Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Give Jacko The Job (He got given it on page 31...)
Comments
-
When JJ was given the job as interim manager, there was a significant number of fans including on here who thought he shouldn't get the job. That is the point where appointing him would have been cheapest. Then with an incredible turn around in no time at all, his stock has risen. I wanted him to get the job on a trial basis, but that was as a free hit, not because I thought JJ would be such a success. It was merely a possibility due to the fact that at our level, any manager could be a success or failure. Proven or unproven.
It is hard to be too critical of Sandgaard in that respect. Although I would say IMO that he has been too slow to sack managers and events have shown he has been too slow to appoint one whatever the mitigations. JJ has turned things round where everybody wants him in the job full time, including Sandgaard, but JJ's agent is negotiating clearly on that basis. It may come down ultimately to how much JJ wants the job. He is already at a point where he would get another job somewhere else if he walked.2 -
as I said last Tuesday, there were potential pros and cons with Sandgaard’s approach to this but one potential con with JJ doing very well over an extended period of time was going to be this.AFKABartram said:and I bet Jacko is going to be a more expensive hire now than he would have been 2 months ago
The optimum time to have got this signed and sealed was immediately after the Plymouth game. That was the watershed point.18 -
Great to know that the fee which could've kept Gallagher (and probably meant us staying up) was instead spent on Range Rovers and the interior design of Southall's homeHenry Irving said:
Bromley Addicks meeting.J BLOCK said:
When did Gallen say we could have kept him? Was under the impression Chelsea recalled him and there was nothing we could do.Henry Irving said:
You keep going back to Gallagher as an example of a greedy, manipulative agent but Gallen has said we could have kept him.PragueAddick said:while I agree that when it comes to the relationship with their agent, Jacko will be far more confident and assertive than, well let’s say, Conor Gallagher at the time he was inexplicably removed from us
, nobody should underestimate how much naked rampant greed and manipulative instincts are in the DNA of agents. And if that turns out to be a bit unfair on Jacko’s agent: Too bad. Go and find a journalist to help explain all the selfless good work you do.
Remember, Southall was in charge at the time.
We could have paid the required fee but Southall and Amis had other priorities IE themselves3 -
Agreed boss. Personally, wanted Jacko to the end of the season, after the first couple of results, to show his stripes. I,e make sure we don’t go down and get us near the top half. That goals looks like it’s been met so got to be looking longer term now.AFKABartram said:
as I said last Tuesday, there were potential pros and cons with Sandgaard’s approach to this but one potential con with JJ doing very well over an extended period of time was going to be this.AFKABartram said:and I bet Jacko is going to be a more expensive hire now than he would have been 2 months ago
The optimum time to have got this signed and sealed was immediately after the Plymouth game. That was the watershed point.Jacko is no longer the cheap option now.0 -
I agree. Even a game or two before then but that was the window.AFKABartram said:
as I said last Tuesday, there were potential pros and cons with Sandgaard’s approach to this but one potential con with JJ doing very well over an extended period of time was going to be this.AFKABartram said:and I bet Jacko is going to be a more expensive hire now than he would have been 2 months ago
The optimum time to have got this signed and sealed was immediately after the Plymouth game. That was the watershed point.0 -
Maybe I missed it, but it's a great shame I didn't read you making public this version of events when Gallen said it. I could have put a question about it on the CAST Zoom with him and Roddy in August.Henry Irving said:
Bromley Addicks meeting.J BLOCK said:
When did Gallen say we could have kept him? Was under the impression Chelsea recalled him and there was nothing we could do.Henry Irving said:
You keep going back to Gallagher as an example of a greedy, manipulative agent but Gallen has said we could have kept him.PragueAddick said:while I agree that when it comes to the relationship with their agent, Jacko will be far more confident and assertive than, well let’s say, Conor Gallagher at the time he was inexplicably removed from us , nobody should underestimate how much naked rampant greed and manipulative instincts are in the DNA of agents. And if that turns out to be a bit unfair on Jacko’s agent: Too bad. Go and find a journalist to help explain all the selfless good work you do.
