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

Andy Scott Appointed Technical Director

1121315171835

Comments

  • thenewbie said:
    DubaiCAFC said:
    NabySarr said:
    The proof of the ambition or otherwise of the owners will soon be known. Will Scott be able to deliver or will it be another set of loans and freebies?..we'll find out soon enough!
    Nothing wrong with frees or loans, look at the likes of Bolton, Oxford, Portsmouth transfer business this summer. Their signings are nearly all frees and loans and they are doing just fine. 

    We are in league 1, it is going to cheap fees and loans at best. We’ve already spent more than nearly all teams at this level do in buying May, Edun and Taylor this summer 
    Edun was a free with a sell on clause attached to the deal. Taylor was a compensation payment & Alfie was a mind blowing 250K, hardly heading the big spenders.
    Edun was not a free.

    True, although sounds like upfront it was very very little.

    "The fee Rovers are set to receive for Edun is understood to be undisclosed. However, the majority of the deal is understood to be sell-on clauses and performance-based add-ons, such as Charlton going up to the Championship"
    Well surely that is just a sign of someone doing their job. If we want to sign someone and we can get a deal that means that costs etc can be ameliorated and spread out then from a business perspective that's a good thing.

    Spending a lot of money up front has no bearing on the quality of the player (or not.) Edun wouldn't be better/worse if more of the fee was a one off spend.

    Absolutely agree. My post wasn't meant as a criticism.  Picking the right players is the key whether they are free or not and most L1 and signing will be free.
  • JamesSeed said:
    Thanks @Chunes

    So really only the following?

    Penny, Bonne, Kane, Tedic & Abankwah: Duds

    Thomas, Hector & Chem Campbell: OK

    The poor signings are woeful and the ok ones are fine for mid table L1.  We should be a team who aspire to more.  To fail to get one real gem out of something like 10 signings is not a great start.
    Why should we? We're clearly a League 1 yo yo club these days. 
  • edited December 2023
    JohnnyH2 said:
    JamesSeed said:
    Thanks @Chunes

    So really only the following?

    Penny, Bonne, Kane, Tedic & Abankwah: Duds

    Thomas, Hector & Chem Campbell: OK
    How can Campbell be rated as OK as he is a loan who the Manager has barely played?
    I’m just basing that on the last match where he was ok. MA not playing him is no big deal for me. I can only judge him on what I see on the pitch, and he actually started. The fact that he’s a loan has nothing to do with it. 
  • sam3110 said:
    That's not the definitive list though, as people like Taylor and Edun joined after the takeover.

    Andy Scott gave a line to the piece on Taylor, and Edun was billed as "the first signing of the new ownership era"
    Read the @Chunes post above. Several posts are contradicting each other, so it’s hard to know exactly who Scott signed and who he didn’t. 
  • Dazzler21 said:
    JamesSeed said:
    Thanks @Chunes

    So really only the following?

    Penny, Bonne, Kane, Tedic & Abankwah: Duds

    Thomas, Hector & Chem Campbell: OK

    The poor signings are woeful and the ok ones are fine for mid table L1.  We should be a team who aspire to more.  To fail to get one real gem out of something like 10 signings is not a great start.
    Why should we? We're clearly a League 1 yo yo club these days. 

    Couldn't care less what we are the last few years. My aspirations are for more than watching naff football forever more.  It is quite clear we have been the most underperforming club in the UK for 3-4 years in a row. That will change one day I am sure.
  • JamesSeed said:
    JohnnyH2 said:
    JamesSeed said:
    Thanks @Chunes

    So really only the following?

    Penny, Bonne, Kane, Tedic & Abankwah: Duds

    Thomas, Hector & Chem Campbell: OK
    How can Campbell be rated as OK as he is a loan who the Manager has barely played?
    I’m just basing that on the last match where he was ok. MA not playing him is no big deal for me. I can only judge him on what I see on the pitch, and he actually started. The fact that he’s a loan has nothing to do with it. 
    1 match out of a dozen does not make a signing ok.

    If a Manager does not play a player then as a signing he is not much use.

