MS was certainly extremely naive in saying anything to Conor Washington, but it really should have come as no surprise to anyone that after a failure of a season that TS would want to review what went wrong, and obviously that would include "is the current manager the man to take us forward".
To suggest the players played poorly because Jackson's future was in doubt is simply to deny any responsibility players have to perform. The vast majority of managers' position are in doubt to one degree or another. The players can't just not turn up because there's a chance in how ever many days, weeks or months, the manager may lose their job.
...Fair play to Pardew if the reason he left CSKA was racial abuse towards his own black players, reports showing bananas being thrown is disgusting,..he may have a chequered past and divided opinions on his managerial background, but can't fault his actions this time..fair play Alan..
MS was certainly naive in saying anything to Conor Washington, but it really should have come as no surprise to anyone that after a failure of a season that TS would want to review what went wrong, and obviously that would include "is the current manager the man to take us forward".
To suggest the players played poorly because Jackson's future was in doubt is simply to deny any responsibility players have to perform. The vast majority of managers' position are in doubt to one degree or another. The players can't just not turn up because there's a chance in how ever many days, weeks or months, the manager may lose their job.
There’s a difference between absolving the players of responsibility and recognising that it may have had an effect on their performance.
MS was certainly extremely naive in saying anything to Conor Washington, but it really should have come as no surprise to anyone that after a failure of a season that TS would want to review what went wrong, and obviously that would include "is the current manager the man to take us forward".
To suggest the players played poorly because Jackson's future was in doubt is simply to deny any responsibility players have to perform. The vast majority of managers' position are in doubt to one degree or another. The players can't just not turn up because there's a chance in how ever many days, weeks or months, the manager may lose their job.
The conversation wasnt initially about Jackson though, Washington was told that any contract for him wouldnt happen as of then as a/the new man might not want him.
"Hey lads, MS just said any contract talks for us OOC players wont happen unitl they maybe sack Jacko....the man who´s been calling for contract talks for some of us....Anyway, 110% on Saturday boys lets do thissssssssssssssssssssssssssss A2V"
My concern is quite similar to what with seen in player recruitment the last couple of years. Doing a decent job in identifying good candidates, but failing to attract them here
Posted that on 16th May and suspect that is what’s proven the case, particularly with Beale.
Likely problems: refusal to recognise the market rate, either in salary or on termination; for managers, the scope of the role.
We are not an unattractive proposition relative to most other third tier or provincial clubs.
Both obstacles are likely to lead to extended discussions. In fairness, this is the best time of year to accommodate delays, but at some point you have to compromise.
That may well be part of it, but in terms of Beale, would it not just be that he got an offer we couldn't really match? QPR announced Warburton was leaving on 28th April. Charlton sacked Jackson on 2nd May. QPR are a league above us, have been in the Premier League more recently than us and are really a more attractive prospect all round. It's not like they sacked their manager yesterday and swooped in over us, they had a lot of time to plan this as well and they'll be hoping for a push towards the Premier League next season. What are we offering Beale that can match that even in the best possible scenario?
Maybe, but I’m not applying the above to one candidate in isolation. It doesn’t take four weeks to run a process especially if the intention to sack Jackson predates the end of the season.
The fact TS suggested it might take longer doesn’t make that necessary or ideal either.
Did it though? Or was Thomas only considering sacking Jackson then, which MS knew when speaking to CW, only to later get an itchy trigger finger after the Ipswich debacle! Apologies if this has already been made clear.
More likely Ipswich was the outcome of TS’s intention than the cause of it. The players knew this was on the cards. I was told by a club contact on the way back from the game.
Bless, the players' really chose when they wanted to play for Jacko or when they didn't fancy turning up.
Maybe their political stance is being given too much credit. They're simply shite apart from a few.
I think motivation is a bit more complicated than that. They are people not robots. I’m not defending that performance or others during the season but if you don’t have everyone fully focused for whatever reason you are likely to fall short. I think the behind the scenes manoeuvring and the players’ perception of it is a big part of what happened last season.
