Now, I really have no inside track at all on the inner workings of the club, the Board or the mind of M Duchatelet himself. But let's look at a possible scenario for the selection of Bob Peeters as Head Coach. All of this is hypothesis and supposition, but it might have gone something like this:
1. Jose Riga was appointed on a short-term basis until the end of the season, with no commitments or expectations on either side that this would lead to a long-term appointment. It had been identified that we had an over-reliance on the long ball under Chris Powell, and it was felt that Riga would be able to improve the quality of play, enable to retain possession better and get the points needed to ensure survival, which was essential for the economic well-being of the club and the wider network. This he did, with the added benefit that his calm and measured style worked well with the players and also with the, initially, sceptical fans. He was also available at short notice, which was not the case with other potential candidates.
2. Jose Riga performed well, but in a relatively low pressure situation. He was a gamble. If CAFC went down, then it was Chris Powell's fault. If we stayed up, he was a hero. He was able to call the shots without fear. He did it very, very well, and exceeded expectations - but Riga does not have a track record of longevity in his roles. He chose to move on from Standard Liege fairly early in his tenure. What, on his cv, indicates that he was a coach who would sign up for "the whole journey:, a coach who would stick around if things got tough? Success in a short-term turnaround role does not necessarily indicate the skills and temperament needed to succeed in re-building a squad, a team, a club, in the longer term. The short-term task demands clear insight, good decision making, good team-building and motivational skills. The long-term role demands, additionally, strategic vision, resilience, ruthlessness and the ability to initiate, lead and manage change. There were question marks over Jose Riga's ability to excel in all of these competences.
3. Bob Peeters is a young, ambitious Head Coach who has impressed M Duchatelet and other observers in the Belgian game. He is regarded as talented and ambitious with the potential to go far in his career, and further than Jose Riga is seen as being capable of. He does have the full set of competencies that CAFC needs in the longer term role. Peeters has coached teams to superior performance and, whilst he has had his disappointments, these have largely been due to external factors such as key players being sold. He is bright and receptive and these setbacks will have been a valuable learning experience for him. There were other alternative candidates to Jose Riga, but Peeters was felt to have the best all-round skill set and the highest potential, to lead CAFC in this new era.
4. It is also true that Peeters understands the broader strategic vision of the network and, critically, is able to buy-into the vision of shared playing and non-playing resources adding value to all. This is critical for an effective working relationship with M Duchatelet. However, he is known not be anyone's pushover, will fight his corner and always have CAFCs best interests at the forefront of his thinking and his decisions. M Duchatelet has said that each of the clubs in the network is an autonomous entity and Peeters has made clear his intention to always pick the best available team to get results for for CAFC. After all, a successful CAFC will be of significant economic value to M Duchatelet and the network as a whole.
How much of this hypothetical scenario is true, who knows? But I suspect that some elements might be on or near the money. If it happens to be reasonably accurate, should we reasonably expect M Duchatelet or Katrien Meire to explain all this to us? No, of course not. Firstly, it could be quite damaging to Jose Riga and other coaches thought to be "in the frame". Would any of us want our perceived shortcomings to be communicated to several thousand people? Would that not leave CAFC open to potential legal action? Where I do agree with other posters, however, is that it WOULD have been appropriate for a positive communication to have been issued about Peeters' appointment outlining the reasons why he had been selected. The only half-valid reason I can see for this not being done is that it might have been used as a stick to beat them with sometime downstream. The real reason is probably more mundane, a combination of holidays, leadership vacuum and a weak communications team. Communication at the club is certainly better now than in the Jiminez/Slater era, but they still get it very wrong too often. This may be at least part of the reason for the appointment of the new communications supremo, at network level, and I hope he is watching closely and learning from the mistakes.
I don't think I've read or heard a better possible explanation of RD's thinking, @Davo55. Plenty to think about there. Top post.
I'll second that, you've certainly made me see things from a different perspective. However it doesn't address the issue of stability. This appointment brings nothing but instability to the playing staff and to the fan base. I cannot imagine any of the players returning for pre season training being optimistic or up beat about the coming season. One look around the training pitch absent of the likes of Hamer, Poyet, Dervite, Morrison, Dyer and Riga is likely to demoralise those left standing. I cannot see the presence of Peeters and more unknown players from the network being sufficient to compensate for what has been lost. Of course I hope I'm wrong, but in all walks of life people need stability and at Charlton we've had enough instability in recent times to last a lifetime, we needed more like we needed a hole in the head. The Chris Powell appointment was clever because it united the club in a way that we hadn't seen for years. This appointment has caused huge rifts in my opinion.