Remember, Southall was in charge at the time.
We could have paid the required fee but Southall and Amis had other priorities IE themselves
Chelsea have a pretty structured -and expensive - way of running their young players loan farm, with a team of well known ex-pros permanently assigned to their progress at the loan clubs. Chelsea already knew we would struggle in the Champ when they lent us Conor. There was a recall clause, but it's quite unusual for them to activate it; they mainly seem concerned to ensure that the player is sufficiently playing (see the report of Conor at Palace from Cawley). While it's difficult to be sure, I certainly could not find a case of Chelsea triggering the recall of a young player who was getting good game time and immediately dumping him at another club in the same division. I stand to be corrected and there is a first time for everything. However doing it because Swansea were going to pay a bit of money, seems a bit implausible to me. It's not, at this level how Chelsea behave. They don't need to.0 -
I tagged you into the Gallen comment at the time.PragueAddick said:
Maybe I missed it, but it's a great shame I didn't read you making public this version of events when Gallen said it. I could have put a question about it on the CAST Zoom with him and Roddy in August.Henry Irving said:
Bromley Addicks meeting.J BLOCK said:
When did Gallen say we could have kept him? Was under the impression Chelsea recalled him and there was nothing we could do.Henry Irving said:
You keep going back to Gallagher as an example of a greedy, manipulative agent but Gallen has said we could have kept him.PragueAddick said:while I agree that when it comes to the relationship with their agent, Jacko will be far more confident and assertive than, well let’s say, Conor Gallagher at the time he was inexplicably removed from us , nobody should underestimate how much naked rampant greed and manipulative instincts are in the DNA of agents. And if that turns out to be a bit unfair on Jacko’s agent: Too bad. Go and find a journalist to help explain all the selfless good work you do.
Remember, Southall was in charge at the time.
We could have paid the required fee but Southall and Amis had other priorities IE themselves
Chelsea have a pretty structured -and expensive - way of running their young players loan farm, with a team of well known ex-pros permanently assigned to their progress at the loan clubs. Chelsea already knew we would struggle in the Champ when they lent us Conor. There was a recall clause, but it's quite unusual for them to activate it; they mainly seem concerned to ensure that the player is sufficiently playing (see the report of Conor at Palace from Cawley). While it's difficult to be sure, I certainly could not find a case of Chelsea triggering the recall of a young player who was getting good game time and immediately dumping him at another club in the same division. I stand to be corrected and there is a first time for everything. However doing it because Swansea were going to pay a bit of money, seems a bit implausible to me. It's not, at this level how Chelsea behave. They don't need to.
We could have kept him but we didn't.
It wasn't the evil agent so you have repeatedly said forcing Conor and Chelsea against their will. Conor was in tears at having to leave. It was Amis and Southall5 -
What did Amis and Southall do?Henry Irving said:
I tagged you into the Gallen comment at the time.PragueAddick said:
Maybe I missed it, but it's a great shame I didn't read you making public this version of events when Gallen said it. I could have put a question about it on the CAST Zoom with him and Roddy in August.Henry Irving said:
Bromley Addicks meeting.J BLOCK said:
When did Gallen say we could have kept him? Was under the impression Chelsea recalled him and there was nothing we could do.Henry Irving said:
You keep going back to Gallagher as an example of a greedy, manipulative agent but Gallen has said we could have kept him.PragueAddick said:while I agree that when it comes to the relationship with their agent, Jacko will be far more confident and assertive than, well let’s say, Conor Gallagher at the time he was inexplicably removed from us , nobody should underestimate how much naked rampant greed and manipulative instincts are in the DNA of agents. And if that turns out to be a bit unfair on Jacko’s agent: Too bad. Go and find a journalist to help explain all the selfless good work you do.
Remember, Southall was in charge at the time.
