I'm away on holiday but just got on-line to catch up on news. Some brilliant posts, especially Fanny's heartfelt plea on the post match views thread. Also, lots of comment on other threads about the quality of our football, the lack of action from the new owner, and the likelihood of CP remaining as manager. some of this is, I think, a bit over the top so I thought a separate thread on CPs contract might be sensible.
In respect of CPs contract, it seems to me that there is a way forward which:
a) recognises that RD will not want to award a long term contract until he has fully evaluated CP and his performance in the context of the financial and other resources (pitch quality, coaching staff and scouting network) available to him
b) addresses the (reported) situation whereby some of the first team squad are reluctant to sign a contract extension until CPs position is secured
c) steadies the ship with the aim of maintaining our championship status whilst allowing leeway for change to occur in the summer as we look to push on.
With that in mind, if I were RD, I would offer CP an 18 month contract extension, but with performance related clauses meaning he could be dismissed earlier with minimal compensation if certain standards are not met. Something like:
- failure to retain championship status this season - dismissal with nil compensation
- secure championship status this season but in bottom 6 by end September 2014 - dismissal with 3 months salary compensation
- secure championship status this season but in bottom 10 by end November 2014 - dismissal with 6 months salary compensation.
Of course, much depends on the Board's targets for next season and the degree to which they are prepared to back those up with the right level of investment. But that kind of contract, supported also by a bonus structure for achievement in advance of target, would be a decent model.
In addition to that:
- offer contract extensions to key players such as Morro, Wiggins and Yann. With Solly and Cousins already secured, that gives us a decent nucleus for next season. Even if a higher level of investment is made, these players are good enough to either play or be on the bench in a top championship challenging side.
- if a foray into the permanent transfer market is seen as too risky and/or expensive in this window (which I would understand) give CP an authorised overspend on the wages budget to enable him to bring in two good quality first teamers, including a striker, for the rest of this season. That, together with the loans from SL, should enable him to achieve this seasons goal of safety.
- continue to fund the existing dome and additional ground staff effort required to ensure we fulfil our fixtures this season, then deliver on the reported promises to upgrade the drainage, heating and quality of the pitch for next season.
- step up the communication with fans, via RM but also directly on occasion, so we understand and buy into what is happening. You won't find a more loyal and supportive fan base if you get us on board.
There you have at least the start of a blueprint for the next few months.
8
Comments
I think all managers contracts should be like that.
Onl y profession where u do abysmal yet end up sacked and a 5mill pay off!
I do agree that a longer contract for the manager would make it easier for the club to secure players, but I suspect that RD wants his new 'General Manager' to have the chance to decide if she wants to work with Powell before 'thrusting' him on her - if you'll excuse the alternative meaning.
I would be surprised of any new contracts are offered to the management team before the end of March, to be honest.
1. It would stop speculation about the manager's position being vacant from 1 July 2014, and, instead the speculation would move forward by three months.
On the negative side
1. No-one would sign a contract that offers risk (ie you might get sacked) with no reward (ie, the only reward would be keeping your job)
2. An eighteen month contract would end at the end of December 2015. Do you want your manager to be trying to sign players in the Summer of 2015, in the knowledge that he's only under contract for the first half of the season?
3. It's totally focusses on the short-term. There's nothing in that contract that would incentivise the manager to develop youth talent, make long-term signings, find clubs to loan players out to or to mange players' fitness levels over a whole season (example: a key player is rushed back to fitness just to secure the three points required to meet the bottom-ten deadline, yet he misses the rest of the season because of that).
4. The incentives (such as they are) are built around milestones which do not benefit the club at all. What benefit is it to Charlton if they are 17th in the league on the 1 October? None.
Offering a contract like that says "I don't really think you are the right person for the job. But I am not really sure. So I will give you lots of opportunities to mess it up and I will be holding a gun over your head all the time. Good luck".
Far better to say "Chris, we know you're the right man for the job. We have total confidence in you. Your job is to manage the selection, training, performance of the first team squad. And you will be incentivised on the basis of how well the first team performs. You have a five year contract, with a one-year rolling notice period. We want you to know you are in it for the long term. And we want everyone who signs for the club to know you are in charge, and you will be in charge for a very long time".
It's stability that works with football clubs, not threats.
Praque, does the Trust need to jump into making an official, public statement on every single thing? Could it not at least wait to consider the consequences or consider options. Or just discuss it privately first, then go public. There is such a thing as trying too hard.
As it is Chizz,s critique blows the OP out of the water imho.
Also the long deal with shorter notice period is not that far of Powell's original deal
The same would apply to Chizz. I don't think he has blown the idea out of the water, he has raised intelligent objections to the detail of it. Fine, that's the kind of debate we would like to have inside the Trust. The point is that on its own, this thread, with its good ideas might or might not come to the attention of the CAFC management, whereas the idea of the Trust is that it can ensure that such good ideas, when properly worked through, do come to their attention.
Personally I would like a situation where, if the Trust comes out with a proposal similar to what somebody posted here, as a result of reading it first here, at the very least, that person's idea is acknowledged first, and ideally that person has played a role in putting it together under the Trust's umbrella.
"Personally"..I emphasise again. And several Trust people happen to agree with Covered End's point the other day. I hope I have explained the difference re my post.
Thanks for taking the time to respond so fully. some good points that warrant a response from me. So:
1. Of course along term contract would be preferable. I was simply addressing what appears to be a reluctance on RDs part to do that without a longer assessment of CP - in effect giving him a way of getting through the contractual impasse with a compromise arrangement.
