Martin Sandgaard taking on role in player recruitment, replacing Ged Roddy
Comments
-
Roddy has left the club full time is confirmed.9
-
Chunes said:ross1 said:LonelyNorthernAddick said:ross1 said:Cafc43v3r said:Major said:PWR - so apologies if this has already been said:
My first thought (Note I didn't put 'I'm hearing') was that TS is probably pissed with Roddy because Adkins was a crap call and has cost him a packet. So he's sidelined him.
He has bought someone in he can trust. His Son will be his eyes and ears but he won't be calling the shots. How can he? Gallen will be the main man. Maybe JJ will have a say....?0 -
clive said:1
-
Wow - so Roddy has been seen to internally be incapable of what he was hired for? @DOUCHER has mentioned this for a few weeks now. Glad following a review, that changes have been put in place. Shame we just bloody lost that first game under JJ but onwards and upwards with the wider picture.0
-
Clear that despite the vigorous defence of Roddy by some, based on his CV, his role has been identified as a problem and consequently he has been removed from it.
He’s been given a soft landing by Sandgaard but it’s pretty obvious there’s no real role for him going forward beyond advising on category one.20 -
mendonca said:Wow - so Roddy has been seen to internally be incapable of what he was hired for? @DOUCHER has mentioned this for a few weeks now. Glad following a review, that changes have been put in place. Shame we just bloody lost that first game under JJ but onwards and upwards with the wider picture.10
-
FFS now what are we going to do for conspiracy theories.5
-
Sponsored links:
-
-
DOUCHER said:mendonca said:Wow - so Roddy has been seen to internally be incapable of what he was hired for? @DOUCHER has mentioned this for a few weeks now. Glad following a review, that changes have been put in place. Shame we just bloody lost that first game under JJ but onwards and upwards with the wider picture.0
-
Anyway, good to see Roddy removed from his throne of skulls at sparrows lane, bad egg.
Staying on in a consultancy role in regards to the academy is clearly saving face, and that role he's set to take up with FIFA is just a coincidence. Added nothing, Sandgaards being very generous with what he says because he doesn't English well.
Man, I'm gonna miss this... Sob, cry, sob.1 -
ricky_otto said:0
-
mendonca said:DOUCHER said:mendonca said:Wow - so Roddy has been seen to internally be incapable of what he was hired for? @DOUCHER has mentioned this for a few weeks now. Glad following a review, that changes have been put in place. Shame we just bloody lost that first game under JJ but onwards and upwards with the wider picture.0
-
-
Airman Brown said:Clear that despite the vigorous defence of Roddy by some, based on his CV, his role has been identified as a problem and consequently he has been removed from it.
He’s been given a soft landing by Sandgaard but it’s pretty obvious there’s no real role for him going forward beyond advising on category one.
Most just wanted to find out more if there was any truth behind him being a problem, rather than jump to conclusions.
Usually there is a reason someone is getting such bad press and I had a feeling that he was a problem. But he's not the same as the likes of Southall no way near. He's just someone who wasn't doing a good job most likely and possibly other things.
So you cant expect people to just see through everyone straight away and identify them as a problem.2 -
Airman Brown said:Clear that despite the vigorous defence of Roddy by some, based on his CV, his role has been identified as a problem and consequently he has been removed from it.
He’s been given a soft landing by Sandgaard but it’s pretty obvious there’s no real role for him going forward beyond advising on category one.
If the answer is Roddy to both, great draw a line under it and move on.2 -
Cafc43v3r said:Airman Brown said:Clear that despite the vigorous defence of Roddy by some, based on his CV, his role has been identified as a problem and consequently he has been removed from it.
He’s been given a soft landing by Sandgaard but it’s pretty obvious there’s no real role for him going forward beyond advising on category one.
If the answer is Roddy to both, great draw a line under it and move on.
Which is, and has, always been the question.
Replacing someone with a bad CV with another to carry out those ideas if they're still around, won't really fix anything.0 -
Cafc43v3r said:Airman Brown said:Clear that despite the vigorous defence of Roddy by some, based on his CV, his role has been identified as a problem and consequently he has been removed from it.
He’s been given a soft landing by Sandgaard but it’s pretty obvious there’s no real role for him going forward beyond advising on category one.
If the answer is Roddy to both, great draw a line under it and move on.2 -
Sponsored links:
-
lancashire lad said:Cafc43v3r said:Airman Brown said:Clear that despite the vigorous defence of Roddy by some, based on his CV, his role has been identified as a problem and consequently he has been removed from it.
He’s been given a soft landing by Sandgaard but it’s pretty obvious there’s no real role for him going forward beyond advising on category one.