We could have paid the required fee but Southall and Amis had other priorities IE themselves
Chelsea have a pretty structured -and expensive - way of running their young players loan farm, with a team of well known ex-pros permanently assigned to their progress at the loan clubs. Chelsea already knew we would struggle in the Champ when they lent us Conor. There was a recall clause, but it's quite unusual for them to activate it; they mainly seem concerned to ensure that the player is sufficiently playing (see the report of Conor at Palace from Cawley). While it's difficult to be sure, I certainly could not find a case of Chelsea triggering the recall of a young player who was getting good game time and immediately dumping him at another club in the same division. I stand to be corrected and there is a first time for everything. However doing it because Swansea were going to pay a bit of money, seems a bit implausible to me. It's not, at this level how Chelsea behave. They don't need to.
We could have kept him but we didn't.
It wasn't the evil agent so you have repeatedly said forcing Conor and Chelsea against their will. Conor was in tears at having to leave. It was Amis and Southall0 -
Was the ‘required fee’ part of the original loan agreement at the beginning of the season (like an instalment) or some new request chelsea came up with?Henry Irving said:
I tagged you into the Gallen comment at the time.PragueAddick said:
Maybe I missed it, but it's a great shame I didn't read you making public this version of events when Gallen said it. I could have put a question about it on the CAST Zoom with him and Roddy in August.Henry Irving said:
Bromley Addicks meeting.J BLOCK said:
When did Gallen say we could have kept him? Was under the impression Chelsea recalled him and there was nothing we could do.Henry Irving said:
You keep going back to Gallagher as an example of a greedy, manipulative agent but Gallen has said we could have kept him.PragueAddick said:while I agree that when it comes to the relationship with their agent, Jacko will be far more confident and assertive than, well let’s say, Conor Gallagher at the time he was inexplicably removed from us , nobody should underestimate how much naked rampant greed and manipulative instincts are in the DNA of agents. And if that turns out to be a bit unfair on Jacko’s agent: Too bad. Go and find a journalist to help explain all the selfless good work you do.
Remember, Southall was in charge at the time.
We could have paid the required fee but Southall and Amis had other priorities IE themselves
Chelsea have a pretty structured -and expensive - way of running their young players loan farm, with a team of well known ex-pros permanently assigned to their progress at the loan clubs. Chelsea already knew we would struggle in the Champ when they lent us Conor. There was a recall clause, but it's quite unusual for them to activate it; they mainly seem concerned to ensure that the player is sufficiently playing (see the report of Conor at Palace from Cawley). While it's difficult to be sure, I certainly could not find a case of Chelsea triggering the recall of a young player who was getting good game time and immediately dumping him at another club in the same division. I stand to be corrected and there is a first time for everything. However doing it because Swansea were going to pay a bit of money, seems a bit implausible to me. It's not, at this level how Chelsea behave. They don't need to.
We could have kept him but we didn't.
It wasn't the evil agent so you have repeatedly said forcing Conor and Chelsea against their will. Conor was in tears at having to leave. It was Amis and Southall1 -
Henry Irving said:
Bromley Addicks meeting.J BLOCK said:
When did Gallen say we could have kept him? Was under the impression Chelsea recalled him and there was nothing we could do.Henry Irving said:
You keep going back to Gallagher as an example of a greedy, manipulative agent but Gallen has said we could have kept him.PragueAddick said:while I agree that when it comes to the relationship with their agent, Jacko will be far more confident and assertive than, well let’s say, Conor Gallagher at the time he was inexplicably removed from us , nobody should underestimate how much naked rampant greed and manipulative instincts are in the DNA of agents. And if that turns out to be a bit unfair on Jacko’s agent: Too bad. Go and find a journalist to help explain all the selfless good work you do.
Remember, Southall was in charge at the time.
We could have paid the required fee but Southall and Amis had other priorities IE themselves
To be fair seems like they were right about letting Gallagher go back. He seems to have vanished completely off the football radar as I haven't seen him even mentioned on the EFL show on Quest for well over a year let alone seen him playing on there so maybe he's dropped out of the league.22 - Sponsored links:
-
But the players probably know what's happening, while we're relying on insider saucers and pans.carly burn said:All the positivity that has had a superb impact on the team will quickly evaporate if the players start to get the impression that Jackson won't get the job.
