Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
JOHNNIE JACKSON - managed AFC Wimbledon to 2025 League 2 Play-off Final victory(p46)
Comments
-
I can think of about 20.The Red Robin said:
Tell me how Sandgaard is any different to Roland.thickandthin63 said:
It was Washington,he was told by MS about a possible change of manager,Washington told Jacko ,who confronted TS who told him that it was nonsence,we all know what happened next.MS also insisted that Burstow appeared for a certain amount of times in a certain amount of games due to transfer conditions,that is why our own players where on the bench .Jacko was furious ,especially as it was he who got the stick.This is totally reliable information,and confirms a lot of speculation about the involvement of MS,I repeat this will end in tears.Covered End said:
Conor Washington or his agent leaked the news I think.ValleyGary said:Sorry, what player was it that leaked the news to JJ?
Can't you think of any?
I'll give you a start -
Roland didn't care about the club.
Roland disliked the fans.
Roland said he didn't care if Charlton won or not.
Roland attended about 1 game in 5 years.
Now you have a go.23 -
This sounds odd. Why would Chelsea pay us more- what’s in it for them when I think VOTV has previously told us that it was TS insistence to have the loan back?cafc999 said:
All I got told is that we got money if he played a certain amount of minutes.Callumcafc said:Wait a minute. I thought Chelsea didn't want us to have Burstow? But we were also being paid 50k to play him? Is that per appearance?Also weren’t we told we refuse to pay loan fees and fall in line with the way transfers are structured?Also why again do managers refuse to go public on this stuff if true and they know they are out?
I can however imagine TS may have queried JJ on his choices but that’s not automatically the same as forcing his hand.Maybe a case of adding 2 and 2 going on.2 -
Cannot believe how pathetic some fully grown adults are being on here. It's actually laughable
10 -
How do you know it was a pre-planned trip? You can book flights and hotels the day before you travel nowadays.sammy391 said:
Absolutely, he can.CharltontillidieCOYR said:
So now a manager and family isnt allowed to get along with players or make any relationships or friendships in the football world they are humans swear our fans love to judge every little thing this club or people connected get uptosammy391 said:That to me suggests he was too close to the players - too pally pally
but
how does that look to the other players, should he have stayed?
this was a pre planned trip, so presumably him and his mate George have had this going for a while…
as others have said, there was signs he was to much of a friend to the players/didn’t have that authority, which presumably showed in the performances!
1 -
I can only imagine what the reaction might’ve been if it wasn’t player of the year George Dobson… the place might’ve exploded with conspiracy theories if it was Gilbey.
1 -
It’s conjecture, feeling, emotion, rumour (confirmed or otherwise),sourced info (reliable or otherwise) and opinion. In other words exactly what the forum is for. Not sure whatever it is you don’t agree with qualifies as pathetic or the need to post the generic put down. Maybe simply raise the point(s) you don’t agree with and politely deliver an opposing or contrary feeling, emotion, rumour, sourced info or opinion? Just a thought.Croydon said:Cannot believe how pathetic some fully grown adults are being on here. It's actually laughable1 -
Well we can rule out MacGillivray he'd refuse to come out the doorway of his roomShootersHillGuru said:The big question I have is exactly who took that photograph ? If it was Jason then he should be summarily dismissed for fraternising with the players instead of treating them like the scum they are. It’s also a really poorly composed picture. What chance of getting tactics on a football pitch right when you can’t compose a piccy better than that.7 -
Chelsea may not have paid us more but it may have been part of the original deal. I did find it strange when Burstow started and our own fit player didn't though.valleynick66 said:
This sounds odd. Why would Chelsea pay us more- what’s in it for them when I think VOTV has previously told us that it was TS insistence to have the loan back?cafc999 said:
All I got told is that we got money if he played a certain amount of minutes.Callumcafc said:Wait a minute. I thought Chelsea didn't want us to have Burstow? But we were also being paid 50k to play him? Is that per appearance?Also weren’t we told we refuse to pay loan fees and fall in line with the way transfers are structured?Also why again do managers refuse to go public on this stuff if true and they know they are out?