Which I suggest is precisely why such a clause will be inserted in the contract to prevent any unapproved defection mid season - who is going to wait for a month for a head coach at such a time - and make it bloody awkward even during the close season. It is meant to be a deterrent to someone poaching their head coach.
The 60 odd articles on Waasland Beveren at the time of the initial story indicated they were adamant they had a case for a considerable compensation package in respect of his contract until 2015. Though journalists in contact with Peeters seemed to indicated they were only entitled to compensation for the first 3 months of the remaining contract.
If the latter ended up being the case you can well imagine them insisting he worked (went on gardening leave) a months notice. I am sure he will find something useful to do with his time.
Maybe it might help if I offer my professional understanding of managerial contracts (caveat: I'm not a lawyer and there may be scenarios in other industries which I've never come across).
"Gardening leave" is a concept widely misunderstood (not least by some Czech employers, I might add). Modern employment law protects the right of the employee to ply his trade without unreasonable restriction (Bosman built on that). Employers however worry that a key employee can go to a direct competitor tomorrow and inflict enormous business damage as a result. So a contract may include an agreement that if the employee wishes to leave for a direct competitor (and 'direct' would have to be specified), he cannot do so for a period (usually a year max), during which time his current employer pays his full salary.
I have never heard of a football manager being put on gardening leave. It strikes me that the short term nature of employment means none would sign such a contract. They would fear being out of the game for a year. And its expensive for the employer, who would effectively pay two salaries, as someone else would need to come in.
There is the separate issue of fixed term contracts and the circumstances in which an employee can break them. This is the likely issue here. Sounds like, as Grapevine says, there was a three month notice period. Now here is my point : Faced with such a clause, RD could choose to offer Beveren money to release him from it. That would be sensible, for both clubs. What the hell use is Peeters now to Beveren in their own close season?
I would worry that if this story is true - and that's a big if - RD chose to save a few bob because he didn't fully understand the dynamics of the football close season/transfer window. But let us hope it is not true.
I am currently on 6mths gardening leave. I have never heard of it applying in football. As Prague mentioned a new employer could technically buy out the notice period. I doubt though football contracts have these clauses in them
Which I suggest is precisely why such a clause will be inserted in the contract to prevent any unapproved defection mid season - who is going to wait for a month for a head coach at such a time - and make it bloody awkward even during the close season. It is meant to be a deterrent to someone poaching their head coach.
The 60 odd articles on Waasland Beveren at the time of the initial story indicated they were adamant they had a case for a considerable compensation package in respect of his contract until 2015. Though journalists in contact with Peeters seemed to indicated they were only entitled to compensation for the first 3 months of the remaining contract.
If the latter ended up being the case you can well imagine them insisting he worked (went on gardening leave) a months notice. I am sure he will find something useful to do with his time.
Maybe it might help if I offer my professional understanding of managerial contracts (caveat: I'm not a lawyer and there may be scenarios in other industries which I've never come across).
"Gardening leave" is a concept widely misunderstood (not least by some Czech employers, I might add). Modern employment law protects the right of the employee to ply his trade without unreasonable restriction (Bosman built on that). Employers however worry that a key employee can go to a direct competitor tomorrow and inflict enormous business damage as a result. So a contract may include an agreement that if the employee wishes to leave for a direct competitor (and 'direct' would have to be specified), he cannot do so for a period (usually a year max), during which time his current employer pays his full salary.
I have never heard of a football manager being put on gardening leave. It strikes me that the short term nature of employment means none would sign such a contract. They would fear being out of the game for a year. And its expensive for the employer, who would effectively pay two salaries, as someone else would need to come in.
There is the separate issue of fixed term contracts and the circumstances in which an employee can break them. This is the likely issue here. Sounds like, as Grapevine says, there was a three month notice period. Now here is my point : Faced with such a clause, RD could choose to offer Beveren money to release him from it. That would be sensible, for both clubs. What the hell use is Peeters now to Beveren in their own close season?
I would worry that if this story is true - and that's a big if - RD chose to save a few bob because he didn't fully understand the dynamics of the football close season/transfer window. But let us hope it is not true.
I've no idea what might be going on here, but if they are cross about how this situation has been handled Beveren might be being difficult just for the hell of it. I doubt it's about money.
