Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Next manager - Ben Garner confirmed (p256)
Comments
-
I suspect most are reading exactly what it is, it’s a timely reminder to all the deal isn’t done. It might be close but so is a shot that hits the post and they win nothingcharente addick said:Bit unprofessional maybe, remember the times we live in, but I can’t help feeling that most are reading way too much into it.1 -
But not how a football club works.soapboxsam said:Doctor Raelynn Maloney who knows how the mind works !3 -
But you could make a counter point to each point made and also be spot on, depending on your initial view on TS. Coming from a completely neutral stance -Croydon said:
He's spot on thoughRob said:
Spoken like a true journalist.Airman Brown said:
It’s amateurish. If they have an issue with anything Rich puts out they can very easily contact him privately or they can publish a statement via the club setting the record straight if necessary.Dazzler21 said:
It was in response to Cawley saying:FishCostaFortune said:
For me it’s mainly the ambiguity of the statement. A tweet saying ‘Understand this not to be correct’ sounds like something you would hear RonnieMoore write on here.shirty5 said:
Then do it through the official club channels.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
But if she knows the information to be false, then why can't she say anything? She's certainly closer to the deal makers than Cawley is.shirty5 said:
Whatever the reason is, it now just winds everybody up and no one knows what is going on.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Her post doesn't mean Garner isn't signing. Cawley says he's agreed a 2 year deal. She says that's not correct. Doesn't mean he isn't signing, it could mean that he's agreed a 3 year deal!
Would have been for the best if Mrs Sandgaard had not said a thing and we would have found out early this week what’s being announced.Can’t understand why she would do that.
"Understand that to be correct"
Could be any one detail that is incorrect, term, salary, structure etc
I have a feeling neither TS or Mrs TS appreciate Cawley reaching out to leaks in the club rather than contacting direct.
This smacks of “we’ll decide what is said and when” and that’s a battle they will never win.
More important, if you’re “still interviewing” five weeks after your own decision to remove the manager I’d suggest you have a bigger problem.
"It’s amateurish. If they have an issue with anything Rich puts out they can very easily contact him privately or they can publish a statement via the club setting the record straight if necessary."
It's not a big enough reason to publish a statement via the club and contacting "Rich" would take time, when the announcement is probably imminent, so she's decided to put it right with a quick reply to his Tweet. It's 2022 and people gabber on social media, whether they own a football club or not.
"This smacks of “we’ll decide what is said and when” and that’s a battle they will never win."
Is that how it works is it? Surely you're within your right to challenge a journo (with a short Tweet), if you think they're jumping the gun with what could possibly mislead people?
"More important, if you’re “still interviewing” five weeks after your own decision to remove the manager I’d suggest you have a bigger problem."
As Henry has said; they're not saying things haven't been done, but maybe they're tying up lose ends with Garners assistants etc. and are getting irritated by it constantly being released before its watertight.
Personally think it's taking a long time, too long, but there's just so much spin being put on virtually everything that TS does at the moment, it's ridiculous.8 -
Maybe it is done but only when his team are sorted, so whilst everything is ready to be signed he won't until his assistants are sorted out. So it may be very close but not done until they all are.1
-
Maybe they're simply not interested. The Sandgaard's as a family have bought into us as a family club. Personally I still find it refreshing to have an owner and his family that are so invested in the club.Airman Brown said:
Funny how other clubs don’t have the chairman’s partner or family members disputing tweets by journalists then. Can you imagine Mrs Parish or Mrs Berylson - if they exist - commenting on their club’s next manager?Clarky said:
It is amateurish but so are some journalists, Nixon springs to mind. If Cawley is wrong, and I say if, then I don't care how he is told. Why should a journalist who gets something wrong have to be told in private? He put it out there and if it factual incorrect then why should he escape criticism?Airman Brown said:
It’s amateurish. If they have an issue with anything Rich puts out they can very easily contact him privately or they can publish a statement via the club setting the record straight if necessary.Dazzler21 said:
It was in response to Cawley saying:FishCostaFortune said:
For me it’s mainly the ambiguity of the statement. A tweet saying ‘Understand this not to be correct’ sounds like something you would hear RonnieMoore write on here.shirty5 said:
Then do it through the official club channels.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
But if she knows the information to be false, then why can't she say anything? She's certainly closer to the deal makers than Cawley is.shirty5 said:
Whatever the reason is, it now just winds everybody up and no one knows what is going on.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Her post doesn't mean Garner isn't signing. Cawley says he's agreed a 2 year deal. She says that's not correct. Doesn't mean he isn't signing, it could mean that he's agreed a 3 year deal!