I can however imagine TS may have queried JJ on his choices but that’s not automatically the same as forcing his hand.Maybe a case of adding 2 and 2 going on.
I have had two separate unconnected people tell me this btw.
Not saying its true or not - just passing on what I got told.
The club contacting at least two other managers prior to JJ getting pumped has come from a cast iron source though, which ties in with the leak to JJ and Washington not being offered a deal1 -
Still seems odd. Why pay us more only if he plays when risk of injury is all theirs? Not questioning your info it just sounds unusual.cafc999 said:
Chelsea may not have paid us more but it may have been part of the original deal. I did find it strange when Burstow started and our own fit player didn't though.valleynick66 said:
This sounds odd. Why would Chelsea pay us more- what’s in it for them when I think VOTV has previously told us that it was TS insistence to have the loan back?cafc999 said:
All I got told is that we got money if he played a certain amount of minutes.Callumcafc said:Wait a minute. I thought Chelsea didn't want us to have Burstow? But we were also being paid 50k to play him? Is that per appearance?Also weren’t we told we refuse to pay loan fees and fall in line with the way transfers are structured?Also why again do managers refuse to go public on this stuff if true and they know they are out?
I can however imagine TS may have queried JJ on his choices but that’s not automatically the same as forcing his hand.Maybe a case of adding 2 and 2 going on.
I have had two separate unconnected people tell me this btw.
Not saying its true or not - just passing on what I got told.
The club contacting at least two other managers prior to JJ getting pumped has come from a cast iron source though, which ties in with the leak to JJ and Washington not being offered a deal
Contacting other managers I can however well believe. I imagine that happens all over the game. I don’t think it was that long ago we didn’t know if JJ could have been assumed to be in situ next season.If true that would suggest the new incumbent will be announced sooner rather than later.0 -
Who gives a f*** who he’s on holiday with and trying to make a bloody soap opera out of it is just pathetic.
Leave the Jackson’s and Dobson’s alone I say.14 - Sponsored links:
-
Not odd at all. Deals like this have happened in the past.valleynick66 said:
Still seems odd. Why pay us more only if he plays when risk of injury is all theirs? Not questioning your info it just sounds unusual.cafc999 said:
Chelsea may not have paid us more but it may have been part of the original deal. I did find it strange when Burstow started and our own fit player didn't though.valleynick66 said:
This sounds odd. Why would Chelsea pay us more- what’s in it for them when I think VOTV has previously told us that it was TS insistence to have the loan back?cafc999 said:
All I got told is that we got money if he played a certain amount of minutes.Callumcafc said:Wait a minute. I thought Chelsea didn't want us to have Burstow? But we were also being paid 50k to play him? Is that per appearance?Also weren’t we told we refuse to pay loan fees and fall in line with the way transfers are structured?Also why again do managers refuse to go public on this stuff if true and they know they are out?
I can however imagine TS may have queried JJ on his choices but that’s not automatically the same as forcing his hand.Maybe a case of adding 2 and 2 going on.
I have had two separate unconnected people tell me this btw.
Not saying its true or not - just passing on what I got told.
