AB why though are you more concerned about RD than TJ and MS and why was there not the need to rally a group as strong as the G21 back then
Firstly, I think there's an assumption that I brought the group together. In fact, I was asked by some other names on the list to take a lead. I said I would only be involved if there was a broad-based group that was so wide it could not reasonably be accused of pursuing a narrow agenda, wanting to damage the club
Rick, do you not in hindsight think that advocating a boycott on season tickets is a direct way of damaging the club?
What I was suggesting, on the morning we learned Powell had been sacked, was a strike - not a boycott. That is, don't buy until we find out more. That would have had no immediate practical damage to the club, because most season tickets are sold in the week leading up to the initial deadline, in this case immediately prior to April 9th. Even if circumstances had meant it commanded widespread support - say Riga had fielded all the January signings and we'd been thrashed by Millwall - it would have done no damage, because people would have signed up later if they wished to buy.
While the season-ticket revenue is important, it only amounts to about £2m, which is less than a fifth of the turnover. Deferring part of that would make very little difference to someone with RD's resources, but it may have got his attention. However, we felt on reflection and as events moved on that it wasn't necessary or appropriate action.
The part of the jigsaw that you are missing is that as far as we were concerned the statement was drawn up in conjunction with the chair of the trust. He was at the meeting and at that stage our assumption was that the trust would sign up to it. In the event he withdrew his name 24 hours later because the trust board as a whole took a different view, which may have been right or wrong, but that's why the idea that it was an attempt to usurp the trust is not a valid one.
What was left was a position where the majority of the trust board, who did not attend the meeting, would have vetoed the views agreed by the group as a whole, including those who are not members of the trust. In my view that would have been daft.
Athletico Addick - don't forget Thuram and AA are only on loan. What makes you think Reza will be off seeing as a) he signed a four year deal and b) there is actually a decent player in there and once acclimatised to this league and a decent pre season will be a real asset to the Club. Unless he is off for a big fee I hope he stays.
Athletico Addick - don't forget Thuram and AA are only on loan. What makes you think Reza will be off seeing as a) he signed a four year deal and b) there is actually a decent player in there and once acclimatised to this league and a decent pre season will be a real asset to the Club. Unless he is off for a big fee I hope he stays.
I hope he stays too as if he can start finding the net he will be very helpful to the team, but just what I've been whispered from someone who seems to know about this stuff. Perhaps he is not enjoying himself, perhaps he wants to play 90 minutes week in week out and not be part of a heavy striker rotating schedule
not really AB when Riga said in his joining statement ," I am friends with the owner and he has asked me to do a job", now that job could've been to play all SL players and try to keep cafc up , no credibility lost
I was and still am a powell man , but I am not going to just sit and listen to people saying Powelly got sacked because he wouldn't play Thuram , when no one bar powelly and RD know, and since Hamer was fit both mgrs. have played him
Fully understand and respect that view. Equally, I and some others believe we do know, so that isn't our position.
To be clear, we all accept that Powell has gone and that we move on from there with that as a given. And, immediately, the most important thing is to get three points tomorrow and improve our chances of staying up.
Pretty well spread rumour VG, also when the woman running your club on a day to day basis, your current manager at the time and Richard Murray all almost wet themselves laughing when someone mentions Thuram's unorthodox method of distribution/goalkeeping it's a bit of a sign that the man is not ready to stand in the nets in the Championship, if he was better than Hamer he would be playing, as he is fit. Different styles of play in different countries, this man's style could shoot ourselves in the foot on more occasions than one during a relegation scrap
Pretty well spread rumour VG, also when the woman running your club on a day to day basis, your current manager at the time and Richard Murray all almost wet themselves laughing when someone mentions Thuram's unorthodox method of distribution/goalkeeping it's a bit of a sign that the man is not ready to stand in the nets in the Championship, if he was better than Hamer he would be playing, as he is fit. Different styles of play in different countries, this man's style could shoot ourselves in the foot on more occasions than one during a relegation scrap
Unorthodox certainly, but then i thought Wilson was on the same right back level as Simon Francis when he joined. Now look at him, he's made adjustments and is playing out of his skin at RB.
The bloke will take time and the fact that he has given Hamer another kick up the arse (remember the last time he was benched and his form improved) i see more good from the loan than bad.
Personally, if Hamer got injured then id be confident in Thuram stepping in.