If the answer is Roddy to both, great draw a line under it and move on.1 -
PragueAddick said:lancashire lad said:Cafc43v3r said:Airman Brown said:Clear that despite the vigorous defence of Roddy by some, based on his CV, his role has been identified as a problem and consequently he has been removed from it.
He’s been given a soft landing by Sandgaard but it’s pretty obvious there’s no real role for him going forward beyond advising on category one.
If the answer is Roddy to both, great draw a line under it and move on.
Either way it still doesn't answer my question it just changes when that decision was made.
Edit 1:Q: Ged - who introduced you to Thomas Sandgaard and how did your recruitment to CAFC come about? Was there a recruitment process ?
GR: I was introduced to Thomas before he owned the club. He asked me to help him with some of the work around the Fit and Proper Persons Test. I was working for FIFA at the time, and I thought that was it. He later called me to come and meet him and asked me to work for him at the club. I was Thomas' appointment. He did his research on me as an individual.
https://www.castrust.org/2021/09/roddy-and-gallen-meet-the-fans-the-full-story/
Edit 2:
This seems like the right juncture to understand more about how Mumford and Sandgaard first crossed paths. Sandgaard ideally wanted to speak to someone who knew football but wasn’t entirely caught up in the small world of football. Thomas’ son asked for a recommendation from someone senior he knew at West Ham. They suggested Wayne. So out of the blue Thomas phoned up. This was back in June. “We had a long conversation. He told me what his plans and thoughts were. We immediately got on, on the phone. He came over and we had another long chat – we talked about football, I talked about myself, he talked about himself. We agreed – a bit of old school attitude – that we would see how it goes – see if we could get a club – let’s not make any plans – let’s see what works.” A gentleman’s agreement of sorts.
0 -
It's always sad when an absolute club legend moves on...
Ged who?0 -
soapy_jones said:It's always sad when an absolute club legend moves on...
Ged who?But not before he unveils Ged’s statue in the West Stand car park.0 -
UEAAddick said:Airman Brown said:Clear that despite the vigorous defence of Roddy by some, based on his CV, his role has been identified as a problem and consequently he has been removed from it.
He’s been given a soft landing by Sandgaard but it’s pretty obvious there’s no real role for him going forward beyond advising on category one.
Most just wanted to find out more if there was any truth behind him being a problem, rather than jump to conclusions.
Usually there is a reason someone is getting such bad press and I had a feeling that he was a problem. But he's not the same as the likes of Southall no way near. He's just someone who wasn't doing a good job most likely and possibly other things.
So you cant expect people to just see through everyone straight away and identify them as a problem.I do have a lot of respect for @grapevine49 so not looking for an argument, but he is no more the oracle than any of the rest of us. I think it is always worth looking under the bonnet.I completely agree that it was right to ask the questions about Roddy, based on some of the noises that came out of the training ground, but we didn’t know if he was to blame for the failings. I suggest we have a better idea now as no matter how it’s dressed up he has been removed.The other way of looking at it is that I’m sure TS wanted his own man at the training ground to report back. That was Roddy, it’s now Martin S, so GR is surplus to requirements. We will find out whether his category one input has been valuable in due course.8 -
I'm pleased that Sandgaard has now had the kind of clear-out that some of us advised a few months ago.
The one bit I'm interested in now is just how good Gallen's recruitment record is. I know there have been some real successes (Bielik, Cullen, Gallagher etc), but he has been responsible for some real donkeys too (Bogle, the various Smiths etc ... you can pick your own).
Has anyone done a full critique so that we can judge whether Sandgaard has gone far enough?1 -
Dave Rudd said:I'm pleased that Sandgaard has now had the kind of clear-out that some of us advised a few months ago.
The one bit I'm interested in now is just how good Gallen's recruitment record is. I know there have been some real successes (Bielik, Cullen, Gallagher etc), but he has been responsible for some real donkeys too (Bogle, the various Smiths etc ... you can pick your own).
Has anyone done a full critique so that we can judge whether Sandgaard has gone far enough?11 -
No recruitment is going to be perfect, I’d take Gallen record to date, and even those supposed duds from the summer look alright3
-
Airman Brown said:Dave Rudd said:I'm pleased that Sandgaard has now had the kind of clear-out that some of us advised a few months ago.
The one bit I'm interested in now is just how good Gallen's recruitment record is. I know there have been some real successes (Bielik, Cullen, Gallagher etc), but he has been responsible for some real donkeys too (Bogle, the various Smiths etc ... you can pick your own).
Has anyone done a full critique so that we can judge whether Sandgaard has gone far enough?4