The club contacting at least two other managers prior to JJ getting pumped has come from a cast iron source though, which ties in with the leak to JJ and Washington not being offered a deal
Contacting other managers I can however well believe. I imagine that happens all over the game. I don’t think it was that long ago we didn’t know if JJ could have been assumed to be in situ next season.If true that would suggest the new incumbent will be announced sooner rather than later.0 -
TS is a world apart from Roland,in as much as I do think he wants the club to succeed and will put his money in.I think he has made a monumental error in getting his son involved,when he has little in experience to offer.what does he know about players contracts etc,this sort of negotiation should be in the hands of professionals.The Red Robin said:
Tell me how Sandgaard is any different to Roland.thickandthin63 said:
It was Washington,he was told by MS about a possible change of manager,Washington told Jacko ,who confronted TS who told him that it was nonsence,we all know what happened next.MS also insisted that Burstow appeared for a certain amount of times in a certain amount of games due to transfer conditions,that is why our own players where on the bench .Jacko was furious ,especially as it was he who got the stick.This is totally reliable information,and confirms a lot of speculation about the involvement of MS,I repeat this will end in tears.Covered End said:
Conor Washington or his agent leaked the news I think.ValleyGary said:Sorry, what player was it that leaked the news to JJ?0 -
Really? Must have missed that. Any examples you can think of?cafc999 said:
Not odd at all. Deals like this have happened in the past.valleynick66 said:
Still seems odd. Why pay us more only if he plays when risk of injury is all theirs? Not questioning your info it just sounds unusual.cafc999 said:
Chelsea may not have paid us more but it may have been part of the original deal. I did find it strange when Burstow started and our own fit player didn't though.valleynick66 said:
This sounds odd. Why would Chelsea pay us more- what’s in it for them when I think VOTV has previously told us that it was TS insistence to have the loan back?cafc999 said:
All I got told is that we got money if he played a certain amount of minutes.Callumcafc said:Wait a minute. I thought Chelsea didn't want us to have Burstow? But we were also being paid 50k to play him? Is that per appearance?Also weren’t we told we refuse to pay loan fees and fall in line with the way transfers are structured?Also why again do managers refuse to go public on this stuff if true and they know they are out?
I can however imagine TS may have queried JJ on his choices but that’s not automatically the same as forcing his hand.Maybe a case of adding 2 and 2 going on.
I have had two separate unconnected people tell me this btw.
Not saying its true or not - just passing on what I got told.
The club contacting at least two other managers prior to JJ getting pumped has come from a cast iron source though, which ties in with the leak to JJ and Washington not being offered a deal
Contacting other managers I can however well believe. I imagine that happens all over the game. I don’t think it was that long ago we didn’t know if JJ could have been assumed to be in situ next season.If true that would suggest the new incumbent will be announced sooner rather than later.0 -
TBF that does look like "I invited my boss to my birthday dinner...and he turned up."Chunes said:
Some people wondered if Jacko was too much like a mate to the players.SELR_addicks said:0 -
Having a say and having the final say isn’t the same thing.Callumcafc said:Given what has been said about MS influence over transfer policy, I also don't follow the logic of the supposed conversation between Martin Sandgaard and Conor Washington.
Washington isn't being offered another contract because the new manager might not want him. But also, the new manager isn't going to get a say in squad building. They cannot both be true, can they?0 -
I don’t think that invalidates the point that these two rumours are mutually exclusive.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Having a say and having the final say isn’t the same thing.Callumcafc said:Given what has been said about MS influence over transfer policy, I also don't follow the logic of the supposed conversation between Martin Sandgaard and Conor Washington.
Washington isn't being offered another contract because the new manager might not want him. But also, the new manager isn't going to get a say in squad building. They cannot both be true, can they?If the manager isn’t getting the final say, who is? And why can’t they make a decision on Washington now? If a new manager can come in and say they don’t want Washington, surely the same logic would apply to any potential new signings?2 -
I think they could be mutually exclusive, if both taken at their extreme.
Its also possible that new signings will be lined up, prepared, but not finalised with any incoming manager given the opportunity to have his day, whilst not getting an absolute veto.As for who does get the final say, I have no idea, which is a problem imo, the system should be transparent. If you believe in it, own it.6 -
Obviously like others I have no insight into the workings of the female mind.
I am also a bit of a dinosaur when it comes to social media, but could the lovely Lucy just be saying, 'OK Mr Sandgaard you may have shafted my husband, but your best player is in his top pocket'.
This view is based entirely on my observance of other high profile wags.
I am willing to accept that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar ... but sometimes it ain't.
