If the folk at Swindon are holding out for more dosh they must have extremely short memories.
On the 11th March 2000 we were 12 points ahead in the division, Swindon were 6 points adrift at the bottom. Dean Kiely presented them with an own goal - and three points at the Valley. Not only that but we gave Willie Carson a cheque for 2 grand on the pitch at half time cos they were so hard up.
I mean, talk about ungrateful, tight sods they should gift us their management team.
I really don’t see what the problem is with the club statement? They’ve been forced into responding because of all the wild speculation that’s going around and not put out by the club, which seems perfectly understandable to me.
Yes, we all wish a new manager, coaching staff and players were all in place but the reason they ain’t is presumably stuff going on behind the scenes that very few if any, know about.
I imagine Sandgaard and all would’ve liked the same but it is what it is and why add to the furore by creating and kicking up such a fuss over things unknown?
Wild speculation? There is a stand-off between media and Charlton because reporters at both ends of the transaction do not believe the club and won't accept its version based on their own sources. In the end there are at least three parties with first-hand information and only one of them is responsible for the club's statement.
Do the club not have a right to handle their affairs as they see fit, even if the majority of us don't like that stance?
Indeed, but if they deliberately mislead fans in the process then they should expect damage to the credibility of those responsible.
The media also have a right to report on the club's affairs as they see fit within the law regardless of what the current owner thinks about that.
Let's see how it plays out, shall we? The media view is that Garner has the job - I doubt if a qualification over job title, contract length, etc, would seem to most people a proportionate reason to rubbish the stories that are out there.
If the media have it substantively wrong then they will get the reputational hit. That's the nature of the business.
Are the club deliberately misleading or simply not wanting information out there that's either false or misleading?
If Ben Garner isn’t JJ’s successor that would be fair. But the club hasn’t denied that. It’s just blowing smoke.
Don't forget that Swindon club and fans are in the same concern as us. Until we announce their manager is ours, they cannot bring in a new manager officially. I can imagine Swindon fans calling TS as many bad names as our fans
I really don’t see what the problem is with the club statement? They’ve been forced into responding because of all the wild speculation that’s going around and not put out by the club, which seems perfectly understandable to me.
Yes, we all wish a new manager, coaching staff and players were all in place but the reason they ain’t is presumably stuff going on behind the scenes that very few if any, know about.
I imagine Sandgaard and all would’ve liked the same but it is what it is and why add to the furore by creating and kicking up such a fuss over things unknown?
Wild speculation? There is a stand-off between media and Charlton because reporters at both ends of the transaction do not believe the club and won't accept its version based on their own sources. In the end there are at least three parties with first-hand information and only one of them is responsible for the club's statement.
Do the club not have a right to handle their affairs as they see fit, even if the majority of us don't like that stance?
Indeed, but if they deliberately mislead fans in the process then they should expect damage to the credibility of those responsible.
The media also have a right to report on the club's affairs as they see fit within the law regardless of what the current owner thinks about that.
Let's see how it plays out, shall we? The media view is that Garner has the job - I doubt if a qualification over job title, contract length, etc, would seem to most people a proportionate reason to rubbish the stories that are out there.
If the media have it substantively wrong then they will get the reputational hit. That's the nature of the business.
The media frequently "get it wrong", that's one of the reasons why news paper circulation is dropping. Remember the saying. "Don't believe all you read newspapers". Garner may well have been offered the job but until its signed, settled, sealed and announced on the clubs site, he's not manager of Charlton Athletic, whatever Crawley or any other Journo's speculate.
I really don’t see what the problem is with the club statement? They’ve been forced into responding because of all the wild speculation that’s going around and not put out by the club, which seems perfectly understandable to me.
Yes, we all wish a new manager, coaching staff and players were all in place but the reason they ain’t is presumably stuff going on behind the scenes that very few if any, know about.
I imagine Sandgaard and all would’ve liked the same but it is what it is and why add to the furore by creating and kicking up such a fuss over things unknown?
Wild speculation? There is a stand-off between media and Charlton because reporters at both ends of the transaction do not believe the club and won't accept its version based on their own sources. In the end there are at least three parties with first-hand information and only one of them is responsible for the club's statement.
Do the club not have a right to handle their affairs as they see fit, even if the majority of us don't like that stance?
Indeed, but if they deliberately mislead fans in the process then they should expect damage to the credibility of those responsible.
The media also have a right to report on the club's affairs as they see fit within the law regardless of what the current owner thinks about that.
Let's see how it plays out, shall we? The media view is that Garner has the job - I doubt if a qualification over job title, contract length, etc, would seem to most people a proportionate reason to rubbish the stories that are out there.