    I like what I see from Campbell but the important person in this does not.

    The loan is the crucial part, what's the point in borrowing someone else's player if you don't use them, waste of a loan slot.
  • I wonder if Charlie boy could sack Scott, I think they are probably in bed together.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited December 2023
    I think, long term, the idea is that Scott has little to no influence on player scouting or recommendations after our new scouting team is fully fleshed out - just as a technical director is meant to have little to no influence on the tactics and team selection when a head coach and his staff are working at Sparrows Lane every day.

    In the mean time, he’s definitely missed on a few, especially loanees, but in interviews has spoken about improving the club’s scouting processes. Whether that’s through better tools or simply more bodies in the building we don’t know.

    But I think his days of having an input on signing the likes of Chem Campbell (I remember his signing distinctly because Scott’s comments on him stood out) will soon be a thing of the past.
  • JamesSeed said:
    sam3110 said:
    That's not the definitive list though, as people like Taylor and Edun joined after the takeover.

    Andy Scott gave a line to the piece on Taylor, and Edun was billed as "the first signing of the new ownership era"
    Read the @Chunes post above. Several posts are contradicting each other, so it’s hard to know exactly who Scott signed and who he didn’t. 
    I did read it, and it's wrong, he didn't just sign those 4 players in the summer transfer window. From Edun onwards was Global Football Partners (so Scott) and indeed we didn't announce signings like Edun, who was "in the works" since Jan, until GFP took over as they released the funds for it. 
  • Croydon said:
    sam3110 said:
    That's not the definitive list though, as people like Taylor and Edun joined after the takeover.

    Andy Scott gave a line to the piece on Taylor, and Edun was billed as "the first signing of the new ownership era"
    2 more for the dud pile as things stand then
    And Walker
  • sam3110 said:
    JamesSeed said:
    sam3110 said:
    That's not the definitive list though, as people like Taylor and Edun joined after the takeover.

    Andy Scott gave a line to the piece on Taylor, and Edun was billed as "the first signing of the new ownership era"
    Read the @Chunes post above. Several posts are contradicting each other, so it’s hard to know exactly who Scott signed and who he didn’t. 
    I did read it, and it's wrong, he didn't just sign those 4 players in the summer transfer window. From Edun onwards was Global Football Partners (so Scott) and indeed we didn't announce signings like Edun, who was "in the works" since Jan, until GFP took over as they released the funds for it. 
    You couldn’t make a definitive list of all the Scott signings could you? That’d be very useful. 👍
  • edited December 2023
    @JohnnyH2
    Not quite ‘one match out of a dozen’. 
    Chem (if I’m reading the stats page correctly) played three games earlier on; got scores of 6.26 (MotM v Oxford), 7.14 (v Fleetwood) & 5.51 (v Stevenage). He then didn’t start for 11 games, coming briefly as sub twice, followed by 6.17 v Cambridge. His best score was that 7.14, and he was MotM in a second match. Both the other scores were ok. and I, like you, like the look of him. 
    So I can’t call him a dud signing, even if MA may have had doubts. I don’t particular mind if they send him back, were they to replace him with better though. 
    In the meantime he’s likely to get more chances to prove himself before the window opens. Hope he does well. 
  • JamesSeed said:
    @JohnnyH2
    Not quite ‘one match out of a dozen’. 
    Chem (if I’m reading the stats page correctly) played three games earlier on; got scores of 6.26 (MotM v Oxford), 7.14 (v Fleetwood) & 5.51 (v Stevenage). He then didn’t start for 11 games, coming briefly as sub twice, followed by 6.17 v Cambridge. His best score was that 7.14, and he was MotM in a second match. Both the other scores were ok. and I, like you, like the look of him. 
    So I can’t call him a dud signing, even if MA may have had doubts. I don’t particular mind if they send him back, were they to replace him with better though. 
    In the meantime he’s likely to get more chances to prove himself before the window opens. Hope he does well. 
    Like I said in my response to you I like what I have seen from him (the relatively small amount of minutes he has played)

    But the Manager does not.
  • I think, long term, the idea is that Scott has little to no influence on player scouting or recommendations after our new scouting team is fully fleshed out - just as a technical director is meant to have little to no influence on the tactics and team selection when a head coach and his staff are working at Sparrows Lane every day.