Is it true that there was also dressing room disharmony as a result of some being anti vaxers?
I'm astonished to see you relate that the players knew Jackson was out before Ipswich, but he didn't. You can understand that, to an outsider, that sounds scarcely credible, but, if it's one of the known knowns now, I must say it sounds an unprofessional way of doing things.
Plenty of room for improvement and must do better. Hopefully we will next season.
Isn't this easily explained by the purported performance-related aspects to Jackson's contract?
Let's say, for example, that the renewal was dependent on finishing in the top six. At the time of the Ipswich game, this was not possible, so everyone (including Jackson) 'knew' that his time was over ... although Sandgaard had not formally 'let him go' at that point.
The renewal was it the issue, it was how much it would cost to sack him. He was still under contract so Thomas still had to do something.
I think I've unravelled what you are trying to say.
My understanding is that Jackson was not sacked ... it was that Sandgaard chose not to extend his contract (presumably due to failing to meet the agreed performance criteria).
"Johnnie Jackson’s initial contract at Charlton Athletic is for 18 months – with their league finish only affecting the amount of compensation paid if Thomas Sandgaard opts to dispense with his services."
1) Cawley (18 Feb 2022) Johnnie Jackson’s initial contract at Charlton Athletic is for 18 months – with their league finish only affecting the amount of compensation paid if Thomas Sandgaard opts to dispense with his services.
2) Cawley (11 Feb 2022) 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.
3) Evening Standard (3 May 2022) Johnnie Jackson's 12-year association with Charlton Athletic is over after the club elected not to extend his contract as manager beyond the summer.
Anyone know the truth?
One interpretation might be that all are correct ... ie, the 12-month extension is only triggered if we make (eg) the top six, but Jackson gets more of a payout if we finish 7th compared to 9th etc.
My concern is quite similar to what with seen in player recruitment the last couple of years. Doing a decent job in identifying good candidates, but failing to attract them here
Posted that on 16th May and suspect that is what’s proven the case, particularly with Beale.
Likely problems: refusal to recognise the market rate, either in salary or on termination; for managers, the scope of the role.
We are not an unattractive proposition relative to most other third tier or provincial clubs.
Both obstacles are likely to lead to extended discussions. In fairness, this is the best time of year to accommodate delays, but at some point you have to compromise.
That may well be part of it, but in terms of Beale, would it not just be that he got an offer we couldn't really match? QPR announced Warburton was leaving on 28th April. Charlton sacked Jackson on 2nd May. QPR are a league above us, have been in the Premier League more recently than us and are really a more attractive prospect all round. It's not like they sacked their manager yesterday and swooped in over us, they had a lot of time to plan this as well and they'll be hoping for a push towards the Premier League next season. What are we offering Beale that can match that even in the best possible scenario?
Maybe, but I’m not applying the above to one candidate in isolation. It doesn’t take four weeks to run a process especially if the intention to sack Jackson predates the end of the season.
The fact TS suggested it might take longer doesn’t make that necessary or ideal either.
Did it though? Or was Thomas only considering sacking Jackson then, which MS knew when speaking to CW, only to later get an itchy trigger finger after the Ipswich debacle! Apologies if this has already been made clear.
More likely Ipswich was the outcome of TS’s intention than the cause of it. The players knew this was on the cards. I was told by a club contact on the way back from the game.
Bless, the players' really chose when they wanted to play for Jacko or when they didn't fancy turning up.
Maybe their political stance is being given too much credit. They're simply shite apart from a few.
I think motivation is a bit more complicated than that. They are people not robots. I’m not defending that performance or others during the season but if you don’t have everyone fully focused for whatever reason you are likely to fall short. I think the behind the scenes manoeuvring and the players’ perception of it is a big part of what happened last season.
Is it true that there was also dressing room disharmony as a result of some being anti vaxers?