Would have been for the best if Mrs Sandgaard had not said a thing and we would have found out early this week what’s being announced.Can’t understand why she would do that.
"Understand that to be correct"
Could be any one detail that is incorrect, term, salary, structure etc
I have a feeling neither TS or Mrs TS appreciate Cawley reaching out to leaks in the club rather than contacting direct.
This smacks of “we’ll decide what is said and when” and that’s a battle they will never win.
More important, if you’re “still interviewing” five weeks after your own decision to remove the manager I’d suggest you have a bigger problem.
They have lost a lot of the good will they have earned in the past year, but it was never going to be a smooth journey. Why would it? It's Charlton Athletic FFS.
1 -
There is a lot the club have been getting wrong since TS took over, him talking to supporters on LinkedIn and Dr RM responding on Twitter is not one of them. This is all irrelevant in the grand scheme of things they need to get right.3
-
The current partner of Steve Parrish is a celebrity Nigella who presents a breakfast show on ITV.Dazzler21 said:
Maybe they're simply not interested.Airman Brown said:
Funny how other clubs don’t have the chairman’s partner or family members disputing tweets by journalists then. Can you imagine Mrs Parish or Mrs Berylson - if they exist - commenting on their club’s next manager?Clarky said:
It is amateurish but so are some journalists, Nixon springs to mind. If Cawley is wrong, and I say if, then I don't care how he is told. Why should a journalist who gets something wrong have to be told in private? He put it out there and if it factual incorrect then why should he escape criticism?Airman Brown said:
It’s amateurish. If they have an issue with anything Rich puts out they can very easily contact him privately or they can publish a statement via the club setting the record straight if necessary.Dazzler21 said:
It was in response to Cawley saying:FishCostaFortune said:
For me it’s mainly the ambiguity of the statement. A tweet saying ‘Understand this not to be correct’ sounds like something you would hear RonnieMoore write on here.shirty5 said:
Then do it through the official club channels.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
But if she knows the information to be false, then why can't she say anything? She's certainly closer to the deal makers than Cawley is.shirty5 said:
Whatever the reason is, it now just winds everybody up and no one knows what is going on.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Her post doesn't mean Garner isn't signing. Cawley says he's agreed a 2 year deal. She says that's not correct. Doesn't mean he isn't signing, it could mean that he's agreed a 3 year deal!
Would have been for the best if Mrs Sandgaard had not said a thing and we would have found out early this week what’s being announced.Can’t understand why she would do that.
"Understand that to be correct"
Could be any one detail that is incorrect, term, salary, structure etc
I have a feeling neither TS or Mrs TS appreciate Cawley reaching out to leaks in the club rather than contacting direct.
This smacks of “we’ll decide what is said and when” and that’s a battle they will never win.
More important, if you’re “still interviewing” five weeks after your own decision to remove the manager I’d suggest you have a bigger problem.0 -
That makes her interested in football but more specifically the running of his club, why?cfgs said:
The current partner of Steve Parrish is a celebrity Nigella who presents a breakfast show on ITV.Dazzler21 said:
Maybe they're simply not interested.Airman Brown said:
Funny how other clubs don’t have the chairman’s partner or family members disputing tweets by journalists then. Can you imagine Mrs Parish or Mrs Berylson - if they exist - commenting on their club’s next manager?Clarky said:
It is amateurish but so are some journalists, Nixon springs to mind. If Cawley is wrong, and I say if, then I don't care how he is told. Why should a journalist who gets something wrong have to be told in private? He put it out there and if it factual incorrect then why should he escape criticism?Airman Brown said:
It’s amateurish. If they have an issue with anything Rich puts out they can very easily contact him privately or they can publish a statement via the club setting the record straight if necessary.Dazzler21 said:
It was in response to Cawley saying:FishCostaFortune said:
For me it’s mainly the ambiguity of the statement. A tweet saying ‘Understand this not to be correct’ sounds like something you would hear RonnieMoore write on here.shirty5 said:
Then do it through the official club channels.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
But if she knows the information to be false, then why can't she say anything? She's certainly closer to the deal makers than Cawley is.shirty5 said:
Whatever the reason is, it now just winds everybody up and no one knows what is going on.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Her post doesn't mean Garner isn't signing. Cawley says he's agreed a 2 year deal. She says that's not correct. Doesn't mean he isn't signing, it could mean that he's agreed a 3 year deal!