    In the mean time, he’s definitely missed on a few, especially loanees, but in interviews has spoken about improving the club’s scouting processes. Whether that’s through better tools or simply more bodies in the building we don’t know.

    But I think his days of having an input on signing the likes of Chem Campbell (I remember his signing distinctly because Scott’s comments on him stood out) will soon be a thing of the past.
    Well I know for a cast iron fact he turned down Lewis Bate in favour of Watson - i thought Watson has been good so that isn’t a stick to beat Scott with but he can’t get in the team now for whatever reason so… everybody says he’s now crap so… I‘ve heard millwall Mat. R sniffing around Bate which makes sense so if he goes there and is a success, that will defo be on Scott coz he was dying to come to Charlton in the summer and it was about to happen until Holden got the boot 
  • Sponsored links:


  • NabySarr said:
    I think, long term, the idea is that Scott has little to no influence on player scouting or recommendations after our new scouting team is fully fleshed out - just as a technical director is meant to have little to no influence on the tactics and team selection when a head coach and his staff are working at Sparrows Lane every day.

    In the mean time, he’s definitely missed on a few, especially loanees, but in interviews has spoken about improving the club’s scouting processes. Whether that’s through better tools or simply more bodies in the building we don’t know.

    But I think his days of having an input on signing the likes of Chem Campbell (I remember his signing distinctly because Scott’s comments on him stood out) will soon be a thing of the past.
    That seems quite strange and unlikely to me. His track record is in scouting and recruitment so I’m sure he’s going to always be very involved in that area, and he will probably always be the key decision maker on incomings/outgoings 
    It’d be one to ask in a future Q&A session because in the purest sense, I don’t think a technical director should be getting involved in any particular area of the club’s operation more than another.

    Hire the right people to do each of those jobs and oversee each department to ensure they’re running effectively should be the goal.
  • NabySarr said:
    I think, long term, the idea is that Scott has little to no influence on player scouting or recommendations after our new scouting team is fully fleshed out - just as a technical director is meant to have little to no influence on the tactics and team selection when a head coach and his staff are working at Sparrows Lane every day.

    In the mean time, he’s definitely missed on a few, especially loanees, but in interviews has spoken about improving the club’s scouting processes. Whether that’s through better tools or simply more bodies in the building we don’t know.

    But I think his days of having an input on signing the likes of Chem Campbell (I remember his signing distinctly because Scott’s comments on him stood out) will soon be a thing of the past.
    That seems quite strange and unlikely to me. His track record is in scouting and recruitment so I’m sure he’s going to always be very involved in that area, and he will probably always be the key decision maker on incomings/outgoings 
    It’d be one to ask in a future Q&A session because in the purest sense, I don’t think a technical director should be getting involved in any particular area of the club’s operation more than another.

    Hire the right people to do each of those jobs and oversee each department to ensure they’re running effectively should be the goal.
    We’ve obviously hired a head of performance to report to Scott on that side. I think it’s unlikely we hire a head of recruitment in a similar way, and I haven’t seen anything like that mentioned. If it were to happen I’m sure they’d have been shouting about it like they were the head of performance so I don’t think that’s how the structure will work. I think it’s more that Scott doesn’t have background in the performance side so we needed someone to the experience there 
  • NabySarr said:
    I think, long term, the idea is that Scott has little to no influence on player scouting or recommendations after our new scouting team is fully fleshed out - just as a technical director is meant to have little to no influence on the tactics and team selection when a head coach and his staff are working at Sparrows Lane every day.

    In the mean time, he’s definitely missed on a few, especially loanees, but in interviews has spoken about improving the club’s scouting processes. Whether that’s through better tools or simply more bodies in the building we don’t know.