Pretty well spread rumour VG, also when the woman running your club on a day to day basis, your current manager at the time and Richard Murray all almost wet themselves laughing when someone mentions Thuram's unorthodox method of distribution/goalkeeping it's a bit of a sign that the man is not ready to stand in the nets in the Championship, if he was better than Hamer he would be playing, as he is fit. Different styles of play in different countries, this man's style could shoot ourselves in the foot on more occasions than one during a relegation scrap
Unorthodox certainly, but then i thought Wilson was on the same right back level as Simon Francis when he joined. Now look at him, he's made adjustments and is playing out of his skin at RB.
The bloke will take time and the fact that he has given Hamer another kick up the arse (remember the last time he was benched and his form improved) i see more good from the loan than bad.
Personally, if Hamer got injured then id be confident in Thuram stepping in.
You are being fair and balanced, as usual. I hope you are right, and you may well be.The guy has some pedigree.
However, if Hamer got injured I'd be much happier knowing Ben Alnwick could step in. That would have been the sensible low -risk situation for a club in a relegation scrap. Of course now, it might seem that we would not have that option anyway. I am just not clear that we knew of such a risk when Thuram arrived. Steve Dixon is clear that we did not.
Pretty well spread rumour VG, also when the woman running your club on a day to day basis, your current manager at the time and Richard Murray all almost wet themselves laughing when someone mentions Thuram's unorthodox method of distribution/goalkeeping it's a bit of a sign that the man is not ready to stand in the nets in the Championship, if he was better than Hamer he would be playing, as he is fit. Different styles of play in different countries, this man's style could shoot ourselves in the foot on more occasions than one during a relegation scrap
Unorthodox certainly, but then i thought Wilson was on the same right back level as Simon Francis when he joined. Now look at him, he's made adjustments and is playing out of his skin at RB.
The bloke will take time and the fact that he has given Hamer another kick up the arse (remember the last time he was benched and his form improved) i see more good from the loan than bad.
Personally, if Hamer got injured then id be confident in Thuram stepping in.
You are being fair and balanced, as usual. I hope you are right, and you may well be.The guy has some pedigree.
However, if Hamer got injured I'd be much happier knowing Ben Alnwick could step in. That would have been the sensible low -risk situation for a club in a relegation scrap.
Absolutely. The guy was playing well, but did the club know there was 'apparent' personal issues with Alnwick?
Pretty well spread rumour VG, also when the woman running your club on a day to day basis, your current manager at the time and Richard Murray all almost wet themselves laughing when someone mentions Thuram's unorthodox method of distribution/goalkeeping it's a bit of a sign that the man is not ready to stand in the nets in the Championship, if he was better than Hamer he would be playing, as he is fit. Different styles of play in different countries, this man's style could shoot ourselves in the foot on more occasions than one during a relegation scrap
Unorthodox certainly, but then i thought Wilson was on the same right back level as Simon Francis when he joined. Now look at him, he's made adjustments and is playing out of his skin at RB.
The bloke will take time and the fact that he has given Hamer another kick up the arse (remember the last time he was benched and his form improved) i see more good from the loan than bad.
Personally, if Hamer got injured then id be confident in Thuram stepping in.
You are being fair and balanced, as usual. I hope you are right, and you may well be.The guy has some pedigree.
However, if Hamer got injured I'd be much happier knowing Ben Alnwick could step in. That would have been the sensible low -risk situation for a club in a relegation scrap. Of course now, it might seem that we would not have that option anyway. I am just not clear that we knew of such a risk when Thuram arrived. Steve Dixon is clear that we did not.
From what i have heard, we did not know, so we were lucky, but it was obviously unfortunate for Ben.
Pretty well spread rumour VG, also when the woman running your club on a day to day basis, your current manager at the time and Richard Murray all almost wet themselves laughing when someone mentions Thuram's unorthodox method of distribution/goalkeeping it's a bit of a sign that the man is not ready to stand in the nets in the Championship, if he was better than Hamer he would be playing, as he is fit. Different styles of play in different countries, this man's style could shoot ourselves in the foot on more occasions than one during a relegation scrap
Unorthodox certainly, but then i thought Wilson was on the same right back level as Simon Francis when he joined. Now look at him, he's made adjustments and is playing out of his skin at RB.