This needs to be sorted going into the notoriously busy festive period0 -
All interested parties seem to agree that Conor was quite happy to stay on at Charlton. That much is common ground. Nobody is saying the agent forced "Chelsea" to do anything either, because Chelsea is a big business with layers of management. I doubt if at the time Bruce Buck (let alone Abramovic) could have told you anything about Conor. I've set out the reasons why the apparent explanation Gallen gave you just begs more questions, for me anyway, as I set out above. It may be that on this occasion the agent is blameless. Like I said, there's a first time for everything.Henry Irving said:
I tagged you into the Gallen comment at the time.PragueAddick said:
Maybe I missed it, but it's a great shame I didn't read you making public this version of events when Gallen said it. I could have put a question about it on the CAST Zoom with him and Roddy in August.Henry Irving said:
Bromley Addicks meeting.J BLOCK said:
When did Gallen say we could have kept him? Was under the impression Chelsea recalled him and there was nothing we could do.Henry Irving said:
You keep going back to Gallagher as an example of a greedy, manipulative agent but Gallen has said we could have kept him.PragueAddick said:while I agree that when it comes to the relationship with their agent, Jacko will be far more confident and assertive than, well let’s say, Conor Gallagher at the time he was inexplicably removed from us , nobody should underestimate how much naked rampant greed and manipulative instincts are in the DNA of agents. And if that turns out to be a bit unfair on Jacko’s agent: Too bad. Go and find a journalist to help explain all the selfless good work you do.
Remember, Southall was in charge at the time.
We could have paid the required fee but Southall and Amis had other priorities IE themselves
Chelsea have a pretty structured -and expensive - way of running their young players loan farm, with a team of well known ex-pros permanently assigned to their progress at the loan clubs. Chelsea already knew we would struggle in the Champ when they lent us Conor. There was a recall clause, but it's quite unusual for them to activate it; they mainly seem concerned to ensure that the player is sufficiently playing (see the report of Conor at Palace from Cawley). While it's difficult to be sure, I certainly could not find a case of Chelsea triggering the recall of a young player who was getting good game time and immediately dumping him at another club in the same division. I stand to be corrected and there is a first time for everything. However doing it because Swansea were going to pay a bit of money, seems a bit implausible to me. It's not, at this level how Chelsea behave. They don't need to.
We could have kept him but we didn't.
It wasn't the evil agent so you have repeatedly said forcing Conor and Chelsea against their will. Conor was in tears at having to leave. It was Amis and Southall0 -
.0
-
Amis and Southall chose Land Rovers rather than Charlton choosing CG.4
-
Has he? The players are playing out of their skins for Jackson still. He'll get the job, but I think the point where we're too late to appoint Jackson will be when the players become emotionally fatigued from playing their hearts out for a manager who still doesn't get given the job and performances nosedive. The offer is obviously there, it's just now down to negotiation, which the players will be aware of. If Sandgaard appoints him tomorrow or Christmas Day and our performances are still at this level then he's played a blinder. Booted out any fears that Jackson isn't experienced enough, quelled concerns that Jackson was part of the initial problem and proved to himeslf that Jackson can handle the step up. Jacko obviously wants to stay and if that costs Sandgaard extra money then great, he'll have earned it.MuttleyCAFC said:When JJ was given the job as interim manager, there was a significant number of fans including on here who thought he shouldn't get the job. That is the point where appointing him would have been cheapest. Then with an incredible turn around in no time at all, his stock has risen. I wanted him to get the job on a trial basis, but that was as a free hit, not because I thought JJ would be such a success. It was merely a possibility due to the fact that at our level, any manager could be a success or failure. Proven or unproven.