    But I think his days of having an input on signing the likes of Chem Campbell (I remember his signing distinctly because Scott’s comments on him stood out) will soon be a thing of the past.
    That seems quite strange and unlikely to me. His track record is in scouting and recruitment so I’m sure he’s going to always be very involved in that area, and he will probably always be the key decision maker on incomings/outgoings 
    It’d be one to ask in a future Q&A session because in the purest sense, I don’t think a technical director should be getting involved in any particular area of the club’s operation more than another.

    Hire the right people to do each of those jobs and oversee each department to ensure they’re running effectively should be the goal.
    Do we know which areas report in to Scott?
  • DOUCHER said:
    I think, long term, the idea is that Scott has little to no influence on player scouting or recommendations after our new scouting team is fully fleshed out - just as a technical director is meant to have little to no influence on the tactics and team selection when a head coach and his staff are working at Sparrows Lane every day.

    In the mean time, he’s definitely missed on a few, especially loanees, but in interviews has spoken about improving the club’s scouting processes. Whether that’s through better tools or simply more bodies in the building we don’t know.

    But I think his days of having an input on signing the likes of Chem Campbell (I remember his signing distinctly because Scott’s comments on him stood out) will soon be a thing of the past.
    Well I know for a cast iron fact he turned down Lewis Bate in favour of Watson - i thought Watson has been good so that isn’t a stick to beat Scott with but he can’t get in the team now for whatever reason so… everybody says he’s now crap so… I‘ve heard millwall Mat. R sniffing around Bate which makes sense so if he goes there and is a success, that will defo be on Scott coz he was dying to come to Charlton in the summer and it was about to happen until Holden got the boot 
    Ties in with Scott saying he doesn't want players that want to sign for Charlton. 

    He wants to convince players with loftier ambitions to sign for Charlton. 
  • DOUCHER said:
    I think, long term, the idea is that Scott has little to no influence on player scouting or recommendations after our new scouting team is fully fleshed out - just as a technical director is meant to have little to no influence on the tactics and team selection when a head coach and his staff are working at Sparrows Lane every day.

    In the mean time, he’s definitely missed on a few, especially loanees, but in interviews has spoken about improving the club’s scouting processes. Whether that’s through better tools or simply more bodies in the building we don’t know.

    But I think his days of having an input on signing the likes of Chem Campbell (I remember his signing distinctly because Scott’s comments on him stood out) will soon be a thing of the past.
    Well I know for a cast iron fact he turned down Lewis Bate in favour of Watson - i thought Watson has been good so that isn’t a stick to beat Scott with but he can’t get in the team now for whatever reason so… everybody says he’s now crap so… I‘ve heard millwall Mat. R sniffing around Bate which makes sense so if he goes there and is a success, that will defo be on Scott coz he was dying to come to Charlton in the summer and it was about to happen until Holden got the boot 
    Ties in with Scott saying he doesn't want players that want to sign for Charlton. 

    He wants to convince players with loftier ambitions to sign for Charlton. 
     
    I have to say when he said that all I could think of was Tommy Sandgaard, I am sure he said something similar. Then bought Kirk and DJ and Lavelle.
  • edited December 2023
    NabySarr said:
    NabySarr said:
    I think, long term, the idea is that Scott has little to no influence on player scouting or recommendations after our new scouting team is fully fleshed out - just as a technical director is meant to have little to no influence on the tactics and team selection when a head coach and his staff are working at Sparrows Lane every day.

    In the mean time, he’s definitely missed on a few, especially loanees, but in interviews has spoken about improving the club’s scouting processes. Whether that’s through better tools or simply more bodies in the building we don’t know.

    But I think his days of having an input on signing the likes of Chem Campbell (I remember his signing distinctly because Scott’s comments on him stood out) will soon be a thing of the past.
    That seems quite strange and unlikely to me. His track record is in scouting and recruitment so I’m sure he’s going to always be very involved in that area, and he will probably always be the key decision maker on incomings/outgoings 
    It’d be one to ask in a future Q&A session because in the purest sense, I don’t think a technical director should be getting involved in any particular area of the club’s operation more than another.

