JamesSeed said:

Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:

J BLOCK said:

Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:

Can't really believe that Thomas is still interviewing, or if he is we must be down to the same group of losers, misfits and mentally unsound that respond to police appeals for information in major crime cases.
Stop farting around and announce Garner.
No idea whether he will make the step up, but I could get excited by the appointment provided he is given his head in respect of choice of assistants and recruitment.
If he has those foisted on him then he is already on the back foot.

Or choice 1 and choice 2 have rejected ... 

Well, quite probably.
I don't actually know what our appeal is now to anybody with any pedigree (unless they are unemployed and slightly desperate or past it)
It's not like we are some kind of sleeping giant.
More like a catatonic hunchback

Great stadium with potential to expand, good supporter base (filled one half of Wembley at recent playoff final), decent history, London based, which appeals to some at least. 

It is a great stadium, albeit we don't own it so I don't see any expansion likely, even if we were filling the stadium. Plus, the land behind the east was sold off which I believe scuppers any expansion that side.
Yes, we filled our end at Wembley, but unless we are challenging next season I foresee a lot of 4-figure attendances.
Of course we are a more attractive proposition than many if not most of our League One small town competitors, but I was thinking in terms of attracting anybody with real pedigree but I don't see we have any pulling power.
Beyond the above, which is really just wallpaper, we are now an established mid-table league one club with a pool of mostly mediocre players. 
That is before we get to any concerns the potential recruit may have about choice of assistants or player recruitment.

cafcfan1990 said:

The Red Robin said:

Cafc43v3r said:

The Red Robin said:

Alan Pardew sacked…

Or left due to racist abuse his players were getting from their own fans? 

No idea. Didn’t know that had happened 

So just made up the fact he got sacked then? Was a pretty bizarre appointment, just scrapped a month there. 

Saw he left. That’s literally it. With Pardew it’s always safe to assume he’s been sacked. 

Dave Rudd said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Dave Rudd said:

swordfish said:

Airman Brown said:

mendonca said:

Airman Brown said:

swordfish said:

Airman Brown said:

Garrymanilow said:

Airman Brown said:

AFKABartram said:

AFKABartram said:

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).

Here's my source:

Jackson out as Charlton boss as Addicks opt against contract extension | Evening Standard

Now, if you know differently ... fair enough.

Do you?

"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."

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/more-detail-emerges-on-charlton-manager-johnnie-jacksons-contractual-situation/

🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

swordfish said:

Airman Brown said:

mendonca said:

Airman Brown said:

swordfish said:

Airman Brown said:

Garrymanilow said:

Airman Brown said:

AFKABartram said:

AFKABartram said:

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.

Maybe my fault for using “on the cards” imprecisely - they knew there was a good chance he would be sacked, as I assume did Jackson. I assume it was fuelled by MS’s conversation with Washington.

EugenesAxe said:

Gribbo said:

EugenesAxe said:

Pardew just walked past me on the phone, by London Bridge, overheard him saying “it was horrible, really nasty…”

It’s a sign.

Had you just dropped your guts?

Think he was referring to the new song Thomas had played him at the interview 

Pardew is now available….

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.

randy andy said:

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. 

randy andy said:

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"

The Red Robin said:

Alan Pardew sacked…

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12625320/alan-pardew-leaves-cska-sofia-after-bananas-thrown-at-black-players

Dave Rudd said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Dave Rudd said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Dave Rudd said:

swordfish said:

Airman Brown said:

mendonca said:

Airman Brown said:

swordfish said:

Airman Brown said:

Garrymanilow said:

Airman Brown said:

AFKABartram said:

AFKABartram said:

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).

Here's my source:

Jackson out as Charlton boss as Addicks opt against contract extension | Evening Standard

Now, if you know differently ... fair enough.

Do you?

"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."

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/more-detail-emerges-on-charlton-manager-johnnie-jacksons-contractual-situation/

🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

So, we have three versions:

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.

Option number 1 is the correct one.

Dave Rudd said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Dave Rudd said:

Cafc43v3r said:

Dave Rudd said:

swordfish said:

Airman Brown said:

mendonca said:

Airman Brown said:

swordfish said:

Airman Brown said:

Garrymanilow said:

Airman Brown said:

AFKABartram said:

AFKABartram said:

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).

Here's my source:

Jackson out as Charlton boss as Addicks opt against contract extension | Evening Standard

Now, if you know differently ... fair enough.

Do you?

"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."

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/more-detail-emerges-on-charlton-manager-johnnie-jacksons-contractual-situation/

🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

So, we have three versions:

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. 

The Red Robin said:

cafcfan1990 said:

The Red Robin said:

Cafc43v3r said:

The Red Robin said:

Alan Pardew sacked…

Or left due to racist abuse his players were getting from their own fans? 

No idea. Didn’t know that had happened 

So just made up the fact he got sacked then? Was a pretty bizarre appointment, just scrapped a month there. 

Saw he left. That’s literally it. With Pardew it’s always safe to assume he’s been sacked. 

Made it up? Do one. 

Always...

Permission to panic, Mr Mainwaring.