The bloke will take time and the fact that he has given Hamer another kick up the arse (remember the last time he was benched and his form improved) i see more good from the loan than bad.
Personally, if Hamer got injured then id be confident in Thuram stepping in.
You are being fair and balanced, as usual. I hope you are right, and you may well be.The guy has some pedigree.
However, if Hamer got injured I'd be much happier knowing Ben Alnwick could step in. That would have been the sensible low -risk situation for a club in a relegation scrap. Of course now, it might seem that we would not have that option anyway. I am just not clear that we knew of such a risk when Thuram arrived. Steve Dixon is clear that we did not.
the fact is Fulham were seriously looking at Hamer. Both Hamer and Alnwick were out of contract in six months and, as with Yann and Stephens, if a half decent offer came in then we could have lost either or both. Bringing in Thuram eased that situation and would have been beneficial to all concerned (Thuram, SL and us). If he has subsequently been found wanting then that is a shame but in all honesty if he had to play tomorrow then it wouldn't bother me in the slightest as I think he has been very harshly treated. Also, Alnwick's agent tried to play hard ball over Ben and lost.
Thuram has already caused some controversy. There was talk of litigation as his attempts to transfer to S Liege had not been agreed by his club or his agent. That appears to have been sorted out and S Liege paid 2 million Euros for him. Thuram is reported as saying the following ......
"It's a taste that I have lost in recent months, I miss it," says Yohann Thuram. "Before coming here, I had a long discussion with the leadership of the Standard. The purpose of my loan to Charlton is to find playing time to come back stronger next season in Standard and restart on a sound basis. I signed up for four years in Standard, it is not for nothing. My goal is to impose myself as the owner. "
Sorry to sound like the proverbial broken record, but if this quote is true, it strengthens the idea that we are a reserve team to SL, fattening up the players to move them on.
Not necessarily, the only thing it proves is that Thuram himself wants to go back to Liege and become first choice keeper there, unless Ajderevic and Reza and the others all start saying similar things then you can't possibly tell whether this is the 'party line' or simply Thuram's own desire, especially as he's not that popular over here anyway. Quite apart from which, Hamer is now pretty decisively and definitely Charlton No. 1 and unlikely to change so if I was Thuram I'd be looking to go elsewhere too.
He actually says that following discussions at SL, the purpose of his loan to Charlton was to 'find playing time'. Not help us in our struggle as a team, but to help his position for the future. This resonates with the SL guy saying that players not good enough for the SL first team go to Charlton to get experience...(not results). If results for Charlton follow I am sure nobody would complain, but based on what I have described, I can't find the bit that says players are coming here to get success for us, but I can find the bits that indicate we are seen (by some?) as a convalescent home to make players better.
Of course the thinking when Thuram joined on loan would have been to give him playing time, but what's wrong with that? It hasn't worked out because, right now at least, Ben Hamer is better adapted to the Championship.
Joe Pigott is on loan at Gillingham. That's a purely commercial arrangement between us and Gillingham. I haven't tracked his progress, but at the outset the objective was obviously to achieve a win, win, win, i.e. for Gillingham, for the player and for Charlton. I'd hope that Pigott is totally committed to the cause whilst at Gillingham, but equally if he were interviewed I'd expect him to say that his ambition is to get some experience and then return to Charlton and establish himself in the first team. If he said that publically I doubt anybody at Gillingham would be either surprised or concerned.
In principle, the arrangement with Thuram is exactly the same. The differences are, first, that there is no relationship between us and Gillingham and, second, that it turns out that Thuram isn't getting the game time he wants whilst Pigott has made five appearances (though I don't know whether they are starts or off the bench). The hierarchy of the Clubs is not relevant.
The irony here is that the losers in the Thuram trade are the player himself and Standard Liege because he's not getting the game time intended. He'd have been better off going elsewhere. At least from Charlton's perspective he's filled in when needed and is now on the bench for emergencies.
This episode highlights an important challenge for the network concept. The positive is that Charlton had and have the opportunity for preferential treatment when considering loans from Standard. In a way that Gillingham did not, for example. They only got Pigott because they were judged to be the best option available. However, this can only work, i.e. create win, win, win outcomes if somebody is in a position to make sound judgements about who might usefully go where and when. That's not easy and, in reality, there may only be a few occasions where intra network loans actually make sense. Time will tell how Duchatelet plans to deal with this question, but in the meantime let's hope some valuable lessons have been learnt.
