-esque emails or trying to dictate how training sessions should go.
Currently I have no reason to think that this is the case and if anyone knows differently then they should be making it public very very quickly. Until then we have to accept that there is nothing wrong with an owner wanting a certain type of football and finding the staff to implement it.
If he was at the training ground and saw a lacklustre group of players who were not putting a shift in then he’s more than got a right to ask for more surely?If he was there to effectively ask JJ to try something different in training then that wouldn’t be on.
Context please.0 -
To be fair, we were so shit last year, I think I would have done the same!!Airman Brown said:
MS certainly tried at least once last season.Jac_52 said:MuttleyCAFC said:I haven't got an issue with the owner suggesting the style of football he wants to see us play and promising to back the manager in getting the players needed to achieve it. It becomes more worrying when it gets like Roland explaining football tactics to a manager who is an ex England international. If Sandgaard thinks he has discovered the secret of success in terms of a playing style it is worrying in the extreme. There are many different paths but his backing is needed. With limited resources the approach has to always be a pragmatic one based on what you have and how your best players play.
The problem is, I don't know which of these is correct and I doubt many of us do. There are lingering doubts about Sandgaard based on genuine clues. I would say not yet definitive but that in itself is worrying. And we should be open to this possibility.
I agree with this. The turning point for me would be if Sandgaard is issuing Roland-esque emails or trying to dictate how training sessions should go.
Currently I have no reason to think that this is the case and if anyone knows differently then they should be making it public very very quickly. Until then we have to accept that there is nothing wrong with an owner wanting a certain type of football and finding the staff to implement it.2 -
Any ‘rights’ Martin Sandgaard has spring from the fact he is the son of the man bankrolling the club.
Pipers and tunes guys, pipers and tunes.2 -
Exactly, that’s why we need context. There seems to be this idea that owners at well run clubs never get involved with footballing matters at all other than signing cheques for new signings.cfgs said:If you are an owner that wants to know everything about the club then you probably would turn up to training. Then when you witness a light jovial session whilst your club are on a bad run, you have a right to enquire why it occurred. However any queries have to be owner to manager, anything else is dangerous and detrimental.4 -
Note to self: there's always someone worse off than you.Cafc43v3r said:https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/sport/20168028.swindon-town-manager-odds-sol-campbell-favourite-succeed-ben-garner/
Swindon advertiser are not denying it.
Imagine being about to lose your manager and the favourite to succeed him is Sol fucking Campbell.8 -
Taking a day to read about Ben Garner, and then watching clips of the Swindon Town goals of the season, I now realise that although I may not have heard about him, that clearly Ben is doing things right.
The Swindon fans like him, and he turned around Swindon’s fortunes in a few months.
Likewise when Brentford appointed Warburton a few seasons ago, probably most Brentford fans had never heard of him.
But things didn’t turn out to bad for them!
Lets not forget, last season football at the Valley was dire.
In the opinion of many posters on CL it was the worst football in living memory.
I suddenly have a very positive feeling about for next season with Ben Garner in charge.
So l would say get behind him. Be positive and support him and the team and see what happens.
Because let’s be honest it can’t be any worse than the dross we endured in 2021/2022.23 -
Someone's got their wires crossed.Scoham said:Twitter rumour that Powell’s being interviewed and has a good chance of coming back 👀
7 -
Maybe the sports scientists had given him data that showed the players had dropped some intensity in training? They don't wear those bras for support.DA9 said:
What right does he have to involve himself on training effort, or lack of?Bolderhumphreyreid said:
This needs context.Airman Brown said:
MS certainly tried at least once last season.Jac_52 said:MuttleyCAFC said:I haven't got an issue with the owner suggesting the style of football he wants to see us play and promising to back the manager in getting the players needed to achieve it. It becomes more worrying when it gets like Roland explaining football tactics to a manager who is an ex England international. If Sandgaard thinks he has discovered the secret of success in terms of a playing style it is worrying in the extreme. There are many different paths but his backing is needed. With limited resources the approach has to always be a pragmatic one based on what you have and how your best players play.
The problem is, I don't know which of these is correct and I doubt many of us do. There are lingering doubts about Sandgaard based on genuine clues. I would say not yet definitive but that in itself is worrying. And we should be open to this possibility.
I agree with this. The turning point for me would be if Sandgaard is issuing Roland-esque emails or trying to dictate how training sessions should go.
Currently I have no reason to think that this is the case and if anyone knows differently then they should be making it public very very quickly. Until then we have to accept that there is nothing wrong with an owner wanting a certain type of football and finding the staff to implement it.
If he was at the training ground and saw a lacklustre group of players who were not putting a shift in then he’s more than got a right to ask for more surely?If he was there to effectively ask JJ to try something different in training then that wouldn’t be on.
Context please.
He’s an analyst, not his remit2 -
masicat said:My son spoke to a senior player last night. Players know it’s Garner, and have done for the past week. The feeling among the players towards the appointment is positive. I’m surprised, only reporting what I’ve been told.
Masicat Knows !
I prefer information that is said to me direct and on the last bank holiday Monday the day after the POTY do, I was told by a Player in conversation ,( JJ sacking was announced the following day when I was at the Den !) that the "gaffer" didn't know his position and many players were in the dark on their futures. Nothing surprising there but hearing that Martin Sandgaard role at Cafc was puzzling the players confirmed certain fears of past employees; Jimmy Stone and Airman Brown to name just two.
As we had a mutual friend maybe the player told me more as it was away from the environment of the Valley and Sparrows lane.
I'm definitely not anti Thomas Sandgaard despite feeling gutted when JJ left. I so wanted it to work out and unlike Chris Powell never got a chance to bring in his own players to add to Dobson, CBT,Clare etc.
It looks like Thomas Sandgaard wanted to announce Ben Garner in person when he arrives in London next week, hence why he was economic with the truth to buttleJR and I believe Dagenham who said the same.4