I'm astonished to see you relate that the players knew Jackson was out before Ipswich, but he didn't. You can understand that, to an outsider, that sounds scarcely credible, but, if it's one of the known knowns now, I must say it sounds an unprofessional way of doing things.
Plenty of room for improvement and must do better. Hopefully we will next season.
Isn't this easily explained by the purported performance-related aspects to Jackson's contract?
Let's say, for example, that the renewal was dependent on finishing in the top six. At the time of the Ipswich game, this was not possible, so everyone (including Jackson) 'knew' that his time was over ... although Sandgaard had not formally 'let him go' at that point.
The renewal was it the issue, it was how much it would cost to sack him. He was still under contract so Thomas still had to do something.
I think I've unravelled what you are trying to say.
My understanding is that Jackson was not sacked ... it was that Sandgaard chose not to extend his contract (presumably due to failing to meet the agreed performance criteria).
"Johnnie Jackson’s initial contract at Charlton Athletic is for 18 months – with their league finish only affecting the amount of compensation paid if Thomas Sandgaard opts to dispense with his services."
1) Cawley (18 Feb 2022) Johnnie Jackson’s initial contract at Charlton Athletic is for 18 months – with their league finish only affecting the amount of compensation paid if Thomas Sandgaard opts to dispense with his services.
2) Cawley (11 Feb 2022) 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.
3) Evening Standard (3 May 2022) Johnnie Jackson's 12-year association with Charlton Athletic is over after the club elected not to extend his contract as manager beyond the summer.
Anyone know the truth?
One interpretation might be that all are correct ... ie, the 12-month extension is only triggered if we make (eg) the top six, but Jackson gets more of a payout if we finish 7th compared to 9th etc.
My concern is quite similar to what with seen in player recruitment the last couple of years. Doing a decent job in identifying good candidates, but failing to attract them here
Posted that on 16th May and suspect that is what’s proven the case, particularly with Beale.
Likely problems: refusal to recognise the market rate, either in salary or on termination; for managers, the scope of the role.
We are not an unattractive proposition relative to most other third tier or provincial clubs.
Both obstacles are likely to lead to extended discussions. In fairness, this is the best time of year to accommodate delays, but at some point you have to compromise.
That may well be part of it, but in terms of Beale, would it not just be that he got an offer we couldn't really match? QPR announced Warburton was leaving on 28th April. Charlton sacked Jackson on 2nd May. QPR are a league above us, have been in the Premier League more recently than us and are really a more attractive prospect all round. It's not like they sacked their manager yesterday and swooped in over us, they had a lot of time to plan this as well and they'll be hoping for a push towards the Premier League next season. What are we offering Beale that can match that even in the best possible scenario?
Maybe, but I’m not applying the above to one candidate in isolation. It doesn’t take four weeks to run a process especially if the intention to sack Jackson predates the end of the season.
The fact TS suggested it might take longer doesn’t make that necessary or ideal either.
Did it though? Or was Thomas only considering sacking Jackson then, which MS knew when speaking to CW, only to later get an itchy trigger finger after the Ipswich debacle! Apologies if this has already been made clear.
More likely Ipswich was the outcome of TS’s intention than the cause of it. The players knew this was on the cards. I was told by a club contact on the way back from the game.
Bless, the players' really chose when they wanted to play for Jacko or when they didn't fancy turning up.
Maybe their political stance is being given too much credit. They're simply shite apart from a few.
I think motivation is a bit more complicated than that. They are people not robots. I’m not defending that performance or others during the season but if you don’t have everyone fully focused for whatever reason you are likely to fall short. I think the behind the scenes manoeuvring and the players’ perception of it is a big part of what happened last season.
Is it true that there was also dressing room disharmony as a result of some being anti vaxers?
I'm astonished to see you relate that the players knew Jackson was out before Ipswich, but he didn't. You can understand that, to an outsider, that sounds scarcely credible, but, if it's one of the known knowns now, I must say it sounds an unprofessional way of doing things.