I am obviously one of the few who was not totally convinced by Rega. Nice man and I believe he is a very good coach. Not sure he would have gone on to be a great manager. Jonnie Jackson will get the troops together like he did after CP. Players are used to changes and will only be really interested in finding out if the new managers prefered style of play compliments theirs. If it does and the players coming in are quality they will be happy. So will we. New pitch, new training ground, new manager, new players. Exciting stuff!
Presents himself well from an employable perspective full of enthusiasm etc, but when it comes to actually doing the job he is a joke and has no previous record of any sustainable success.
Also bald.
He won't be, as he won't have anywhere near the levels of control over player purchases that Dowie had.
Love how a few people know this . Wish I had the inside info .
Where do you get this blind faith from? I seriously can't get my head around it. Have you been living under a rock since January?
And it's not blind faith , Iv seen enough to think we're gonna start the season in a strong position on and off the field , why ? Well why not ?
Please tell me what you've seen to give you the impression that "we're gonna start the season in a strong position on the field"
Iv seen that Roland wants to build for the future RUMOUR , Iv seen that he's putting over 500k into a new pitch and he's had a part in the training ground development TRUE. The fact that we have bid over 500k for O Grady RUMOUR , we had 1.5m ready for gradel back in jan RUMOUR and km has just said they are working hard on deals and I trust they will do the right thing By learning from their mistakes of jan . Who knows what will happen but I'm not going to judge until beginning of august personally.
another bunch of facts......
1 manager sacked - would have kept us up IMO but can understand why he was let go 1 head coach not kept on - despite being a resounding success 2 important players sold in jan and not adequately replaced 2 integral players not retained at the end of the season 1 inexperienced head coach employed - still not heard a peep out of him 2 more integral players not committing as yet....not looking likely
another bunch of facts......
1 manager sacked - when we were bottom of The League and had just been knocked out of the FA Cup, live to the nation with a really poor performance. - i did put an IMO there but......5 games in hand.....
1 head coach not kept on - because, follwoing on from a selection process, the owner felt he had a better applicant. - LOL at "selection process"
2 important players sold in jan who didn't want to stay at the Club, whose contracts expired in 6 months and who received decent fees for. As for their replacements, I suggest we wait and see. - AA, Reza, Koc, Nego, Thuram???????
2 integral players whose contracts had expired and were not retained at the end of the season because the owner felt they were replaceable. Whereas other players contracts have been renegotiated or are in the process of being renegotiated. - who needs a keeper and centre back eh?!?
1 inexperienced head coach employed who RM has said the Board felt was the best fit out of the candidates they looked at - still not heard a peep out of him despite him being confrimed in the role less than 48 hours ago. - most other managers/head coaches of clubs say something withing the first 48hrs
2 more integral players not committing as yet....not looking likely. That's a FACT is it? Are you their agent then? - should have put a IMO after the "not looking likely"
Now you've gone to using opinion yourself!!!
Cam on don't be pedantic me old son!
Mate, my point is that you can list the 'facts' and some, like those you've listed look bad on paper (ie sold our best two players) but There are reasons behind those decisions and we can only speculate what they are
Some people wanna know the ins and outs of a ducks arse but it's just not gonna happen. It was the same with old owners , I'm just not sure why all of a sudden people feel like they deserve to be told the reasoning behind every decision with RD?
i agree with you 100% that people have no "right" to expect to be told any reasons behind anything he does, he bought the club, his decision is final (and as you say, throughout time it's always been like that!)
also to be fair to Roly, every time he's spoken he's said the right things so there can't be much of an argument there either.
where i'm coming from is....I judge not on what people say but what people do. at the moment a lot of the decisions made have looked questionable. that's not to say that they won't be right or that there's not a hell of a lot of time to fix what i would call the 'issues.' I just call it as i see it and at the moment the cons are outweighing the pros for me and for that reason I can't be blindly optimistic. This obviously can change very quickly and I really hope it does!
But you have answered your own question Prague - UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT - there is a required notice of whatever period - the employer who holds that contract is not obliged to do anything outside the terms of that contract - to argue there was nothing in it for them is not true - it clearly sets an example for anyone else who wishes to breach the terms of their contract with them that they can and will stand their ground as a matter of principle.
I can certainly see Waasland Beveren making a point by insisting he serve at least part of his notice and take compensation for the remainder of the notice period. It is win-win for them on both levels. It secures financial reward AND establishes a point of principle.