It is hard to be too critical of Sandgaard in that respect. Although I would say IMO that he has been too slow to sack managers and events have shown he has been too slow to appoint one whatever the mitigations. JJ has turned things round where everybody wants him in the job full time, including Sandgaard, but JJ's agent is negotiating clearly on that basis. It may come down ultimately to how much JJ wants the job. He is already at a point where he would get another job somewhere else if he walked.
4 -
Just saw on Twitter somebody say that JJ’s agent is his father in law, not his dad, I was close but not that close.
Also @Dazzler21 you LinkedIn message has now made it to Twitter, I hope Mr Sandgaard isn’t going to be to annoyed at that … or again maybe that was his plan, although the replies still seem to be very pro JJ.2 -
I heard that this morning too, from a private source. Quite a garrulous gentleman, it seems.Maccn05 said:Just saw on Twitter somebody say that JJ’s agent is his father in law, not his dad, I was close but not that close.
Also @Dazzler21 you LinkedIn message has now made it to Twitter, I hope Mr Sandgaard isn’t going to be to annoyed at that … or again maybe that was his plan, although the replies still seem to be very pro JJ.1 -
adjective
- excessively talkative, especially on trivial matters."a garrulous cab driver"
2 -
Or, you could read my post properly before replying and see that I made that point.Maccn05 said:
Or the agent is doing his job and getting JJ the best possible deal. Especially if TS has offered a contract at half of what Adkins was earning and much less time.balham red said:JJ's agent knows he has an impossibly strong position with the fans clamouring for his appointment, and is trying to use that to get more money out of Sandgaard. That's the nature of agents - to negotiate the best possible deal for JJ, but does it make it right? I suppose that's business, but I can understand how it wouldn't sit right with TS and I would also be frustrated in his shoes. Should TS pay whatever it takes? No. Because TS also knows that JJ wants the Charlton job. So it looks like this will go on for a few more days yet.
Maybe it’s JJ who right to feel aggrieved.
Still, it gave you another opportunity to post your speculative 1-sided poison, so I suppose it's a result for you anyway.1 -
Agreed - Jacko hasn't got the medals / track record yet. The going rate for a relatively novice League 1 manager must be roughly known by both parties and add a bit more for the loyalty, the club legend status that he holds, the great job he has done so far and the fact he's had to wait 2 months or whatever to prove himself. I'd be very surpried if Jacko is being unreasonable and although he will do a far better job than Adkins, at the time he was appointed, he could rightly have commanded a bigger salary and of course, bowyer had a promotion under his belt. A reasonable salary and a 3 year deal. Anything less in salary or duration and I could see why Jacko would stand his ground on this. It will all come out if it doesn't happen - I can't imagine that TS has offered much less either - surely they can't be far away from concluding this or there is something seriously amiss with one of the parties.Cafc43v3r said:Rightly or wrongly Jackson can't expect parity with what Adkins, or Bowyer at the end, were in.
Sorry its just the way of the world.1 - Sponsored links:
-
He may be a novice through the world of works eyes but this is football, where you're only as good as your last 5-10 games, and Jackson's last 10 games have been pretty impressive results wise.
Look at Adkins, last 10 games of last season - Messiah, first 10 games this season - fucking devil incarnate.
More established, experienced managers have been fired in less games than Jackson's had. Less experienced managers have been hired in less games than he's had. Hes in the driving seat.
0 -
Brilliant… speculative one sided poison 🤣🤣🤣balham red said:
Or, you could read my post properly before replying and see that I made that point.Maccn05 said:
Or the agent is doing his job and getting JJ the best possible deal. Especially if TS has offered a contract at half of what Adkins was earning and much less time.balham red said:JJ's agent knows he has an impossibly strong position with the fans clamouring for his appointment, and is trying to use that to get more money out of Sandgaard. That's the nature of agents - to negotiate the best possible deal for JJ, but does it make it right? I suppose that's business, but I can understand how it wouldn't sit right with TS and I would also be frustrated in his shoes. Should TS pay whatever it takes? No. Because TS also knows that JJ wants the Charlton job. So it looks like this will go on for a few more days yet.