Those challenges for the network mentioned by Mundell Fleming surely come back to who makes the decisions re potential player movements and how? Remember, the whole network thing is nearly as new for RD as it is for us - he only had two clubs (three if you count Sint Truiden) until Nov 2013, and since then has added Carl Zeiss Jena, us and Alcorcon in quick succession.
So in RD's shoes, how do you get the network model to be beneficial all round? All very well to say the clubs are individual, but clearly the economies of scale of the network only come to fruition if there is a career path/ experience path for players where appropriate, and that this is financially beneficial overall.
What kind of infrastructure might this need? Something along these lines, I'd imagine:
- a really strong, pan-European scouting network (could be based on collaboration between the scouts at each club, each responsible for their own country plus one or two others?) - trusted feedback and reports from the managers/ head coaches of each network team on strengths and weaknesses of their squad players, particularly any which may be available for loan/ transfer within the network - similar feedback on positions where they need new bodies and want to know what is available across the network - then the tricky bit - this needs someone overseeing it all to make sure it is fair/ for the common good of the network and not just about "who shouts loudest". Back to that "Network Director of Football" role - or do we simply leave all the juggling to RD, who seemingly is more into money and stats than football? The January experiment between SL and CAFC might make him think that there is a bit more to it than he imagined... - then, critically, what about the money and balancing the books of each club? How will the trading work in practice between Katrien and her peers at the other clubs?
In theory, I can see some advantages (most obvious being minimising agent fees) - but in practice, it is one hell of an experiment...
Those challenges for the network mentioned by Mundell Fleming surely come back to who makes the decisions re potential player movements and how? Remember, the whole network thing is nearly as new for RD as it is for us - he only had two clubs (three if you count Sint Truiden) until Nov 2013, and since then has added Carl Zeiss Jena, us and Alcorcon in quick succession.
So in RD's shoes, how do you get the network model to be beneficial all round? All very well to say the clubs are individual, but clearly the economies of scale of the network only come to fruition if there is a career path/ experience path for players where appropriate, and that this is financially beneficial overall.
What kind of infrastructure might this need? Something along these lines, I'd imagine:
- a really strong, pan-European scouting network (could be based on collaboration between the scouts at each club, each responsible for their own country plus one or two others?) - trusted feedback and reports from the managers/ head coaches of each network team on strengths and weaknesses of their squad players, particularly any which may be available for loan/ transfer within the network - similar feedback on positions where they need new bodies and want to know what is available across the network - then the tricky bit - this needs someone overseeing it all to make sure it is fair/ for the common good of the network and not just about "who shouts loudest". Back to that "Network Director of Football" role - or do we simply leave all the juggling to RD, who seemingly is more into money and stats than football? The January experiment between SL and CAFC might make him think that there is a bit more to it than he imagined... - then, critically, what about the money and balancing the books of each club? How will the trading work in practice between Katrien and her peers at the other clubs?
In theory, I can see some advantages (most obvious being minimising agent fees) - but in practice, it is one hell of an experiment...
Where are you getting the info from that we are only able to bring network players into the club?
Adam, not what I was saying at all. Undoubtedly there is the intention that there will be movement of players within the network - my post is about issues around how to make that work.
let's assume Thuram was calculated to be of a sufficient standard, he clearly isn't - what does that say about the methodology being employed here? stats vs coach/managers judgement, or more radically financial economy/owner input. But where does that leave football expertise that a coach or manager brings?
Also the overall attitude/ideology in place applying to economy of the network, is it a good idea to sell your best players in the middle of a relegation scrap, perhaps a false economy - it would seem to show an underlying misunderstanding or poor judgement. You could keep them on the until the end of the season, and not even have to offer them a new arrangement.
Murray said money wasn't available in January, and we have failed to sign many loan players we appear to have been in for, 3 players needed we have been told, why is that? Another misjudgement, or a fundamental reason why players won't sign? Does Obika represent a ratchet up of so far failed policy?
Are any of these failings of CP? No evidence for that so far in my view.
Would a new manager with a different approach fix things, and or give the team a boost after it as got in a rut - arguably yes, but for how long? But then why offer Powell a deal in the first place assuming it was a genuine offer.
Then there is concern that after being told our new young players would stay longer, that soon after we are told they may be offered Champions League football.