I suggest it may also account for the lack of any interview or any related press conference at this time. He effectively though appointed as our future Head Coach is still an employee of Waasland Beveren.
so why would Poyet--Morrison---anyone sign for a club where they cant speak to the manager untill sometime in the future and wont even know who the majority of their team mates might be ?
But you have answered your own question Prague - UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT - there is a required notice of whatever period - the employer who holds that contract is not obliged to do anything outside the terms of that contract - to argue there was nothing in it for them is not true - it clearly sets an example for anyone else who wishes to breach the terms of their contract with them that they can and will stand their ground as a matter of principle.
I can certainly see Waasland Beveren making a point by insisting he serve at least part of his notice and take compensation for the remainder of the notice period. It is win-win for them on both levels. It secures financial reward AND establishes a point of principle.
I suggest it may also account for the lack of any interview or any related press conference at this time. He effectively though appointed as our future Head Coach is still an employee of Waasland Beveren.
Well Grapevine neither of us know, and of course he could tip up at the Valley next week to show us all that it was another false rumour. I respect your perspective, but personally tend towards the view that Beveren would have let him go immediately if RD offered significant wedge to do so. I believe this because Beveren's season may start even earlier than ours (if they have a mid winter break as most do in Cont. Europe), and really Peeters is dead wood there now. What actually can he contribute there between now and 30 June?
@Grapevine49 that's very true, but I don't doubt that Peeters will be looking over reports on what we currently have, the set-up, team needs and potential targets. That last one will almost certainly include "network" options and I suspect that RD would also have his team's coaches swapping ideas as well.
Not ideal that he comes in in late June, if that is the case (and I would never doubt Sue Parkes), but it is what it is and we'll have to muddle through. (c) The Charlton Way ;-)
It is always about the money when you don't have much of it!
Perhaps, but Duchatelet does have a lot of it. I meant I doubt it's because he's refusing to buy out a three month contract.
I'm not so sure. It was you who coined the elegant phrase "ever so slightly barking". And as if to prove your point, the story emerged about the dishwasher....
Now, I really have no inside track at all on the inner workings of the club, the Board or the mind of M Duchatelet himself. But let's look at a possible scenario for the selection of Bob Peeters as Head Coach. All of this is hypothesis and supposition, but it might have gone something like this:
1. Jose Riga was appointed on a short-term basis until the end of the season, with no commitments or expectations on either side that this would lead to a long-term appointment. It had been identified that we had an over-reliance on the long ball under Chris Powell, and it was felt that Riga would be able to improve the quality of play, enable to retain possession better and get the points needed to ensure survival, which was essential for the economic well-being of the club and the wider network. This he did, with the added benefit that his calm and measured style worked well with the players and also with the, initially, sceptical fans. He was also available at short notice, which was not the case with other potential candidates.
2. Jose Riga performed well, but in a relatively low pressure situation. He was a gamble. If CAFC went down, then it was Chris Powell's fault. If we stayed up, he was a hero. He was able to call the shots without fear. He did it very, very well, and exceeded expectations - but Riga does not have a track record of longevity in his roles. He chose to move on from Standard Liege fairly early in his tenure. What, on his cv, indicates that he was a coach who would sign up for "the whole journey:, a coach who would stick around if things got tough? Success in a short-term turnaround role does not necessarily indicate the skills and temperament needed to succeed in re-building a squad, a team, a club, in the longer term. The short-term task demands clear insight, good decision making, good team-building and motivational skills. The long-term role demands, additionally, strategic vision, resilience, ruthlessness and the ability to initiate, lead and manage change. There were question marks over Jose Riga's ability to excel in all of these competences.
3. Bob Peeters is a young, ambitious Head Coach who has impressed M Duchatelet and other observers in the Belgian game. He is regarded as talented and ambitious with the potential to go far in his career, and further than Jose Riga is seen as being capable of. He does have the full set of competencies that CAFC needs in the longer term role. Peeters has coached teams to superior performance and, whilst he has had his disappointments, these have largely been due to external factors such as key players being sold. He is bright and receptive and these setbacks will have been a valuable learning experience for him. There were other alternative candidates to Jose Riga, but Peeters was felt to have the best all-round skill set and the highest potential, to lead CAFC in this new era.