Maybe it’s JJ who right to feel aggrieved.
Still, it gave you another opportunity to post your speculative 1-sided poison, so I suppose it's a result for you anyway.
To be honest I can’t even remember your post never-mind the contents, apologies for that.0 -
Yes he is but you wouldn't expect him to take the piss / have TS over, you'd just expect him to want a reasonale deal and i'm sure that is all he wants as he won't want to be leaving - give the boss a take it or leave OTT ultimatum and you have to be prepared to walk - that won't be in his long term interests - ths is all set up for him to establish himself as a proper manager - i just hope TS is being reasonable coz jacko also has to protect himself financially coz if it goes tits up, he won't have his guaranteed coaching role to fall back onCL_Phantom said:He may be a novice through the world of works eyes but this is football, where you're only as good as your last 5-10 games, and Jackson's last 10 games have been pretty impressive results wise.
Look at Adkins, last 10 games of last season - Messiah, first 10 games this season - fucking devil incarnate.
More established, experienced managers have been fired in less games than Jackson's had. Less experienced managers have been hired in less games than he's had. Hes in the driving seat.0 -
Length of contract is pretty irrelevant really. It's the how much either side gets when it's terminated that matters. How many managers ever leave a job just because their contract has run out?DOUCHER said:
Agreed - Jacko hasn't got the medals / track record yet. The going rate for a relatively novice League 1 manager must be roughly known by both parties and add a bit more for the loyalty, the club legend status that he holds, the great job he has done so far and the fact he's had to wait 2 months or whatever to prove himself. I'd be very surpried if Jacko is being unreasonable and although he will do a far better job than Adkins, at the time he was appointed, he could rightly have commanded a bigger salary and of course, bowyer had a promotion under his belt. A reasonable salary and a 3 year deal. Anything less in salary or duration and I could see why Jacko would stand his ground on this. It will all come out if it doesn't happen - I can't imagine that TS has offered much less either - surely they can't be far away from concluding this or there is something seriously amiss with one of the parties.Cafc43v3r said:Rightly or wrongly Jackson can't expect parity with what Adkins, or Bowyer at the end, were in.
Sorry its just the way of the world.
As an aside I would love to know what the average duration of a first appointment manager is.0 -
i undestand what you mean but it is relevant coz the duration of the contract will be directly linked to how much he gets - subject to tems and how amicably it endsCafc43v3r said:
Length of contract is pretty irrelevant really. It's the how much either side gets when it's terminated that matters. How many managers ever leave a job just because their contract has run out?DOUCHER said:
Agreed - Jacko hasn't got the medals / track record yet. The going rate for a relatively novice League 1 manager must be roughly known by both parties and add a bit more for the loyalty, the club legend status that he holds, the great job he has done so far and the fact he's had to wait 2 months or whatever to prove himself. I'd be very surpried if Jacko is being unreasonable and although he will do a far better job than Adkins, at the time he was appointed, he could rightly have commanded a bigger salary and of course, bowyer had a promotion under his belt. A reasonable salary and a 3 year deal. Anything less in salary or duration and I could see why Jacko would stand his ground on this. It will all come out if it doesn't happen - I can't imagine that TS has offered much less either - surely they can't be far away from concluding this or there is something seriously amiss with one of the parties.Cafc43v3r said:Rightly or wrongly Jackson can't expect parity with what Adkins, or Bowyer at the end, were in.
Sorry its just the way of the world.