2. The fact is that with or without a contract, CP and any other manager could be sacked at any time. The issue usually then becomes one of compensation, which many seem to feel is paying up the full term of the contract. Your suggestion of a roiling 12 month notice period would be ok except that it still faces RD with a potentially significant pay-out for perceived failure, which might prove a barrier. However, it is perfectly justifiable and legal to dismiss on the grounds of under-performance, without any compensation. Then it potentially goes to an unfair dismissal claim. My suggestion avoids RD being faced with a claim to pay up more than 6 month pay, yet gives CP some security about what happens if he gets the push.
3. I meant that the 18 month period would start now, thus ending in the summer of 2015.
4. You have missed my point about the additional inclusion of incentives for over achievement of objectives. I agree that these would need to be wider and more inclusive than simply the clubs league position but I didn't mention them because these would not usually form part of an employment contract.
I didn't want to start a row on this. I think we would all agree that SOMETHING needs to change to get CP settled, get over the hurdles on player contract extensions and give CP a chance to attract a couple of good players, given the finances to do so. I think you make a lot of good points but my issue is whether RD would see it the same way.
Regarding your good points to Davo, here's how I would counter them
1. I think Davo has in mind Mr D's trigger happy record with Standard coaches. In that context, 18 months is a pragmatic choice for us to argue for. Mr D just isnt going to do 3 years.
2. Davo isn't setting out incentives, he's setting out rational graded terms for evaluation, and possible dismissal, which is better than dismissal on a whim. It is widely known that CP's deal with the previous regime was low basic plus high bonus, which he handsomely earned on promotion, so the incentives would be similarly defined.
3. As with any senior management employee, Chris Powell would consider whether any incentives offered are earnable with the tools (ability to build squad) that mr D lays out for him.
4. Yes it's short term, you are absolutely right. Unfortunately. But I think Davo assumes that is the nature of the beast (see point 1).
More refinements, anyone?
(edit: written before Davo basically answered for me)
But while you're doing that can you ask about the AGM minutes : - )
Look at managers like Curbs, Fergie, Wenger - they are/were not there for instant impact, but to build up the playing side of a club from within. And that takes longer than an instant but temporary fix.
- sit in the pub and moan
- go round his house and threaten him, as the Standard fans did
- try to see things from his viewpoint and use arguments he might respect (as being "businesslike")
But while you're doing that can you ask about the AGM minutes : - )
After I passed on your kind observations before the Wednesday game, they were posted within a couple of days, as far as I know. Do let one of the more involved guys know, if you have any difficulty accessing them.
But while you're doing that can you ask about the AGM minutes : - )
After I passed on your kind observations before the Wednesday game, they were posted within a couple of days, as far as I know. Do let one of the more involved guys know, if you have any difficulty accessing them.
Thanks, must have missed the post on here updating the AGM thread
So if I was RD I would start the project with Chris Powell in place and give him an improved 2.5 or preferably 3.5 year contract now, with some limited performance objectives. I would provide him the 2 or 3 players he feels he needs for the remainder of the season, and consider future action based on those objectives. I would replace the pitch as a matter of urgency, to facilitate the type of football the manager would like to play. I would limit my liability for terminating his contract by agreeing pay out clauses based on objective failure to deliver objectives, or varied should it be a subjective decision by RD.
Team performance would, of course, be the weightiest measure of success; but the way in which he presented the club, managed his budget, developed the youth, improved the coaching, etc, would all play a part. If he achieved his objectives, I would award a year's extension to his contract. If he substantially overachieved I would award 2 or 3 years. These could all form terms in the contract. I would only consider parting with him if he failed to move my vision forward, which would probably mean a regression in playing performance and/or a failure to move other areas forward.
So for example, playing side scenarios might play out:
1. We stay up this year, in which case I would back his judgement for next season with reasonable investment with an expectation for a top ten finish (year 1) and a play off place (year 2). For each achieved, I would extend his contract by one year. If we win promotion, I would extend by 3 years. If we failed to improve in year 1 or year 2 then I would have a decision to make.
2. We go down, in which case I would retain as many of the squad as I could and cautiously back him in the transfer market to bring us back up. If he failed, I would have a decision to make. If he succeeded, I would extend his contract by one year, back his judgement for the next season with reasonable investment and look for a top ten finish, etc.
To me, the key thing is that Powell has proved he can succeed both with backing in the transfer market (League One title) and without (9th in the Championship). This year he's being asked to succeed without backing, without key players from last year, and without a pitch that supports the way he wants to play - essentially with one arm and one leg tied behind his back. To date he's managed to keep our heads above water, which is probably the best anyone could hope for.
I agree with Chizz that a long term contract brings stability, although it can bring encumbrance too; 1.5 years is too short, because the players will have the same uncertainty next season as this and it undermines the manager's authority (see what's happening with Sherwood at Tottenham - he's clearly an interim manager but everyone's been told he's here until the end of next year, although he may yet manage himself into the job of course). 5 years is probably too long, but given a genuine chance to prove he's the right manager I think Powell could easily be here in 5 years' time.
I might be implored by Mechelen people to do this or do that, but apart from obvious immediate problems (mend the roof, sort the pitch) I would not be confident that I know enough and would not rush to judgement.
WE (the majority I strongly suspect) know that the intelligent thing to do is to back Chris Powell and help him with resources in the short term, Mr Duchatelet can't be blamed for being more cautious than us, he has bought the club after all.
blimey, its not Roman Abramovic we are talking about here!!
aside from that it sounds good but I really want powell to stay, be given a certain amount of money and freedom to choose what players he wants to buy but I have a feeling that this won't be the case.
Rule number 1: we are not going down - anyone anywhere saying as much should go see NLA
Rule number 2: Enjoy the ride - infinitely more rewarding than following other London teams
Rule number 3: Enjoy! I sense so much anger and angst and yet I am chattin to fellow addicks this week and am all up for a cup run
In two weeks things will be clearer and we can do little imbetween