Would have been for the best if Mrs Sandgaard had not said a thing and we would have found out early this week what’s being announced.Can’t understand why she would do that.
"Understand that to be correct"
Could be any one detail that is incorrect, term, salary, structure etc
I have a feeling neither TS or Mrs TS appreciate Cawley reaching out to leaks in the club rather than contacting direct.
This smacks of “we’ll decide what is said and when” and that’s a battle they will never win.
More important, if you’re “still interviewing” five weeks after your own decision to remove the manager I’d suggest you have a bigger problem.0 -
And Cawley, as a journalist, doesn't just rely on Charlton sources, official or unofficial. If his Swindon sources are saying something, he's perfectly entitled to air what they've told him if he wants. That he "understands" it to be the case.Valley11 said:
Exactly. It’s RC’s job as a journalist to dig into a story and break it to the readership. TS and his Mrs can’t stop that.Airman Brown said:
It’s amateurish. If they have an issue with anything Rich puts out they can very easily contact him privately or they can publish a statement via the club setting the record straight if necessary.Dazzler21 said:
It was in response to Cawley saying:FishCostaFortune said:
For me it’s mainly the ambiguity of the statement. A tweet saying ‘Understand this not to be correct’ sounds like something you would hear RonnieMoore write on here.shirty5 said:
Then do it through the official club channels.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
But if she knows the information to be false, then why can't she say anything? She's certainly closer to the deal makers than Cawley is.shirty5 said:
Whatever the reason is, it now just winds everybody up and no one knows what is going on.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Her post doesn't mean Garner isn't signing. Cawley says he's agreed a 2 year deal. She says that's not correct. Doesn't mean he isn't signing, it could mean that he's agreed a 3 year deal!
Would have been for the best if Mrs Sandgaard had not said a thing and we would have found out early this week what’s being announced.Can’t understand why she would do that.
"Understand that to be correct"
Could be any one detail that is incorrect, term, salary, structure etc
I have a feeling neither TS or Mrs TS appreciate Cawley reaching out to leaks in the club rather than contacting direct.
This smacks of “we’ll decide what is said and when” and that’s a battle they will never win.
More important, if you’re “still interviewing” five weeks after your own decision to remove the manager I’d suggest you have a bigger problem.
The ‘we’ll decide what’s said and when’ is permeating society in general and it’s dangerous.Journalists are becoming redundant because they’re being lumped in with cyber bullies and trolls.
It’s their job to uncover the truth. From new Charlton managers to dodgy politicians.
0 -
Perhaps the interviews which are still going on, are on going discussions with Garner’s two assistants. So technically, TS and RM are correct.
But I do agree with many posters that I find it disappointing that the owner and his partner feel the need to challenge things on social media.How I long for the days when the only source of information on the club came from the Mercury and the Kentish Independant, until Clubcall came on the scene. Probably what I’m saying is bring back Scoop!1 -
Sponsored links:
-
So if Cawley is wrong then so is every journalist in Swindon, TalkSport and The Athletic. OR they’re all right.Clarky said:
It is amateurish but so are some journalists, Nixon springs to mind. If Cawley is wrong, and I say if, then I don't care how he is told. Why should a journalist who gets something wrong have to be told in private? He put it out there and if it factual incorrect then why should he escape criticism?Airman Brown said:
It’s amateurish. If they have an issue with anything Rich puts out they can very easily contact him privately or they can publish a statement via the club setting the record straight if necessary.Dazzler21 said:
It was in response to Cawley saying:FishCostaFortune said:
For me it’s mainly the ambiguity of the statement. A tweet saying ‘Understand this not to be correct’ sounds like something you would hear RonnieMoore write on here.shirty5 said:
Then do it through the official club channels.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
But if she knows the information to be false, then why can't she say anything? She's certainly closer to the deal makers than Cawley is.shirty5 said:
Whatever the reason is, it now just winds everybody up and no one knows what is going on.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Her post doesn't mean Garner isn't signing. Cawley says he's agreed a 2 year deal. She says that's not correct. Doesn't mean he isn't signing, it could mean that he's agreed a 3 year deal!