4. It is also true that Peeters understands the broader strategic vision of the network and, critically, is able to buy-into the vision of shared playing and non-playing resources adding value to all. This is critical for an effective working relationship with M Duchatelet. However, he is known not be anyone's pushover, will fight his corner and always have CAFCs best interests at the forefront of his thinking and his decisions. M Duchatelet has said that each of the clubs in the network is an autonomous entity and Peeters has made clear his intention to always pick the best available team to get results for for CAFC. After all, a successful CAFC will be of significant economic value to M Duchatelet and the network as a whole.
How much of this hypothetical scenario is true, who knows? But I suspect that some elements might be on or near the money. If it happens to be reasonably accurate, should we reasonably expect M Duchatelet or Katrien Meire to explain all this to us? No, of course not. Firstly, it could be quite damaging to Jose Riga and other coaches thought to be "in the frame". Would any of us want our perceived shortcomings to be communicated to several thousand people? Would that not leave CAFC open to potential legal action? Where I do agree with other posters, however, is that it WOULD have been appropriate for a positive communication to have been issued about Peeters' appointment outlining the reasons why he had been selected. The only half-valid reason I can see for this not being done is that it might have been used as a stick to beat them with sometime downstream. The real reason is probably more mundane, a combination of holidays, leadership vacuum and a weak communications team. Communication at the club is certainly better now than in the Jiminez/Slater era, but they still get it very wrong too often. This may be at least part of the reason for the appointment of the new communications supremo, at network level, and I hope he is watching closely and learning from the mistakes.
I don't think I've read or heard a better possible explanation of RD's thinking, @Davo55. Plenty to think about there. Top post.
I'll second that, you've certainly made me see things from a different perspective. However it doesn't address the issue of stability. This appointment brings nothing but instability to the playing staff and to the fan base. I cannot imagine any of the players returning for pre season training being optimistic or up beat about the coming season. One look around the training pitch absent of the likes of Hamer, Poyet, Dervite, Morrison, Dyer and Riga is likely to demoralise those left standing. I cannot see the presence of Peeters and more unknown players from the network being sufficient to compensate for what has been lost. Of course I hope I'm wrong, but in all walks of life people need stability and at Charlton we've had enough instability in recent times to last a lifetime, we needed more like we needed a hole in the head. The Chris Powell appointment was clever because it united the club in a way that we hadn't seen for years. This appointment has caused huge rifts in my opinion.
Reasonable point, @queensland_addick, and I would have thought stability would have been one of the factors taken into account. But, would the need for stability have over-ridden all the other factors? After all, we have had instability for a long time, well before Duchatelet's takeover, and Jose Riga had only been here a very short while.
To use an analogy, imagine you had been happily married to Christine but under the strain of financial worries the marriage had gone sour and ended in divorce. You meet Josephine, an older but very elegant woman who is good company and your kids, after a little while, really like her. You are together for less than 3 months but then you meet Roberta. She is young and vibrant and you feel she is a great long term match. Your kids aren't so sure, they loved Christine and had only just got used to Josephine. Do you stick with Josephine for the sake of the kids when you know in your heart of hearts it isn't going to work long term? Or do you think, the kids quickly got used to Josephine so they will quickly get used to Roberta too - a few great days at home, some successful trips away and they'll just love her too?
so why would Poyet--Morrison---anyone sign for a club where they cant speak to the manager untill sometime in the future and wont even know who the majority of their team mates might be ?
madness.
Exactly. Players will not know whether they like the new head coach, or want to play for him. It goes to my point about stability. Reappointing Riga made sense on so many levels. Players are now likely to return filled with trepidation rather than optimism.
@Mundell Fleming, @Davo55, have you read @KHA's post in the Dyer thread? Recommended. Combining the thoughts of the three of you, I think we are closing in on what has been happening, and why.
Now, I really have no inside track at all on the inner workings of the club, the Board or the mind of M Duchatelet himself. But let's look at a possible scenario for the selection of Bob Peeters as Head Coach. All of this is hypothesis and supposition, but it might have gone something like this:
1. Jose Riga was appointed on a short-term basis until the end of the season, with no commitments or expectations on either side that this would lead to a long-term appointment. It had been identified that we had an over-reliance on the long ball under Chris Powell, and it was felt that Riga would be able to improve the quality of play, enable to retain possession better and get the points needed to ensure survival, which was essential for the economic well-being of the club and the wider network. This he did, with the added benefit that his calm and measured style worked well with the players and also with the, initially, sceptical fans. He was also available at short notice, which was not the case with other potential candidates.