We are then reassured that we are not the feeder club but Liege are ours.. LOL - as someone said, being their reserve side amounts to the same thing, albeit with some benefits.
It looks like the point she is trying to make is how do they decide who gets the players between the network, i was just saying we may never see another network player. Noone knows whats going to happen so we might aswell wait until the summer until we start to worry about the 'infrastructure' of the network
let's assume Thuram was calculated to be of a sufficient standard, he clearly isn't
isn't he? He has played three games. First one he was pitched straight in and was at fault for Boro's goal. Second game, at Wigan, neither goals were directly his fault. The third he kept a clean sheet in a 1-0 win over QPR. Bloody disaster eh ! And I reckon you only saw the home win so how are you in a position to judge? If he were that bad wouldn't Jose have recalled Pope or have Philips on the bench? He really isn't as bad as is being made out. I concede that the game here probably took him by surprise initially but if he plays or comes on tomorrow it wouldn't concern me at all.
Razil I agree with a lot of what you say there. My question (linking to Weegie's comprehensive assessment) is that, assuming we stay up we will be in a very different place in the summer. Who will be responsible for player acquisition and retention. And, assuming player are released, where will replacements be sourced from. Give the prize of promotion to the Premier League am I being optimistic in suggesting Rd will resource CAFC appropriately? First we have to survive this season but these are two very different scenarios I think.
I wouldn't use the word 'woeful'. I have to confess to being unable to comment that much on the second half (from behind the goal I can never really tell what happens at the other end) but, despite some heart in the mouth moments in the first half, he didn't look close to conceding a goal.
I was, relatively, impressed with him.
I've said already that I think the Championship is tougher than most Europeans realise until they see it up close, but I don't think that affects a 'keeper in the same way it would an outfield player.
But KHA, it does affect the other players. Thuram, let's be generous here, has adopted the continental goalkeeping style, which then throws out the back four and midfield as they are not familiar with the style. I've no problem at all with trying out new techniques and improving flexibility of responses but most certainly not when you are in the midst of a serious relegation battle.I would suggest that CP understood that we, the supporters longed for a decent cup run. For all the players, especially kids like Diego Poyet, the excitement must have been quite considerable. You play your safest pair of hands and without doubt, at that time, it was Ben Hamer. I remember a rueful Robbie Elliott, when injury had forced him out, explaining to me that goalies need constant games to keep their eye in. You can't just step in and be expected to play well. I think the probability from assessing all the various sources strongly suggests that RD cost us our chance to get to Wembley. I do tend to believe that he wanted CP out and he wanted to TV showcase a player that had cost him way too much money. Time will tell.
I wouldn't use the word 'woeful'. I have to confess to being unable to comment that much on the second half (from behind the goal I can never really tell what happens at the other end) but, despite some heart in the mouth moments in the first half, he didn't look close to conceding a goal.
I was, relatively, impressed with him.
I've said already that I think the Championship is tougher than most Europeans realise until they see it up close, but I don't think that affects a 'keeper in the same way it would an outfield player.
Disagree with that, it affects keepers in a different way, in that they are required to deal with a lot more high balls into the box.
A goalkeeper who is inclined to try and dominate his box and has the anticipation and strength to do so would do fine, wherever he comes from.
I am still upset about losing Powell as I thought it was a risk that didn’t have to be made. But on reflection, if Chrissy couldn’t embrace the new owner’s philosophy it was all going to go toxic and maybe better if he had walked as the focus has to be 100% on winning this battle to stay up. But he would never do that as he is a Charlton legend and takes the responsibility that goes with that title very seriously. It is a worry going forwards that Chrissy couldn’t embrace the footballing plans as it could signpost that they might not be to our liking either.
But as for my first fear – Riga has come in and done well and whilst the risk didn’t need to be taken, I think we have cleared that particular hurdle. Had we lost a couple of the last 2 games, it could easily have become toxic – but 5 points is probably 2 shy of what we have deserved from our last 3 games and Riga isn’t going to be a negative in all this - phew!! The players seem to have responded positively and the objective for the team and the fans has to be to work together in staying up.
I didn’t think this would happen last week, but thanks to Riga, I am now willing to accept I was wrong and we have a very good chance of avoiding relegation.
I believe, based on ample evidence, that Chrissy is a great squad builder and just needed backing. Where I was critical of him was his negative tactics on occasions and I think Riga’s approach in that respect is actually an improvement. Not to say I am now happy about Chrissy going, I am not, but I am going to worry about this season for now and the future will have to be assessed as it plays out.