Would have been for the best if Mrs Sandgaard had not said a thing and we would have found out early this week what’s being announced.Can’t understand why she would do that.
"Understand that to be correct"
Could be any one detail that is incorrect, term, salary, structure etc
I have a feeling neither TS or Mrs TS appreciate Cawley reaching out to leaks in the club rather than contacting direct.
This smacks of “we’ll decide what is said and when” and that’s a battle they will never win.
More important, if you’re “still interviewing” five weeks after your own decision to remove the manager I’d suggest you have a bigger problem.1 -
I expect she knows what is occurring, no idea if she tweets about it as I don't follow her, just saying that she has been out as a Palarse fan for years so she obviously likes football. I do think TS and Raelynn should not be so approachable, they think they are being helpful and nice but they are simply feeding the manic beast that is CAFC angst.Dazzler21 said:
That makes her interested in football lot more specifically the running of his club, why?cfgs said:
The current partner of Steve Parrish is a celebrity Nigella who presents a breakfast show on ITV.Dazzler21 said:
Maybe they're simply not interested.Airman Brown said:
Funny how other clubs don’t have the chairman’s partner or family members disputing tweets by journalists then. Can you imagine Mrs Parish or Mrs Berylson - if they exist - commenting on their club’s next manager?Clarky said:
It is amateurish but so are some journalists, Nixon springs to mind. If Cawley is wrong, and I say if, then I don't care how he is told. Why should a journalist who gets something wrong have to be told in private? He put it out there and if it factual incorrect then why should he escape criticism?Airman Brown said:
It’s amateurish. If they have an issue with anything Rich puts out they can very easily contact him privately or they can publish a statement via the club setting the record straight if necessary.Dazzler21 said:
It was in response to Cawley saying:FishCostaFortune said:
For me it’s mainly the ambiguity of the statement. A tweet saying ‘Understand this not to be correct’ sounds like something you would hear RonnieMoore write on here.shirty5 said:
Then do it through the official club channels.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
But if she knows the information to be false, then why can't she say anything? She's certainly closer to the deal makers than Cawley is.shirty5 said:
Whatever the reason is, it now just winds everybody up and no one knows what is going on.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Her post doesn't mean Garner isn't signing. Cawley says he's agreed a 2 year deal. She says that's not correct. Doesn't mean he isn't signing, it could mean that he's agreed a 3 year deal!
Would have been for the best if Mrs Sandgaard had not said a thing and we would have found out early this week what’s being announced.Can’t understand why she would do that.
"Understand that to be correct"
Could be any one detail that is incorrect, term, salary, structure etc
I have a feeling neither TS or Mrs TS appreciate Cawley reaching out to leaks in the club rather than contacting direct.
This smacks of “we’ll decide what is said and when” and that’s a battle they will never win.
More important, if you’re “still interviewing” five weeks after your own decision to remove the manager I’d suggest you have a bigger problem.1 -
This is just rubbish. It’s not how local football journalism works - there are multiple ways you get information, some of them official, some authorised, some not authorised, some external, some third party, some just luck. The longer you are involved the more contacts you build.valleynick66 said:It’s given everyone something else to talk about of course on the upside.I do think it’s inconsequential in the grand scheme of things more. We are a 3rd division team and barely get a mention in the sports media reports these days. Amateur or unprofessional possibly but given we are a very small club currently it’s entertaining however some news emerges.Rich Cawley is a local journalist and doesn’t seem to me at least, to have huge advance insight in news at CAFC, only what he is given modestly in advance. I may have this wrong but don’t detect a huge network of inside information more than picking up what others have also heard.