If the media have it substantively wrong then they will get the reputational hit. That's the nature of the business.
The media frequently "get it wrong", that's one of the reasons why news paper circulation is dropping. Remember the saying. "Don't believe all you read newspapers". Garner may well have been offered the job but until its signed, settled, sealed and announced on the clubs site, he's not manager of Charlton Athletic, whatever Crawley or any other Journo's speculate.
1) It’s really not. There are all sorts of reasons print sales are falling but a decline in the quality of (football) reporting isn’t one of them.
2) What if he’s actually signed a contract and been at the training ground for talks with staff?
I really don’t see what the problem is with the club statement? They’ve been forced into responding because of all the wild speculation that’s going around and not put out by the club, which seems perfectly understandable to me.
Yes, we all wish a new manager, coaching staff and players were all in place but the reason they ain’t is presumably stuff going on behind the scenes that very few if any, know about.
I imagine Sandgaard and all would’ve liked the same but it is what it is and why add to the furore by creating and kicking up such a fuss over things unknown?
Wild speculation? There is a stand-off between media and Charlton because reporters at both ends of the transaction do not believe the club and won't accept its version based on their own sources. In the end there are at least three parties with first-hand information and only one of them is responsible for the club's statement.
Do the club not have a right to handle their affairs as they see fit, even if the majority of us don't like that stance?
Indeed, but if they deliberately mislead fans in the process then they should expect damage to the credibility of those responsible.
The media also have a right to report on the club's affairs as they see fit within the law regardless of what the current owner thinks about that.
Let's see how it plays out, shall we? The media view is that Garner has the job - I doubt if a qualification over job title, contract length, etc, would seem to most people a proportionate reason to rubbish the stories that are out there.
If the media have it substantively wrong then they will get the reputational hit. That's the nature of the business.
The media frequently "get it wrong", that's one of the reasons why news paper circulation is dropping. Remember the saying. "Don't believe all you read newspapers". Garner may well have been offered the job but until its signed, settled, sealed and announced on the clubs site, he's not manager of Charlton Athletic, whatever Crawley or any other Journo's speculate.
1) It’s really not. There are all sorts of reasons print sales are falling but a decline in the quality of (football) reporting isn’t one of them.
2) What if he’s actually signed a contract and been at the training ground for talks with staff?
Iirc it was Nixon who originally broke the story two weeks ago. Cawley only repeated it, but because Rich has credibility and Nixon doesn't it only gained currency when Cawley tweeted it.
I just hope of it is Garner then it happens this week.
I reckon announcements by the end of the week - just a guess, but would imagine he wants it all sorted just as much as we do. Didn’t TS arrive or due to arrive today/tomorrow? Wouldn’t surprise me at all if he wants to announce new head coach and his team, together with a couple of signings in one or two hits. We all want this to happen yesterday of course, but the fact is that when Adkins was sacked he said a decision would be made by Christmas and then when JJ went he said a decision by pre-season. So he’s given timescales and we therefore shouldn’t be surprised appointments haven’t already happened.
Iirc it was Nixon who originally broke the story two weeks ago. Cawley only repeated it, but because Rich has credibility and Nixon doesn't it only gained currency when Cawley tweeted it.
I just hope of it is Garner then it happens this week.
Nixon didn’t have it first, but him putting it out triggered the story appearing elsewhere.
I really don’t see what the problem is with the club statement? They’ve been forced into responding because of all the wild speculation that’s going around and not put out by the club, which seems perfectly understandable to me.
Yes, we all wish a new manager, coaching staff and players were all in place but the reason they ain’t is presumably stuff going on behind the scenes that very few if any, know about.
I imagine Sandgaard and all would’ve liked the same but it is what it is and why add to the furore by creating and kicking up such a fuss over things unknown?
Wild speculation? There is a stand-off between media and Charlton because reporters at both ends of the transaction do not believe the club and won't accept its version based on their own sources. In the end there are at least three parties with first-hand information and only one of them is responsible for the club's statement.
Do the club not have a right to handle their affairs as they see fit, even if the majority of us don't like that stance?
Indeed, but if they deliberately mislead fans in the process then they should expect damage to the credibility of those responsible.
The media also have a right to report on the club's affairs as they see fit within the law regardless of what the current owner thinks about that.
Let's see how it plays out, shall we? The media view is that Garner has the job - I doubt if a qualification over job title, contract length, etc, would seem to most people a proportionate reason to rubbish the stories that are out there.
If the media have it substantively wrong then they will get the reputational hit. That's the nature of the business.