It is possible RDs network idea will work, but I can see big weaknesses in it. But he owns the club, not me and until somebody else buys it, I am not going to be able to stop him so I will watch future developments suspiciously but also,sadly , helplessly!
As for Thuram – I was told he might be France’s third keeper in the World Cup so he can’t be as bad as he has looked. Very continental in his punch everything style and that isn’t for English fans – can’t be great having your own fans taking the mick every game and it wasn’t fair to play him. On FIFA, Thuram is well well above Hamer and you can see RD looking at the paper rather than the eveidence. But Chrissy was right not to play him, as Riga has been right not to do so either.
I know Thuram has made errors, but I do think British goal-keeping coaches have been left behind a bit. Statistically, it is safer to punch than to catch and British keepers are coached top catch balls the shouldn’t IMO. The keeper also needs to use more intelligence when coming out for a crossed ball. But Thuram punched balls that were safe catches so he is probably better off playing in another country as British fans will never accept that.
Surely catching a ball in the penalty box is bread and butter to a goalie, whatever their nationality. Not like suddenly expecting them to take it ont heir chest and do keepy-ups.
ok - attempt to catch - and I am not including the bread and butter catches - but mean the catches where you have to take the risk of moving through a group of players in a crowded area! The british coaching manual says to catch, the foreign one to punch. Thuram's problem is that he is too much on the other side of the fence.
Comments
Where has this information come from???
To be clear, we all accept that Powell has gone and that we move on from there with that as a given. And, immediately, the most important thing is to get three points tomorrow and improve our chances of staying up.
The bloke will take time and the fact that he has given Hamer another kick up the arse (remember the last time he was benched and his form improved) i see more good from the loan than bad.
Personally, if Hamer got injured then id be confident in Thuram stepping in.
However, if Hamer got injured I'd be much happier knowing Ben Alnwick could step in. That would have been the sensible low -risk situation for a club in a relegation scrap. Of course now, it might seem that we would not have that option anyway. I am just not clear that we knew of such a risk when Thuram arrived. Steve Dixon is clear that we did not.
Joe Pigott is on loan at Gillingham. That's a purely commercial arrangement between us and Gillingham. I haven't tracked his progress, but at the outset the objective was obviously to achieve a win, win, win, i.e. for Gillingham, for the player and for Charlton. I'd hope that Pigott is totally committed to the cause whilst at Gillingham, but equally if he were interviewed I'd expect him to say that his ambition is to get some experience and then return to Charlton and establish himself in the first team. If he said that publically I doubt anybody at Gillingham would be either surprised or concerned.
In principle, the arrangement with Thuram is exactly the same. The differences are, first, that there is no relationship between us and Gillingham and, second, that it turns out that Thuram isn't getting the game time he wants whilst Pigott has made five appearances (though I don't know whether they are starts or off the bench). The hierarchy of the Clubs is not relevant.
The irony here is that the losers in the Thuram trade are the player himself and Standard Liege because he's not getting the game time intended. He'd have been better off going elsewhere. At least from Charlton's perspective he's filled in when needed and is now on the bench for emergencies.
This episode highlights an important challenge for the network concept. The positive is that Charlton had and have the opportunity for preferential treatment when considering loans from Standard. In a way that Gillingham did not, for example. They only got Pigott because they were judged to be the best option available. However, this can only work, i.e. create win, win, win outcomes if somebody is in a position to make sound judgements about who might usefully go where and when. That's not easy and, in reality, there may only be a few occasions where intra network loans actually make sense. Time will tell how Duchatelet plans to deal with this question, but in the meantime let's hope some valuable lessons have been learnt.
So in RD's shoes, how do you get the network model to be beneficial all round? All very well to say the clubs are individual, but clearly the economies of scale of the network only come to fruition if there is a career path/ experience path for players where appropriate, and that this is financially beneficial overall.
What kind of infrastructure might this need? Something along these lines, I'd imagine:
- a really strong, pan-European scouting network (could be based on collaboration between the scouts at each club, each responsible for their own country plus one or two others?)