Plenty of room for improvement and must do better. Hopefully we will next season.
Isn't this easily explained by the purported performance-related aspects to Jackson's contract?
Let's say, for example, that the renewal was dependent on finishing in the top six. At the time of the Ipswich game, this was not possible, so everyone (including Jackson) 'knew' that his time was over ... although Sandgaard had not formally 'let him go' at that point.
The renewal was it the issue, it was how much it would cost to sack him. He was still under contract so Thomas still had to do something.
I think I've unravelled what you are trying to say.
My understanding is that Jackson was not sacked ... it was that Sandgaard chose not to extend his contract (presumably due to failing to meet the agreed performance criteria).
"Johnnie Jackson’s initial contract at Charlton Athletic is for 18 months – with their league finish only affecting the amount of compensation paid if Thomas Sandgaard opts to dispense with his services."
1) Cawley (18 Feb 2022) Johnnie Jackson’s initial contract at Charlton Athletic is for 18 months – with their league finish only affecting the amount of compensation paid if Thomas Sandgaard opts to dispense with his services.
2) Cawley (11 Feb 2022) 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.
3) Evening Standard (3 May 2022) Johnnie Jackson's 12-year association with Charlton Athletic is over after the club elected not to extend his contract as manager beyond the summer.
Anyone know the truth?
One interpretation might be that all are correct ... ie, the 12-month extension is only triggered if we make (eg) the top six, but Jackson gets more of a payout if we finish 7th compared to 9th etc.
My concern is quite similar to what with seen in player recruitment the last couple of years. Doing a decent job in identifying good candidates, but failing to attract them here
Posted that on 16th May and suspect that is what’s proven the case, particularly with Beale.
Likely problems: refusal to recognise the market rate, either in salary or on termination; for managers, the scope of the role.
We are not an unattractive proposition relative to most other third tier or provincial clubs.
Both obstacles are likely to lead to extended discussions. In fairness, this is the best time of year to accommodate delays, but at some point you have to compromise.
That may well be part of it, but in terms of Beale, would it not just be that he got an offer we couldn't really match? QPR announced Warburton was leaving on 28th April. Charlton sacked Jackson on 2nd May. QPR are a league above us, have been in the Premier League more recently than us and are really a more attractive prospect all round. It's not like they sacked their manager yesterday and swooped in over us, they had a lot of time to plan this as well and they'll be hoping for a push towards the Premier League next season. What are we offering Beale that can match that even in the best possible scenario?
Maybe, but I’m not applying the above to one candidate in isolation. It doesn’t take four weeks to run a process especially if the intention to sack Jackson predates the end of the season.
The fact TS suggested it might take longer doesn’t make that necessary or ideal either.
Did it though? Or was Thomas only considering sacking Jackson then, which MS knew when speaking to CW, only to later get an itchy trigger finger after the Ipswich debacle! Apologies if this has already been made clear.
More likely Ipswich was the outcome of TS’s intention than the cause of it. The players knew this was on the cards. I was told by a club contact on the way back from the game.
Bless, the players' really chose when they wanted to play for Jacko or when they didn't fancy turning up.
Maybe their political stance is being given too much credit. They're simply shite apart from a few.
I think motivation is a bit more complicated than that. They are people not robots. I’m not defending that performance or others during the season but if you don’t have everyone fully focused for whatever reason you are likely to fall short. I think the behind the scenes manoeuvring and the players’ perception of it is a big part of what happened last season.
Is it true that there was also dressing room disharmony as a result of some being anti vaxers?
I'm astonished to see you relate that the players knew Jackson was out before Ipswich, but he didn't. You can understand that, to an outsider, that sounds scarcely credible, but, if it's one of the known knowns now, I must say it sounds an unprofessional way of doing things.
Plenty of room for improvement and must do better. Hopefully we will next season.
Isn't this easily explained by the purported performance-related aspects to Jackson's contract?