    Hire the right people to do each of those jobs and oversee each department to ensure they’re running effectively should be the goal.
    We’ve obviously hired a head of performance to report to Scott on that side. I think it’s unlikely we hire a head of recruitment in a similar way, and I haven’t seen anything like that mentioned. If it were to happen I’m sure they’d have been shouting about it like they were the head of performance so I don’t think that’s how the structure will work. I think it’s more that Scott doesn’t have background in the performance side so we needed someone to the experience there 
    He didn’t say they were explicitly looking for a “director of recruitment” but in Andy Scott’s sit down/chat/whatever you want to call it, at 2:13 he
    says:

    “… and we’re improving our recruitment team … we’ve had a lot of discussions over that and want to make sure we’ve got enough eyes watching players ready for January and for the summer … we’ve got a lot of data, we’ve got people watching games but we want to improve that department and make sure it’s running exactly how we want it so that every window moving forward we can be in a better position at the end of it”

    It doesn’t sound like the comments of someone who is actively leading our recruitment department.
  • DOUCHER said:
    I think, long term, the idea is that Scott has little to no influence on player scouting or recommendations after our new scouting team is fully fleshed out - just as a technical director is meant to have little to no influence on the tactics and team selection when a head coach and his staff are working at Sparrows Lane every day.

    In the mean time, he’s definitely missed on a few, especially loanees, but in interviews has spoken about improving the club’s scouting processes. Whether that’s through better tools or simply more bodies in the building we don’t know.

    But I think his days of having an input on signing the likes of Chem Campbell (I remember his signing distinctly because Scott’s comments on him stood out) will soon be a thing of the past.
    Well I know for a cast iron fact he turned down Lewis Bate in favour of Watson - i thought Watson has been good so that isn’t a stick to beat Scott with but he can’t get in the team now for whatever reason so… everybody says he’s now crap so… I‘ve heard millwall Mat. R sniffing around Bate which makes sense so if he goes there and is a success, that will defo be on Scott coz he was dying to come to Charlton in the summer and it was about to happen until Holden got the boot 
    Ties in with Scott saying he doesn't want players that want to sign for Charlton. 

    He wants to convince players with loftier ambitions to sign for Charlton. 
     
    I have to say when he said that all I could think of was Tommy Sandgaard, I am sure he said something similar. Then bought Kirk and DJ and Lavelle.
    TS deserves a lot of flak mate but nobody can hang Kirk on him I distinctly remember Gallen saying we had been after him for atleast a year before we signed him. TS was the poor sod who spunked half a million on the bloke 
  • DOUCHER said:
    I think, long term, the idea is that Scott has little to no influence on player scouting or recommendations after our new scouting team is fully fleshed out - just as a technical director is meant to have little to no influence on the tactics and team selection when a head coach and his staff are working at Sparrows Lane every day.

    In the mean time, he’s definitely missed on a few, especially loanees, but in interviews has spoken about improving the club’s scouting processes. Whether that’s through better tools or simply more bodies in the building we don’t know.

    But I think his days of having an input on signing the likes of Chem Campbell (I remember his signing distinctly because Scott’s comments on him stood out) will soon be a thing of the past.
    Well I know for a cast iron fact he turned down Lewis Bate in favour of Watson - i thought Watson has been good so that isn’t a stick to beat Scott with but he can’t get in the team now for whatever reason so… everybody says he’s now crap so… I‘ve heard millwall Mat. R sniffing around Bate which makes sense so if he goes there and is a success, that will defo be on Scott coz he was dying to come to Charlton in the summer and it was about to happen until Holden got the boot 
    Ties in with Scott saying he doesn't want players that want to sign for Charlton. 

    He wants to convince players with loftier ambitions to sign for Charlton. 
    Personally I think that’s absolute bollocks. One of the fundamental problems we’ve underperformed so much over the last 17 years has been too many players with delusions of grandeur who think they’re better than this. 
     But the players have been absolute dross. And I doubt the majority of them had many clubs knocking down the door to sign them at the time despite what their agents may have said.

    What I hope Scott is alluding to is that we start bringing in some high pedigree that are genuinely being courted by championship clubs.
     That will take wedge..and plenty of it
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!