- trusted feedback and reports from the managers/ head coaches of each network team on strengths and weaknesses of their squad players, particularly any which may be available for loan/ transfer within the network
- similar feedback on positions where they need new bodies and want to know what is available across the network
- then the tricky bit - this needs someone overseeing it all to make sure it is fair/ for the common good of the network and not just about "who shouts loudest". Back to that "Network Director of Football" role - or do we simply leave all the juggling to RD, who seemingly is more into money and stats than football? The January experiment between SL and CAFC might make him think that there is a bit more to it than he imagined...
- then, critically, what about the money and balancing the books of each club? How will the trading work in practice between Katrien and her peers at the other clubs?
In theory, I can see some advantages (most obvious being minimising agent fees) - but in practice, it is one hell of an experiment...
Adam, not what I was saying at all. Undoubtedly there is the intention that there will be movement of players within the network - my post is about issues around how to make that work.
let's assume Thuram was calculated to be of a sufficient standard, he clearly isn't - what does that say about the methodology being employed here? stats vs coach/managers judgement, or more radically financial economy/owner input. But where does that leave football expertise that a coach or manager brings?
Also the overall attitude/ideology in place applying to economy of the network, is it a good idea to sell your best players in the middle of a relegation scrap, perhaps a false economy - it would seem to show an underlying misunderstanding or poor judgement. You could keep them on the until the end of the season, and not even have to offer them a new arrangement.
Murray said money wasn't available in January, and we have failed to sign many loan players we appear to have been in for, 3 players needed we have been told, why is that? Another misjudgement, or a fundamental reason why players won't sign? Does Obika represent a ratchet up of so far failed policy?
Are any of these failings of CP? No evidence for that so far in my view.
Would a new manager with a different approach fix things, and or give the team a boost after it as got in a rut - arguably yes, but for how long? But then why offer Powell a deal in the first place assuming it was a genuine offer.
Then there is concern that after being told our new young players would stay longer, that soon after we are told they may be offered Champions League football.
We are then reassured that we are not the feeder club but Liege are ours.. LOL - as someone said, being their reserve side amounts to the same thing, albeit with some benefits.
I've seen less punches at a Mike Tyson fight.
Give the prize of promotion to the Premier League am I being optimistic in suggesting Rd will resource CAFC appropriately?
First we have to survive this season but these are two very different scenarios I think.
I was, relatively, impressed with him.
I've said already that I think the Championship is tougher than most Europeans realise until they see it up close, but I don't think that affects a 'keeper in the same way it would an outfield player.
A goalkeeper who is inclined to try and dominate his box and has the anticipation and strength to do so would do fine, wherever he comes from.
But as for my first fear – Riga has come in and done well and whilst the risk didn’t need to be taken, I think we have cleared that particular hurdle. Had we lost a couple of the last 2 games, it could easily have become toxic – but 5 points is probably 2 shy of what we have deserved from our last 3 games and Riga isn’t going to be a negative in all this - phew!! The players seem to have responded positively and the objective for the team and the fans has to be to work together in staying up.
I didn’t think this would happen last week, but thanks to Riga, I am now willing to accept I was wrong and we have a very good chance of avoiding relegation.
I believe, based on ample evidence, that Chrissy is a great squad builder and just needed backing. Where I was critical of him was his negative tactics on occasions and I think Riga’s approach in that respect is actually an improvement. Not to say I am now happy about Chrissy going, I am not, but I am going to worry about this season for now and the future will have to be assessed as it plays out.
It is possible RDs network idea will work, but I can see big weaknesses in it. But he owns the club, not me and until somebody else buys it, I am not going to be able to stop him so I will watch future developments suspiciously but also,sadly , helplessly!
As for Thuram – I was told he might be France’s third keeper in the World Cup so he can’t be as bad as he has looked. Very continental in his punch everything style and that isn’t for English fans – can’t be great having your own fans taking the mick every game and it wasn’t fair to play him. On FIFA, Thuram is well well above Hamer and you can see RD looking at the paper rather than the eveidence. But Chrissy was right not to play him, as Riga has been right not to do so either.
I know Thuram has made errors, but I do think British goal-keeping coaches have been left behind a bit. Statistically, it is safer to punch than to catch and British keepers are coached top catch balls the shouldn’t IMO. The keeper also needs to use more intelligence when coming out for a crossed ball. But Thuram punched balls that were safe catches so he is probably better off playing in another country as British fans will never accept that.
I reckon 100% of balls caught by the goalie do not result in a goal !!