Let's say, for example, that the renewal was dependent on finishing in the top six. At the time of the Ipswich game, this was not possible, so everyone (including Jackson) 'knew' that his time was over ... although Sandgaard had not formally 'let him go' at that point.
The renewal was it the issue, it was how much it would cost to sack him. He was still under contract so Thomas still had to do something.
I think I've unravelled what you are trying to say.
My understanding is that Jackson was not sacked ... it was that Sandgaard chose not to extend his contract (presumably due to failing to meet the agreed performance criteria).
"Johnnie Jackson’s initial contract at Charlton Athletic is for 18 months – with their league finish only affecting the amount of compensation paid if Thomas Sandgaard opts to dispense with his services."
1) Cawley (18 Feb 2022) Johnnie Jackson’s initial contract at Charlton Athletic is for 18 months – with their league finish only affecting the amount of compensation paid if Thomas Sandgaard opts to dispense with his services.
2) Cawley (11 Feb 2022) 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.
3) Evening Standard (3 May 2022) Johnnie Jackson's 12-year association with Charlton Athletic is over after the club elected not to extend his contract as manager beyond the summer.
Anyone know the truth?
One interpretation might be that all are correct ... ie, the 12-month extension is only triggered if we make (eg) the top six, but Jackson gets more of a payout if we finish 7th compared to 9th etc.
He had a contract until the end of the 22/23 season already. So I can't believe he signed a shorter one with no compensation.
All the interviews post dismissal use sacked, not that he just didn't get it renewed.
I think 1 is the truth but as you say you could interpreate them as all being technically correct.
Alan Pardew chooses some strange places to go and Manage. If he had done some due diligence he wouldn't have gone there. Bulgaria and Hungary to name just two countries going towards eastern Europe as we know if you watch England games have some Racist supporters.
Perhaps it's getting more expensive to keep his harem going as I can't believe he couldn't get a job in the states if he is persona non Grata in the UK ?
Good on him for walking out as Alex Dyer is his assistant and he has Black players in his team. He really shouldn't be surprised.
Been at a funeral today, what have I missed? Did someone say Martin was actually Ro-lands son?
You have missed a belter of a day.
@RonnieMoore is a pilot, we are playing Swanley in a friendly,
Mr largo has been advised to move his toilet seat closer to his front door, somebody is annoyed that Andy Carroll ended up in bed with 2 woman and AFKA has been roaming the streets of London singing God save the Queen.
I almost forgot amongst all the excitement , it seems the news of Ben Chorley leaving Swindon only filtered through to Finland 2 days after the event.
Alma Swanley? Or do you really mean Crockenhill?
Sad to hear Swanley don't have a team, I played for Swanley Town, mid to late eighties in The Spartan League. Love to tell my sons that I am the only semi-pro in the family, we used to get £4 a match + fuel costs for away games. £4 probably got you 3 pints in the clubhouse after the match.
MS was certainly extremely naive in saying anything to Conor Washington, but it really should have come as no surprise to anyone that after a failure of a season that TS would want to review what went wrong, and obviously that would include "is the current manager the man to take us forward".
To suggest the players played poorly because Jackson's future was in doubt is simply to deny any responsibility players have to perform. The vast majority of managers' position are in doubt to one degree or another. The players can't just not turn up because there's a chance in how ever many days, weeks or months, the manager may lose their job.
The conversation wasnt initially about Jackson though, Washington was told that any contract for him wouldnt happen as of then as a/the new man might not want him.
"Hey lads, MS just said any contract talks for us OOC players wont happen unitl they maybe sack Jacko....the man who´s been calling for contract talks for some of us....Anyway, 110% on Saturday boys lets do thissssssssssssssssssssssssssss A2V"
Not word for word but he said the following.
“ You’ll have to negotiate that with JJ or whoever the next manager might be”.
