Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Next manager - Ben Garner confirmed (p256)

1159160162164165285

Comments

  • Swisdom said: Mo
    shirty5 said:
    Swisdom said:
    I'd welcome Powell back as a coach Director of football.  It would also be MASSIVE kudos points for TS


    Why would he leave Spurs and England where he’s is in a comfortable position! 
    Is he as comfortable as he would be being a deity at Charlton
    In my opinion, yes
  • Swisdom said:
    Swisdom said:
    shirty5 said:
    Swisdom said:
    I'd welcome Powell back as a coach Director of football.  It would also be MASSIVE kudos points for TS


    Why would he leave Spurs and England where he’s is in a comfortable position! 
    Is he as comfortable as he would be being a deity at Charlton
    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...
    Which is why I SPECIFICALLY said as director of Football.  Not manager.

    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.
    Every time we went on a bad run there would be speculation that Powell is going to take over as manager.

    Not sure we need another voice at that level either. Could potentially complicate things more than it helps.
  • Hurry up and confirm the newspaper reports TS. 

    I think that's how it works as Owner of a Club (assets or no assets).
  • 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.
  • Jac_52 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.
     MS certainly tried at least once last season.
    This needs context.

    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.
    Exactly. I reckon some people think he turned up with his boots, Clipboard and whistle expecting to take a full on training session.
    Questioning coaches in training is bad enough 
    Do you mean in training as in, in front of players?

    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.
  • mendonca said:
    Hurry up and confirm the newspaper reports TS. 

    I think that's how it works as Owner of a Club (assets or no assets).
    Is it though? 
  • Jac_52 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.
     MS certainly tried at least once last season.
    This needs context.

    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.
    Exactly. I reckon some people think he turned up with his boots, Clipboard and whistle expecting to take a full on training session.
    Yes certain "insiders" here like to drop a crumb of incomplete info to cause more of a stir. Very transparent agenda.
    Apparently there are no agendas, just flagging up that we may be repeating history, but then don’t give any facts.🤷🏻‍♂️
  • Jac_52 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.
     MS certainly tried at least once last season.
    To be fair, we were so shit last year, I think I would have done the same!! 
  • 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.
  • 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.
    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.
  • Sponsored links:


  • DA9 said:
    Jac_52 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.
     MS certainly tried at least once last season.
    This needs context.

    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.
    What right does he have to involve himself on training effort, or lack of?
    He’s an analyst, not his remit
    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.
  • edited May 2022
    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.

  • edited May 2022
    We know the answer to this training thing, don't we? Sandgaard said that the club planned to increase the intensity of the training because they believed firstly that the players aren't fit enough (many on here have felt this for a good few seasons), and secondly that the lack of intensity was causing our constant plight of injuries. So does it not follow that MS's suggestion to JJ would be the same?

    On the search for a new manager, TS again mentioned that we'd be looking for a manager who brought more intensity to training.
  • Jac_52 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.
     MS certainly tried at least once last season.
    This needs context.

    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.
    Exactly. I reckon some people think he turned up with his boots, Clipboard and whistle expecting to take a full on training session.
    Questioning coaches in training is bad enough 
    Whilst I broadly agree with you, we had posters aplenty questioning what went on in training when Jackson was in charge, if anything.  We all have an opinion and the real difference is of course is that Martin is a shareholder and has a role on the football side of the club. He should though have the common sense to keep schtum though and if he wasn’t happy then tell the big dog which I suspect is what he did. 
  • Jac_52 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.
     MS certainly tried at least once last season.
    To be fair, we were so shit last year, I think I would have done the same!! 
    The comment has had the desired effect of raising awareness. I doubt we'll learn more, unless the final Voice fleshes it out. Personally, can't see how MS ruling the roost on recruitment overseeing some 'black box' jiggery pokery necessitates him being there at all. However, insofar as he has attended any training sessions, I'd need to know exactly what he was doing there before jumping to conclusions. I suspect that this has been left deliberately vague here knowing it would spark a 'how very dare you!" type reaction. 

    As stated before by me and others, the context of this is all important.
  • DA9 said:
    Jac_52 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.
     MS certainly tried at least once last season.
    This needs context.

    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.
    What right does he have to involve himself on training effort, or lack of?
    He’s an analyst, not his remit
    He’s barely an analyst. He’s only an analyst because daddy said so. I manage a team of data analysts. He wouldn’t even get an interview anywhere else. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • I am a really good data analyst.
    I can look at the number of points we have in a league table and make a judgement from that.
    I can watch a match and look at the number of goals scored by each team, and then reach a conclusion as to the result.
  • wmcf123 said:
    DubaiCAFC said:
    Cawley has been clearly told a deal has been agreed, but that's if Charlton go down the Garner route.. I think TS wants 2 or 3 options agreed before picking.. Clearly that could piss people off! 

    I think we will hear a lot more today, potenially announcement, if not early next week! That's my hunch!
    It would be amusing if Garner told us to stuff it .  
    I suppose it would be amusing if you hated the club.
    I'm sure we'd find someone similarly qualified.  
  • DA9 said:
    Jac_52 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.
     MS certainly tried at least once last season.
    This needs context.

    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.
    What right does he have to involve himself on training effort, or lack of?
    He’s an analyst, not his remit
    He’s barely an analyst. He’s only an analyst because daddy said so. I manage a team of data analysts. He wouldn’t even get an interview anywhere else. 
    You know this how ? 
  • Cafc43v3r said:w


    When Airman ‘likes’ that post it scares me , we’ve got another nutbag , let’s hope he’s more useful than that goalkeeping coach  from Swindon’s nutsack .
    We have "known" that Martin is in charge of recruitment and many of us have raised it as a massive red flag.  The proof of the pudding will of course be in the eating (happy with that @Henry Irving) but it is a big concern.

    With the back ground of that there is little point employing a "manager", be it Adkins, Taylor, Warburton or Duff.

    Whilst I don't buy into the buzz word bingo that is a young, hungry, progressive coach, thatnis exactly what we need, because of the way the club is run.
    Mmmmmm……"I have my doubts that Martin is actually “in charge” of recruitment.
    On paper it may read that way but I don’t buy that.
  • You have to love us, we must be the only club in the world that could have a Schrodinger's Cat managerial head coach appointment.
  • Belv said:
    Scoham said:
    Look who the text message is from lol
    And now confirmed by the man on twitter that it was from AM.

    Daniel Sturridge got banned by the FA back in 2019 as per below 

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49031533
  • DA9 said:
    Jac_52 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.
     MS certainly tried at least once last season.
    This needs context.

    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.
    What right does he have to involve himself on training effort, or lack of?
    He’s an analyst, not his remit
    He’s barely an analyst. He’s only an analyst because daddy said so. I manage a team of data analysts. He wouldn’t even get an interview anywhere else. 
    How do you know this? Sounds like sour grapes to me.
  • DA9 said:
    Jac_52 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.
     MS certainly tried at least once last season.
    This needs context.

    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.
    What right does he have to involve himself on training effort, or lack of?
    He’s an analyst, not his remit
    He’s barely an analyst. He’s only an analyst because daddy said so. I manage a team of data analysts. He wouldn’t even get an interview anywhere else. 
    You know this how ? 
    Presumably his LinkedIn profile.

    He might say he used data in his last role but he’s never had a pure analytics position.


Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!