2. Jose Riga performed well, but in a relatively low pressure situation. He was a gamble. If CAFC went down, then it was Chris Powell's fault. If we stayed up, he was a hero. He was able to call the shots without fear. He did it very, very well, and exceeded expectations - but Riga does not have a track record of longevity in his roles. He chose to move on from Standard Liege fairly early in his tenure. What, on his cv, indicates that he was a coach who would sign up for "the whole journey:, a coach who would stick around if things got tough? Success in a short-term turnaround role does not necessarily indicate the skills and temperament needed to succeed in re-building a squad, a team, a club, in the longer term. The short-term task demands clear insight, good decision making, good team-building and motivational skills. The long-term role demands, additionally, strategic vision, resilience, ruthlessness and the ability to initiate, lead and manage change. There were question marks over Jose Riga's ability to excel in all of these competences.
3. Bob Peeters is a young, ambitious Head Coach who has impressed M Duchatelet and other observers in the Belgian game. He is regarded as talented and ambitious with the potential to go far in his career, and further than Jose Riga is seen as being capable of. He does have the full set of competencies that CAFC needs in the longer term role. Peeters has coached teams to superior performance and, whilst he has had his disappointments, these have largely been due to external factors such as key players being sold. He is bright and receptive and these setbacks will have been a valuable learning experience for him. There were other alternative candidates to Jose Riga, but Peeters was felt to have the best all-round skill set and the highest potential, to lead CAFC in this new era.
4. It is also true that Peeters understands the broader strategic vision of the network and, critically, is able to buy-into the vision of shared playing and non-playing resources adding value to all. This is critical for an effective working relationship with M Duchatelet. However, he is known not be anyone's pushover, will fight his corner and always have CAFCs best interests at the forefront of his thinking and his decisions. M Duchatelet has said that each of the clubs in the network is an autonomous entity and Peeters has made clear his intention to always pick the best available team to get results for for CAFC. After all, a successful CAFC will be of significant economic value to M Duchatelet and the network as a whole.
How much of this hypothetical scenario is true, who knows? But I suspect that some elements might be on or near the money. If it happens to be reasonably accurate, should we reasonably expect M Duchatelet or Katrien Meire to explain all this to us? No, of course not. Firstly, it could be quite damaging to Jose Riga and other coaches thought to be "in the frame". Would any of us want our perceived shortcomings to be communicated to several thousand people? Would that not leave CAFC open to potential legal action? Where I do agree with other posters, however, is that it WOULD have been appropriate for a positive communication to have been issued about Peeters' appointment outlining the reasons why he had been selected. The only half-valid reason I can see for this not being done is that it might have been used as a stick to beat them with sometime downstream. The real reason is probably more mundane, a combination of holidays, leadership vacuum and a weak communications team. Communication at the club is certainly better now than in the Jiminez/Slater era, but they still get it very wrong too often. This may be at least part of the reason for the appointment of the new communications supremo, at network level, and I hope he is watching closely and learning from the mistakes.
I don't think I've read or heard a better possible explanation of RD's thinking, @Davo55. Plenty to think about there. Top post.
I'll second that, you've certainly made me see things from a different perspective. However it doesn't address the issue of stability. This appointment brings nothing but instability to the playing staff and to the fan base. I cannot imagine any of the players returning for pre season training being optimistic or up beat about the coming season. One look around the training pitch absent of the likes of Hamer, Poyet, Dervite, Morrison, Dyer and Riga is likely to demoralise those left standing. I cannot see the presence of Peeters and more unknown players from the network being sufficient to compensate for what has been lost. Of course I hope I'm wrong, but in all walks of life people need stability and at Charlton we've had enough instability in recent times to last a lifetime, we needed more like we needed a hole in the head. The Chris Powell appointment was clever because it united the club in a way that we hadn't seen for years. This appointment has caused huge rifts in my opinion.
Reasonable point, @queensland_addick, and I would have thought stability would have been one of the factors taken into account. But, would the need for stability have over-ridden all the other factors? After all, we have had instability for a long time, well before Duchatelet's takeover, and Jose Riga had only been here a very short while.
To use an analogy, imagine you had been happily married to Christine but under the strain of financial worries the marriage had gone sour and ended in divorce. You meet Josephine, an older but very elegant woman who is good company and your kids, after a little while, really like her. You are together for less than 3 months but then you meet Roberta. She is young and vibrant and you feel she is a great long term match. Your kids aren't so sure, they loved Christine and had only just got used to Josephine. Do you stick with Josephine for the sake of the kids when you know in your heart of hearts it isn't going to work long term? Or do you think, the kids quickly got used to Josephine so they will quickly get used to Roberta too - a few great days at home, some successful trips away and they'll just love her too?