The club will always have stories that it keeps to itself or just issues a heads up to selected parties - I do it myself in another context - but the idea of Cawley just sitting and waiting for the phone to ring is nonsense.30 -
I’ve got nothing else to say that I haven’t already said.
Except to go on this forum and say “ I’ve got nothing else to say that I haven’t already said.”
5 -
Chief scoutHastingsRed said:Braziliance said:
That’s actually quite frustrating as I really was getting behind the idea of him as manager, what’s going on here000__Jaaaaay__000 said:
Fasten your seatbelts everyone
Who is Raelynn Maloney?Braziliance said:
That’s actually quite frustrating as I really was getting behind the idea of him as manager, what’s going on here000__Jaaaaay__000 said:Fasten your seatbelts everyone 14 -
Clearly there is no reason to go down the road that anybody is telling bare faced lies, either Rich, the other Journos, even Thomas and his misses, Garner must be a deal in itself, I feel that the sticking point may be the backup staff that are "rumoured" to be also in the mix.
Now we all know how Thomas works, it is all me me me, and what i say goes, so, the "complete deal", including all the hangers on, compo hasn't been finalised yet, hence the denials, they look at it as a package deal, and until all the pieces are in place, they will carry on denying everything.
So, sorry to say this but it is WIOTOS, it will be a big photoshoot with all the protagonists present and Thomas in the middle giving it large like he always does..0 -
He keeps it in a boxHenry Irving said:
So Garner has a catKiwiValley said:Quantum physics can explain the situation very simply. At any given moment Garner has both signed and not signed. The more he has signed the less he has signed and obviously vice versa. I don’t get all the confusion.3 -
Relax folks.
It’s creativity.
A mash up between a managerial appointment and the Okey Cokey.
Next season look forward to a mega mix of the crossbar challenge whilst playing the tuba.0 -
You took the words right up of my mouth. Relax, everyone. We’ll have a new manager / coach his week and we can all get on with our lives. This appointment flexed me at first but now I’m easy with the bloke. Now looking forward to the new season and reconsidering my decision not to renew my STHenry Irving said:Look
It's Garner.
They want Garner.
Garner wants to come.
It's nearly all done.
But it's not quite all done.
There are bits of the deal still to be done.
So it's not all done.
TS and RM haven't said it's NOT Garner.
They haven't dismissed, denied or distanced the club from Garner.
When and if it has ALL been finalised ie ALL the coaches contracts signed and ALL the compensation to Swindon agreed then it will be done.
And when and if that happens it will be on the official site.
It's Sunday, enjoy yourselves, we only have one go at life then we die and are no more so as the song reminds us...
Live, love, laugh and for fecks sake be happy.0 -
It will take a lot of time to get Lavelle and Purrington passing out from the backStrikerFirmani said:https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ben-garner-opens-up-very-5378191
Reading this Garner felt he wasn't given enough time at Bristol Rovers.
I wonder if the fans will give him time if it starts badly or indeed if TS will.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
usetobunkin said:
He keeps it in a boxHenry Irving said:
So Garner has a catKiwiValley said:Quantum physics can explain the situation very simply. At any given moment Garner has both signed and not signed. The more he has signed the less he has signed and obviously vice versa. I don’t get all the confusion.
Please don't tell the RSPCA
0 -
Fucking hell bring back Sue Perkins over this latest bint, least all she done was scoff all the canapés5
-
https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/605321c7de27c/charlton-appoint-nigel-adkins-as-managereastterrace6168 said:So, sorry to say this but it is WIOTOS, it will be a big photoshoot with all the protagonists present and Thomas in the middle giving it large like he always does..