The media frequently "get it wrong", that's one of the reasons why news paper circulation is dropping. Remember the saying. "Don't believe all you read newspapers". Garner may well have been offered the job but until its signed, settled, sealed and announced on the clubs site, he's not manager of Charlton Athletic, whatever Crawley or any other Journo's speculate.
1) It’s really not. There are all sorts of reasons print sales are falling but a decline in the quality of (football) reporting isn’t one of them.
2) What if he’s actually signed a contract and been at the training ground for talks with staff?
Are you saying 2 has happened?
and even if 2 had happened, is it not beyond the realms of possibility that the outcome of those chats has lead to complications along the lines of i can't work with him, we don't see eye to eye, he believes in doing this, i'll need to bring x, y and z in etc etc ?
Totally unimpressed - a fourth tier, unproven coach who has won nothing. Is this REALLY the best we can do?
Our club is going backwards and I am disgusted we could not appoint a proven winner at this level
Hard to tell if you are being sarcastic as I haven't seen your posts before but Nigel Adkins was a two time Winner from League 1. For any manager to be successful they need the owner, manager, coaches, players and ideally the fans to be together and pushing in the same direction. That will be so difficult to achieve at Cafc in 2022 with the myriad of opinions.
I am a long standing Addick - 40 years+
I get the Nigel Adkins comment , but I do worry about TS’s lack of experience and his approach.
I am not here all the time, but have commented on this because this decision will have a massive impact on where we are in the next few years.
TS is still in the positive for me, he has made mistakes and enjoys the limelight but he stopped the parasites sucking us dry. Hopefully he learns from his mistakes
Either Cawley can copy really fast or the story broke to both him and Nixon from the Swindon end at the same time.
I don’t believe that Cawley uses Alan Nixon’s patreon subscription as a source.
Or Cawley had it first but only put it out when he saw Nixon had. As I recall Nixon had been teasing it for a while. People need to get over the idea that a Charlton local reporter would 1) be fed a story by Swindon and 2) just take it at face value and put it straight out - it doesn’t work like that.
I really don’t see what the problem is with the club statement? They’ve been forced into responding because of all the wild speculation that’s going around and not put out by the club, which seems perfectly understandable to me.
Yes, we all wish a new manager, coaching staff and players were all in place but the reason they ain’t is presumably stuff going on behind the scenes that very few if any, know about.
I imagine Sandgaard and all would’ve liked the same but it is what it is and why add to the furore by creating and kicking up such a fuss over things unknown?
Wild speculation? There is a stand-off between media and Charlton because reporters at both ends of the transaction do not believe the club and won't accept its version based on their own sources. In the end there are at least three parties with first-hand information and only one of them is responsible for the club's statement.
Do the club not have a right to handle their affairs as they see fit, even if the majority of us don't like that stance?
Indeed, but if they deliberately mislead fans in the process then they should expect damage to the credibility of those responsible.
The media also have a right to report on the club's affairs as they see fit within the law regardless of what the current owner thinks about that.
Let's see how it plays out, shall we? The media view is that Garner has the job - I doubt if a qualification over job title, contract length, etc, would seem to most people a proportionate reason to rubbish the stories that are out there.
If the media have it substantively wrong then they will get the reputational hit. That's the nature of the business.
The media frequently "get it wrong", that's one of the reasons why news paper circulation is dropping. Remember the saying. "Don't believe all you read newspapers". Garner may well have been offered the job but until its signed, settled, sealed and announced on the clubs site, he's not manager of Charlton Athletic, whatever Crawley or any other Journo's speculate.
1) It’s really not. There are all sorts of reasons print sales are falling but a decline in the quality of (football) reporting isn’t one of them.
2) What if he’s actually signed a contract and been at the training ground for talks with staff?
1. Beg to differ there Rick. Maybe you consider some sports journalist scouring social media for stories quality reporting. 2. Speculation or proof Rick that he's signed a contract.
Not surprised if he's been at the training ground to talk with staff. Why wouldn't he, certainly prior to signing a contract and getting a feel for the place.
I really don’t see what the problem is with the club statement? They’ve been forced into responding because of all the wild speculation that’s going around and not put out by the club, which seems perfectly understandable to me.
Yes, we all wish a new manager, coaching staff and players were all in place but the reason they ain’t is presumably stuff going on behind the scenes that very few if any, know about.
I imagine Sandgaard and all would’ve liked the same but it is what it is and why add to the furore by creating and kicking up such a fuss over things unknown?