Nice analogy Davo and I think you're correct, they are treating us like kids!
@Mundell Fleming, @Davo55, have you read @KHA's post in the Dyer thread? Recommended. Combining the thoughts of the three of you, I think we are closing in on what has been happening, and why.
Yes, just read it, thanks Prague. A plausible scenario.
@Mundell Fleming, @Davo55, have you read @KHA's post in the Dyer thread? Recommended. Combining the thoughts of the three of you, I think we are closing in on what has been happening, and why.
Sorry and I'm not picking a fight here but we are not "closing in on what has been happening" at all.
As Davo55 says the three similar but different scenarios are plausible.
But they are still speculation and there are a number of other possible scenarios, both more positive and more negative, that fit the limited evidence we have. Some have been aired on this board.
There is a danger that we convince ourselves that we've worked out the puzzle when we've only seen a fraction of the jigsaw pieces and even then only through a glass darkly. Especially when the speculation is well written but that doesn't make it anymore true.
It is natural to seek order and reason from seeming confusion but the best way to get that is by direct communication from the person whose vision/plan this is meant to be.
Unfortunately H.I. in this case the visionary is pretty infamously reticent about exactly what the plan is... and has been since long before Charlton joined the project.
@Mundell Fleming, @Davo55, have you read @KHA's post in the Dyer thread? Recommended. Combining the thoughts of the three of you, I think we are closing in on what has been happening, and why.
Thanks Prague. Just read the post. Don't know whether we've solved a puzzle, but KHA's explanation is certainly very plausible.
Unfortunately H.I. in this case the visionary is pretty infamously reticent about exactly what the plan is... and has been since long before Charlton joined the project.
We could spend years hypothesising about the intentions or aims of RD and still be way off target. Just because the guy is worth half a billion doesn't mean he is a genius who always gets it right. Sure he has obviously made some very good business decisions in the past, but that likely involved a good deal of luck and timing. We have a multi billionaire here in Australia who is playing havoc in the political sphere atm by the name of Clive Palmer and the guy is a complete bozo in my opinion. Totally inconsistent, unpredictable and dishonest, but certainly knows how to cut a business deal and what buttons to push in order to get what he wants. Burlessconi is another that springs to mind. Sometimes it is just impossible to work such people out.
Unfortunately H.I. in this case the visionary is pretty infamously reticent about exactly what the plan is... and has been since long before Charlton joined the project.
Just a reminder - when Les Reed was appointed first team coach in 1995 the FA forced him to serve out his notice period with them. In practice Les was at Charlton all the time out of work hours until he officially started. The geography is different with Peeters but so is the communications technology. If he doesn't appear in the meantime I don't think we can entirely discount the possibility that RD is choosing not to employ him until the beginning of July, although I accept the situation with his former club is a more likely explanation.
Just a reminder - when Les Reed was appointed first team coach in 1995 the FA forced him to serve out his notice period with them. In practice Les was at Charlton all the time out of work hours until he officially started. The geography is different with Peeters but so is the communications technology. If he doesn't appear in the meantime I don't think we can entirely discount the possibility that RD is choosing not to employ him until the beginning of July, although I accept the situation with his former club is a more likely explanation.
Noted. I would just comment that especially then the FA were run by a bunch of bureaucrats with zero business background. No idea who owns Beveren, but most businesses don't want dead wood around the place, and that is what Peeters is now to them.
Just a reminder - when Les Reed was appointed first team coach in 1995 the FA forced him to serve out his notice period with them. In practice Les was at Charlton all the time out of work hours until he officially started. The geography is different with Peeters but so is the communications technology. If he doesn't appear in the meantime I don't think we can entirely discount the possibility that RD is choosing not to employ him until the beginning of July, although I accept the situation with his former club is a more likely explanation.
Noted. I would just comment that especially then the FA were run by a bunch of bureaucrats with zero business background. No idea who owns Beveren, but most businesses don't want dead wood around the place, and that is what Peeters is now to them.
Perhaps they want him out of radio contact for a month or so - perhaps he would drag a player or 2 with him - perhaps it's all a wind up and he doesn't actually exist - perhaps nobody knows
@Mundell Fleming, @Davo55, have you read @KHA's post in the Dyer thread? Recommended. Combining the thoughts of the three of you, I think we are closing in on what has been happening, and why.