As an aside I would love to know what the average duration of a first appointment manager is.0 -
Like I said before though just have this is how much it costs us to sack you, this is how much someone else has to pay to have you.DOUCHER said:
i undestand what you mean but it is relevant coz the duration of the contract will be directly linked to how much he gets - subject to tems and how amicably it endsCafc43v3r said:
Length of contract is pretty irrelevant really. It's the how much either side gets when it's terminated that matters. How many managers ever leave a job just because their contract has run out?DOUCHER said:
Agreed - Jacko hasn't got the medals / track record yet. The going rate for a relatively novice League 1 manager must be roughly known by both parties and add a bit more for the loyalty, the club legend status that he holds, the great job he has done so far and the fact he's had to wait 2 months or whatever to prove himself. I'd be very surpried if Jacko is being unreasonable and although he will do a far better job than Adkins, at the time he was appointed, he could rightly have commanded a bigger salary and of course, bowyer had a promotion under his belt. A reasonable salary and a 3 year deal. Anything less in salary or duration and I could see why Jacko would stand his ground on this. It will all come out if it doesn't happen - I can't imagine that TS has offered much less either - surely they can't be far away from concluding this or there is something seriously amiss with one of the parties.Cafc43v3r said:Rightly or wrongly Jackson can't expect parity with what Adkins, or Bowyer at the end, were in.
Sorry its just the way of the world.
As an aside I would love to know what the average duration of a first appointment manager is.0 -
not worth arguing about but that amount will differ depending on where he is in the duration of hi contract, as it will if he gets sackedCafc43v3r said:
Like I said before though just have this is how much it costs us to sack you, this is how much someone else has to pay to have you.DOUCHER said:
i undestand what you mean but it is relevant coz the duration of the contract will be directly linked to how much he gets - subject to tems and how amicably it endsCafc43v3r said:
Length of contract is pretty irrelevant really. It's the how much either side gets when it's terminated that matters. How many managers ever leave a job just because their contract has run out?DOUCHER said:
Agreed - Jacko hasn't got the medals / track record yet. The going rate for a relatively novice League 1 manager must be roughly known by both parties and add a bit more for the loyalty, the club legend status that he holds, the great job he has done so far and the fact he's had to wait 2 months or whatever to prove himself. I'd be very surpried if Jacko is being unreasonable and although he will do a far better job than Adkins, at the time he was appointed, he could rightly have commanded a bigger salary and of course, bowyer had a promotion under his belt. A reasonable salary and a 3 year deal. Anything less in salary or duration and I could see why Jacko would stand his ground on this. It will all come out if it doesn't happen - I can't imagine that TS has offered much less either - surely they can't be far away from concluding this or there is something seriously amiss with one of the parties.Cafc43v3r said:Rightly or wrongly Jackson can't expect parity with what Adkins, or Bowyer at the end, were in.
Sorry its just the way of the world.
As an aside I would love to know what the average duration of a first appointment manager is.1 -
PragueAddick said:
I heard that this morning too, from a private source. Quite a garrulous gentleman, it seems.Maccn05 said:Just saw on Twitter somebody say that JJ’s agent is his father in law, not his dad, I was close but not that close.
Also @Dazzler21 you LinkedIn message has now made it to Twitter, I hope Mr Sandgaard isn’t going to be to annoyed at that … or again maybe that was his plan, although the replies still seem to be very pro JJ.
19 -
It may well be down to more than just contract lengths and wages. What about the structure? I would certainly be cautious if somebody above me may well be shoehorned into the role that they are not equipped for. Had that with a previous employer/owner who's child was given a role in senior management as well as lacking the experience said person was also a liar and literally threw us under the bus on a daily basis. Its rubbish. Especially when the owner thinks the sun shines out of said child's arse. Interesting times ahead.0
-
I don't know anything about TS's son but i do know that he has been getting to the bottom of some of the issues Roddy has caused and that he and Gallen now sit above Roddy in the structure. I doubt TS's son is seen as a problem, more of an ally, but again, that is just an assumption.DagenhamAddick said:It may well be down to more than just contract lengths and wages. What about the structure? I would certainly be cautious if somebody above me may well be shoehorned into the role that they are not equipped for. Had that with a previous employer/owner who's child was given a role in senior management as well as lacking the experience said person was also a liar and literally threw us under the bus on a daily basis. Its rubbish. Especially when the owner thinks the sun shines out of said child's arse. Interesting times ahead.3
Learn to pronounce