https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/61bc776d49038/johnnie-jackson-appointed-as-the-clubs-permanent-manager
3 -
I agree it would be better if she hadn't said anything, and I also agree that the club has an open line of communication with Cawley, although it seems less than it used to be. In this instance it would appear that he didn't get his information from the owner and it is possible it came from the Swindon end but their/owner club haven't made any statements about Garner either!Airman Brown said:
Funny how other clubs don’t have the chairman’s partner or family members disputing tweets by journalists then. Can you imagine Mrs Parish or Mrs Berylson - if they exist - commenting on their club’s next manager?Clarky said:
It is amateurish but so are some journalists, Nixon springs to mind. If Cawley is wrong, and I say if, then I don't care how he is told. Why should a journalist who gets something wrong have to be told in private? He put it out there and if it factual incorrect then why should he escape criticism?Airman Brown said:
It’s amateurish. If they have an issue with anything Rich puts out they can very easily contact him privately or they can publish a statement via the club setting the record straight if necessary.Dazzler21 said:
It was in response to Cawley saying:FishCostaFortune said:
For me it’s mainly the ambiguity of the statement. A tweet saying ‘Understand this not to be correct’ sounds like something you would hear RonnieMoore write on here.shirty5 said:
Then do it through the official club channels.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
But if she knows the information to be false, then why can't she say anything? She's certainly closer to the deal makers than Cawley is.shirty5 said:
Whatever the reason is, it now just winds everybody up and no one knows what is going on.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Her post doesn't mean Garner isn't signing. Cawley says he's agreed a 2 year deal. She says that's not correct. Doesn't mean he isn't signing, it could mean that he's agreed a 3 year deal!
Would have been for the best if Mrs Sandgaard had not said a thing and we would have found out early this week what’s being announced.Can’t understand why she would do that.
"Understand that to be correct"
Could be any one detail that is incorrect, term, salary, structure etc
I have a feeling neither TS or Mrs TS appreciate Cawley reaching out to leaks in the club rather than contacting direct.
This smacks of “we’ll decide what is said and when” and that’s a battle they will never win.
More important, if you’re “still interviewing” five weeks after your own decision to remove the manager I’d suggest you have a bigger problem.We can all decide how we communicate but to respond in public to a reporter with whom the club - and the owner - have an open line of communication and a good working relationship is a put down and an unnecessary one - it also opens Raelynn up to further ridicule if and when the story turns out to be substantively true.
I have absolutely no doubt whatever way this pans out TS, his son and partner will continue to be criticised by an element of our fan base whatever they do, so I am not going to be upset by a one line put down to a reporter who it would appear didnt get his information from an official source and what may or may not be correct.
I will add that I have not seen Cawley respond so he is acting professionally but then I suppose there are plenty speaking on his behalf.0 -
I didn’t imply that.Airman Brown said:
This is just rubbish. It’s not how local football journalism works - there are multiple ways you get information, some of them official, some authorised, some not authorised, some external, some third party, some just luck. The longer you are involved the more contacts you build.valleynick66 said:It’s given everyone something else to talk about of course on the upside.I do think it’s inconsequential in the grand scheme of things more. We are a 3rd division team and barely get a mention in the sports media reports these days. Amateur or unprofessional possibly but given we are a very small club currently it’s entertaining however some news emerges.Rich Cawley is a local journalist and doesn’t seem to me at least, to have huge advance insight in news at CAFC, only what he is given modestly in advance. I may have this wrong but don’t detect a huge network of inside information more than picking up what others have also heard.
The club will always have stories that it keeps to itself or just issues a heads up to selected parties - I do it myself in another context - but the idea of Cawley just sitting and waiting for the phone to ring is nonsense.I said I don’t interpret a huge inside network. That was all.3 -
The whole saga is just reflecting how amateurish TS approach to running a football club is.Its a car crash
RD thought he knew better and TS seems similar( in a different way )..TS is digging a hole that's getting deeper by the minute..I fear for the future I really do
0 -
Don't put facts in the way mateForeverAddickted said:
https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/605321c7de27c/charlton-appoint-nigel-adkins-as-managereastterrace6168 said:So, sorry to say this but it is WIOTOS, it will be a big photoshoot with all the protagonists present and Thomas in the middle giving it large like he always does..
https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/61bc776d49038/johnnie-jackson-appointed-as-the-clubs-permanent-manager1 -
sam3110 said:Fucking hell bring back Sue Perkins over this latest bint, least all she done was scoff all the canapés
Sam, I didn't watch bake off but do you mean Sue Parkes 🤔9 -
This is all a huge distraction from the Swanley game!9
-
sam3110 said:Fucking hell bring back Sue Perkins over this latest bint, least all she done was scoff all the canapés
9