...Fair play to Pardew if the reason he left CSKA was racial abuse towards his own black players, reports showing bananas being thrown is disgusting,..he may have a chequered past and divided opinions on his managerial background, but can't fault his actions this time..fair play Alan..
Didn’t know Alex Dyer was his number 2 there as well.!
My concern is quite similar to what with seen in player recruitment the last couple of years. Doing a decent job in identifying good candidates, but failing to attract them here
Posted that on 16th May and suspect that is what’s proven the case, particularly with Beale.
Likely problems: refusal to recognise the market rate, either in salary or on termination; for managers, the scope of the role.
We are not an unattractive proposition relative to most other third tier or provincial clubs.
Both obstacles are likely to lead to extended discussions. In fairness, this is the best time of year to accommodate delays, but at some point you have to compromise.
That may well be part of it, but in terms of Beale, would it not just be that he got an offer we couldn't really match? QPR announced Warburton was leaving on 28th April. Charlton sacked Jackson on 2nd May. QPR are a league above us, have been in the Premier League more recently than us and are really a more attractive prospect all round. It's not like they sacked their manager yesterday and swooped in over us, they had a lot of time to plan this as well and they'll be hoping for a push towards the Premier League next season. What are we offering Beale that can match that even in the best possible scenario?
Maybe, but I’m not applying the above to one candidate in isolation. It doesn’t take four weeks to run a process especially if the intention to sack Jackson predates the end of the season.
The fact TS suggested it might take longer doesn’t make that necessary or ideal either.
Did it though? Or was Thomas only considering sacking Jackson then, which MS knew when speaking to CW, only to later get an itchy trigger finger after the Ipswich debacle! Apologies if this has already been made clear.
More likely Ipswich was the outcome of TS’s intention than the cause of it. The players knew this was on the cards. I was told by a club contact on the way back from the game.
Bless, the players' really chose when they wanted to play for Jacko or when they didn't fancy turning up.
Maybe their political stance is being given too much credit. They're simply shite apart from a few.
I think motivation is a bit more complicated than that. They are people not robots. I’m not defending that performance or others during the season but if you don’t have everyone fully focused for whatever reason you are likely to fall short. I think the behind the scenes manoeuvring and the players’ perception of it is a big part of what happened last season.
Is it true that there was also dressing room disharmony as a result of some being anti vaxers?
I'm astonished to see you relate that the players knew Jackson was out before Ipswich, but he didn't. You can understand that, to an outsider, that sounds scarcely credible, but, if it's one of the known knowns now, I must say it sounds an unprofessional way of doing things.
Plenty of room for improvement and must do better. Hopefully we will next season.
Isn't this easily explained by the purported performance-related aspects to Jackson's contract?
Let's say, for example, that the renewal was dependent on finishing in the top six. At the time of the Ipswich game, this was not possible, so everyone (including Jackson) 'knew' that his time was over ... although Sandgaard had not formally 'let him go' at that point.
The renewal was it the issue, it was how much it would cost to sack him. He was still under contract so Thomas still had to do something.
I think I've unravelled what you are trying to say.
My understanding is that Jackson was not sacked ... it was that Sandgaard chose not to extend his contract (presumably due to failing to meet the agreed performance criteria).
"Johnnie Jackson’s initial contract at Charlton Athletic is for 18 months – with their league finish only affecting the amount of compensation paid if Thomas Sandgaard opts to dispense with his services."
1) Cawley (18 Feb 2022) Johnnie Jackson’s initial contract at Charlton Athletic is for 18 months – with their league finish only affecting the amount of compensation paid if Thomas Sandgaard opts to dispense with his services.
2) Cawley (11 Feb 2022) 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.
3) Evening Standard (3 May 2022) Johnnie Jackson's 12-year association with Charlton Athletic is over after the club elected not to extend his contract as manager beyond the summer.
Anyone know the truth?
One interpretation might be that all are correct ... ie, the 12-month extension is only triggered if we make (eg) the top six, but Jackson gets more of a payout if we finish 7th compared to 9th etc.