1 -
But you dont know the situation its one pic for his mrs birthday they could have been in the same place or close and decided to meet upaddick1956 said:
Not that close...I never knew anyone go on holiday with their boss. Odd.CharltontillidieCOYR said:
So now a manager and family isnt allowed to get along with players or make any relationships or friendships in the football world they are humans swear our fans love to judge every little thing this club or people connected get uptosammy391 said:That to me suggests he was too close to the players - too pally pally
Just dont get the over analysing every little thing nowdays2 - Sponsored links:
-
Martin Sandgaard is leading the analytics (not saying I agree with that), negotiating contracts has remained Gallen’s responsibility.thickandthin63 said:
TS is a world apart from Roland,in as much as I do think he wants the club to succeed and will put his money in.I think he has made a monumental error in getting his son involved,when he has little in experience to offer.what does he know about players contracts etc,this sort of negotiation should be in the hands of professionals.The Red Robin said:
Tell me how Sandgaard is any different to Roland.thickandthin63 said:
It was Washington,he was told by MS about a possible change of manager,Washington told Jacko ,who confronted TS who told him that it was nonsence,we all know what happened next.MS also insisted that Burstow appeared for a certain amount of times in a certain amount of games due to transfer conditions,that is why our own players where on the bench .Jacko was furious ,especially as it was he who got the stick.This is totally reliable information,and confirms a lot of speculation about the involvement of MS,I repeat this will end in tears.Covered End said:
Conor Washington or his agent leaked the news I think.ValleyGary said:Sorry, what player was it that leaked the news to JJ?2 -
If only I had a pound for every time someone on here ‘had it on good authority’. Beginning to get as bad as the other place.2
-
The house of lords?ValleyGary said:If only I had a pound for every time someone on here ‘had it on good authority’. Beginning to get as bad as the other place.
3 -
Why are you assuming they are on holiday together?addick1956 said:
Not that close...I never knew anyone go on holiday with their boss. Odd.CharltontillidieCOYR said:
So now a manager and family isnt allowed to get along with players or make any relationships or friendships in the football world they are humans swear our fans love to judge every little thing this club or people connected get uptosammy391 said:That to me suggests he was too close to the players - too pally pally
Likely on separate holidays in the same same location and have met up for a birthday meal.
Again more likely that the wives/partners get on and are friends.
I get that people want to dissect and analyse what has happened over players being picked and mangers being contacted before sacking the manager etc but player and former manager with their respective partners meeting up for a birthday meal.
7 -
I'm glad TS spoke to some other managers before sacking JJ, I think it would have been strange and naive if he had not done so. A fair few on here were presuming someone else was lined up for the job. He really does get a lot of stick whatever his words and actions.8
-
Are we sure that Sandgaard spoke to other managers in the recent past before sacking Jacko?
I remain pretty convinced that on a human level for Sandgaard it was the Ipswich experience that was the tipping point.1 -
It's Jacko's missus' birthday. Not Dobson's.Wheresmeticket? said:
TBF that does look like "I invited my boss to my birthday dinner...and he turned up."Chunes said:
Some people wondered if Jacko was too much like a mate to the players.SELR_addicks said:
HOWEVER he's no longer our manager and Dobson has probably learned a great deal from Jackson this past year. I have no issues with them socialising outside of the season now.0 -
Eton, Monty.Wheresmeticket? said:
The house of lords?ValleyGary said:If only I had a pound for every time someone on here ‘had it on good authority’. Beginning to get as bad as the other place.1 -
My favourite is when someone then quotes said post and says something along the lines of ‘I also heard this but was keeping it very close to my chest’ValleyGary said:If only I had a pound for every time someone on here ‘had it on good authority’. Beginning to get as bad as the other place.
always nice to then see a cheeky ‘wow, no smoke without fire’ after that sequence. Groundhog Day this forum at times2 -
It was widely reported that Atkins had to be persuaded on Dobson.Callumcafc said:
I don’t think that invalidates the point that these two rumours are mutually exclusive.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Having a say and having the final say isn’t the same thing.Callumcafc said:Given what has been said about MS influence over transfer policy, I also don't follow the logic of the supposed conversation between Martin Sandgaard and Conor Washington.
Washington isn't being offered another contract because the new manager might not want him. But also, the new manager isn't going to get a say in squad building. They cannot both be true, can they?If the manager isn’t getting the final say, who is? And why can’t they make a decision on Washington now? If a new manager can come in and say they don’t want Washington, surely the same logic would apply to any potential new signings?
0