Wild speculation? There is a stand-off between media and Charlton because reporters at both ends of the transaction do not believe the club and won't accept its version based on their own sources. In the end there are at least three parties with first-hand information and only one of them is responsible for the club's statement.
Do the club not have a right to handle their affairs as they see fit, even if the majority of us don't like that stance?
Indeed, but if they deliberately mislead fans in the process then they should expect damage to the credibility of those responsible.
The media also have a right to report on the club's affairs as they see fit within the law regardless of what the current owner thinks about that.
Let's see how it plays out, shall we? The media view is that Garner has the job - I doubt if a qualification over job title, contract length, etc, would seem to most people a proportionate reason to rubbish the stories that are out there.
If the media have it substantively wrong then they will get the reputational hit. That's the nature of the business.
The media frequently "get it wrong", that's one of the reasons why news paper circulation is dropping. Remember the saying. "Don't believe all you read newspapers". Garner may well have been offered the job but until its signed, settled, sealed and announced on the clubs site, he's not manager of Charlton Athletic, whatever Crawley or any other Journo's speculate.
1) It’s really not. There are all sorts of reasons print sales are falling but a decline in the quality of (football) reporting isn’t one of them.
2) What if he’s actually signed a contract and been at the training ground for talks with staff?
1. Beg to differ there Rick. Maybe you consider some sports journalist scouring social media for stories quality reporting. 2. Speculation or proof Rick that he's signed a contract.
Not surprised if he's been at the training ground to talk with staff. Why wouldn't he, certainly prior to signing a contract and getting a feel for the place.
Social media is unquestionably a way information gets shared, but the idea journalists like Cawley don’t have original sources and work them is simply not correct.
I knew before he knew, but I didn't want to say I knew before he knew, because Charlton didn't want me to know what I knew, so I waited until the other guy said that he knew, before I revealed that I knew as well.
Either Cawley can copy really fast or the story broke to both him and Nixon from the Swindon end at the same time.
I don’t believe that Cawley uses Alan Nixon’s patreon subscription as a source.
Or Cawley had it first but only put it out when he saw Nixon had. As I recall Nixon had been teasing it for a while. People need to get over the idea that a Charlton local reporter would 1) be fed a story by Swindon and 2) just take it at face value and put it straight out - it doesn’t work like that.
You do talk in riddles sometimes ! I like the drama though 🙂
Can’t you just tell us what you understand to be the case ? And not leave questions hanging.
I don’t understand why from what you suggest Cawley only put it out after Nixon and not before for example.
I knew before he knew, but I didn't want to say I knew before he knew, because Charlton didn't want me to know what I knew, so I waited until the other guy said that he knew, before I revealed that I knew as well.
Either Cawley can copy really fast or the story broke to both him and Nixon from the Swindon end at the same time.
I don’t believe that Cawley uses Alan Nixon’s patreon subscription as a source.
Or Cawley had it first but only put it out when he saw Nixon had. As I recall Nixon had been teasing it for a while. People need to get over the idea that a Charlton local reporter would 1) be fed a story by Swindon and 2) just take it at face value and put it straight out - it doesn’t work like that.
You do talk in riddles sometimes ! I like the drama though 🙂
Can’t you just tell us what you understand to be the case ? And not leave questions hanging.
I don’t understand why from what you suggest Cawley only put it out after Nixon and not before for example.
Id be pretty confident in the fact that Cawley and Nixon were fed the information from the Swindon end at the same time, Rich went to check the facts and Nixon just put it out and the SLP followed suit once it was in the public domain
Comments
Remember the saying. "Don't believe all you read newspapers".
Garner may well have been offered the job but until its signed, settled, sealed and announced on the clubs site, he's not manager of Charlton Athletic, whatever Crawley or any other Journo's speculate.
2) What if he’s actually signed a contract and been at the training ground for talks with staff?
I just hope of it is Garner then it happens this week.
Rich Cawley posted re: Garner on 25/5 at 9:52pm
Either Cawley can copy really fast or the story broke to both him and Nixon from the Swindon end at the same time.
I don’t believe that Cawley uses Alan Nixon’s patreon subscription as a source.
I get the Nigel Adkins comment , but I do worry about TS’s lack of experience and his approach.
I am not here all the time, but have commented on this because this decision will have a massive impact on where we are in the next few years.
Our club deserves better - that’s all.
I don’t have the answer, but a tier 4, unproven newbie is a big risk.
That’s my view
2. Speculation or proof Rick that he's signed a contract.
Not surprised if he's been at the training ground to talk with staff.
Why wouldn't he, certainly prior to signing a contract and getting a feel for the place.
Can’t you just tell us what you understand to be the case ? And not leave questions hanging.