Sorry and I'm not picking a fight here but we are not "closing in on what has been happening" at all.
As Davo55 says the three similar but different scenarios are plausible.
But they are still speculation and there are a number of other possible scenarios, both more positive and more negative, that fit the limited evidence we have. Some have been aired on this board.
There is a danger that we convince ourselves that we've worked out the puzzle when we've only seen a fraction of the jigsaw pieces and even then only through a glass darkly. Especially when the speculation is well written but that doesn't make it anymore true.
It is natural to seek order and reason from seeming confusion but the best way to get that is by direct communication from the person whose vision/plan this is meant to be.
Comments
"Gardening leave" is a concept widely misunderstood (not least by some Czech employers, I might add). Modern employment law protects the right of the employee to ply his trade without unreasonable restriction (Bosman built on that). Employers however worry that a key employee can go to a direct competitor tomorrow and inflict enormous business damage as a result. So a contract may include an agreement that if the employee wishes to leave for a direct competitor (and 'direct' would have to be specified), he cannot do so for a period (usually a year max), during which time his current employer pays his full salary.
I have never heard of a football manager being put on gardening leave. It strikes me that the short term nature of employment means none would sign such a contract. They would fear being out of the game for a year. And its expensive for the employer, who would effectively pay two salaries, as someone else would need to come in.
There is the separate issue of fixed term contracts and the circumstances in which an employee can break them. This is the likely issue here. Sounds like, as Grapevine says, there was a three month notice period. Now here is my point : Faced with such a clause, RD could choose to offer Beveren money to release him from it. That would be sensible, for both clubs. What the hell use is Peeters now to Beveren in their own close season?
I would worry that if this story is true - and that's a big if - RD chose to save a few bob because he didn't fully understand the dynamics of the football close season/transfer window. But let us hope it is not true.
As Prague mentioned a new employer could technically buy out the notice period. I doubt though football contracts have these clauses in them
Jonnie Jackson will get the troops together like he did after CP. Players are used to changes and will only be really interested in finding out if the new managers prefered style of play compliments theirs. If it does and the players coming in are quality they will be happy.
So will we.
New pitch, new training ground, new manager, new players. Exciting stuff!
also to be fair to Roly, every time he's spoken he's said the right things so there can't be much of an argument there either.
where i'm coming from is....I judge not on what people say but what people do. at the moment a lot of the decisions made have looked questionable. that's not to say that they won't be right or that there's not a hell of a lot of time to fix what i would call the 'issues.' I just call it as i see it and at the moment the cons are outweighing the pros for me and for that reason I can't be blindly optimistic. This obviously can change very quickly and I really hope it does!
I can certainly see Waasland Beveren making a point by insisting he serve at least part of his notice and take compensation for the remainder of the notice period. It is win-win for them on both levels. It secures financial reward AND establishes a point of principle.
I suggest it may also account for the lack of any interview or any related press conference at this time. He effectively though appointed as our future Head Coach is still an employee of Waasland Beveren.
madness.
Not ideal that he comes in in late June, if that is the case (and I would never doubt Sue Parkes), but it is what it is and we'll have to muddle through. (c) The Charlton Way ;-)
To use an analogy, imagine you had been happily married to Christine but under the strain of financial worries the marriage had gone sour and ended in divorce. You meet Josephine, an older but very elegant woman who is good company and your kids, after a little while, really like her. You are together for less than 3 months but then you meet Roberta. She is young and vibrant and you feel she is a great long term match. Your kids aren't so sure, they loved Christine and had only just got used to Josephine. Do you stick with Josephine for the sake of the kids when you know in your heart of hearts it isn't going to work long term? Or do you think, the kids quickly got used to Josephine so they will quickly get used to Roberta too - a few great days at home, some successful trips away and they'll just love her too?
As Davo55 says the three similar but different scenarios are plausible.
But they are still speculation and there are a number of other possible scenarios, both more positive and more negative, that fit the limited evidence we have. Some have been aired on this board.
There is a danger that we convince ourselves that we've worked out the puzzle when we've only seen a fraction of the jigsaw pieces and even then only through a glass darkly. Especially when the speculation is well written but that doesn't make it anymore true.
It is natural to seek order and reason from seeming confusion but the best way to get that is by direct communication from the person whose vision/plan this is meant to be.