Was willing to give TS the summer, but nearly a month on and still no new manager is a joke. We are behind everyone else this summer AGAIN.
Just another quick reminder that the window isn't open for another 8 days
Another reminder that the window is pretty much completely irrelevant. Man City agreed a deal for Haaland before their season had even finished. In fairness, there hasn't been much official activity but I'd presume J Block and others are referring to the talking to players, agents etc. I think we're all guessing how much the lack of a manager is affecting us. We're no doubt making enquiries etc but we don't really know what impact having no manager is having for certain.
I did mean to caveat that with the exception of free agents aswell, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought tapping up of players who's contract isn't expiring outside of windows isn't allowed?
No of course tapping up of players is supposedly not allowed but I'm referring to talking to clubs about buying and/or loans. If we get permission to talk to players we can still get deals agreed. We signed Stockley before the window opened last season for example.
I believe you can talk to players from the 1st Jan when the contract finishes at the end of that season.
Going to keep an eye on QPR for sure , Beale was massively my first choice and I'm very very interested to see how he does. Would expect some very interesting loans there from his connections.
Was willing to give TS the summer, but nearly a month on and still no new manager is a joke. We are behind everyone else this summer AGAIN.
Just another quick reminder that the window isn't open for another 8 days
Another reminder that the window is pretty much completely irrelevant. Man City agreed a deal for Haaland before their season had even finished. In fairness, there hasn't been much official activity but I'd presume J Block and others are referring to the talking to players, agents etc. I think we're all guessing how much the lack of a manager is affecting us. We're no doubt making enquiries etc but we don't really know what impact having no manager is having for certain.
I did mean to caveat that with the exception of free agents aswell, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought tapping up of players who's contract isn't expiring outside of windows isn't allowed?
No of course tapping up of players is supposedly not allowed but I'm referring to talking to clubs about buying and/or loans. If we get permission to talk to players we can still get deals agreed. We signed Stockley before the window opened last season for example.
I believe you can talk to players from the 1st Jan when the contract finishes at the end of that season.
Could be wrong but think that only applies outside of England. I know clubs like PSG/Juventus could have approached Pogba in January, but a Premier League club couldn't (officially). Like I say could be wrong, that certainly used to be the rules, might have changed, so many have.
Comments
To suggest the players played poorly because Jackson's future was in doubt is simply to deny any responsibility players have to perform. The vast majority of managers' position are in doubt to one degree or another. The players can't just not turn up because there's a chance in how ever many days, weeks or months, the manager may lose their job.
The conversation wasnt initially about Jackson though, Washington was told that any contract for him wouldnt happen as of then as a/the new man might not want him.
"Hey lads, MS just said any contract talks for us OOC players wont happen unitl they maybe sack Jacko....the man who´s been calling for contract talks for some of us....Anyway, 110% on Saturday boys lets do thissssssssssssssssssssssssssss A2V"
1) Cawley (18 Feb 2022) Johnnie Jackson’s initial contract at Charlton Athletic is for 18 months – with their league finish only affecting the amount of compensation paid if Thomas Sandgaard opts to dispense with his services.
2) Cawley (11 Feb 2022) 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.
3) Evening Standard (3 May 2022) Johnnie Jackson's 12-year association with Charlton Athletic is over after the club elected not to extend his contract as manager beyond the summer.
Anyone know the truth?
One interpretation might be that all are correct ... ie, the 12-month extension is only triggered if we make (eg) the top six, but Jackson gets more of a payout if we finish 7th compared to 9th etc.
All the interviews post dismissal use sacked, not that he just didn't get it renewed.
I think 1 is the truth but as you say you could interpreate them as all being technically correct.
Perhaps it's getting more expensive to keep his harem going as I can't believe he couldn't get a job in the states if he is persona non Grata in the UK ?
Good on him for walking out as Alex Dyer is his assistant and he has Black players in his team. He really shouldn't be surprised.