Think the jury is out on Scott but what I will say in his defence for the last window is that for the last week he was convincing players and agents to come here when we didn’t have a manager. Obviously part of that is his fault too but this window will be the first one with these owners and a manager he actually wants
They were running the show during the January transfer window, they brought in the man they wanted (Holden)
Next month is not their first window for me
The four players brought in by Scott at the end of August are down to him. How people judge those 4 are down to their point of view so far
They couldn’t put any money in last January really and sounds like Holden was Methvens man. If judging the new regime as a whole then jury is definitely out. Just think this is a big window for Scott
I genuinely believe Scott and think they’ll get us promoted within the next 2 and a bit seasons.
The only motivation for Scott seems to be as every day passes and he is still here he gets paid
Why do you get that impression?
He has a long history in football, as a player, manager and director. He's not a Southall. I think he genuinely wants to do a good job - not every transfer has been a hit, but it sounds like he's getting good people in place to do the jobs they're good at. The new director of performance is the most recent and obvious example of that.
I said in today's match thread that this club has been so poorly managed and mistreated for nearly a decade. If we want proper progression to becoming an established Championship club again (rather than what we got in 2019 which was a promotion and immediate relegation back) then it's going to take building us back up from near enough zero. I personally have seen evidence of those building blocks being put in place. Unfortunately results on the pitch haven't been immediate.
We've been poor for so long that I understand the lack of patience to get it right. But the owners, the directors and to an extent the manager need to be given time to put their stamp on the squad and the club. It's hard going right now but I'm hopefully that it will start to pay off soon.
There is simply no risk for Scott/Rodwell/Methven. They have found someone(s) to put in the funding and they have jobs and salaries off the back of it. If they can make it work great, if don't they walk away, we can't.
Don’t understand this as an argument personally - especially for Scott. Rodwell and Methven maaaybe. Regardless, isn’t that what being an employee rather employer is?
I don’t think there was any financial risk for Gallen, for Tracey Leaburn currently or any other past or present club employees that are correctly supported and praised by the fanbase.
Scott comes with a decent pedigree, a competitive spirit. I really don’t think any of this adds up to anything malicious on his part.
The jury is still out on whether he’s any good for us. But if he fails it won’t be because he doesn’t care.
Normally you get employed by the owner. We appear to have had the management finding the owners to let them run it.
Indeed. And a board of directors scrutinising and “directing” themselves.
I'm under no illusions about the make up of the ownership group and the people running our club. It's far from perfect. But I don't see a viable alternative short of Roland Duchatelet being six feet under and his kids gifting the Valley back to the club as an apology for all his dad's crimes to South London sport.
We tried the exact opposite approach with a hands-on and engaged owner in Sandgaard. He was enthusiastic and wanted to be successful. But as we all know, that went to shit too.
Too much owner involvement, too little owner involvement, I don't know if we'll ever find an owner that's just right. The one thing I do know is that it could be a hell of a lot worse right now if the club hadn't been taken out of Sandgaard's hands when it was.
The same could be said of Southall, Duchatelet, the Spivs and even the final incarnation of Murray’s regime in 2010. They were all out of time and had to go. I think the mistake is to imagine that this iteration is different. Ultimately it is based on the same false premise as every one since Murray - we are cleverer than you and can make it work when you couldn’t. it is always magical thinking and it will always fail.
I think the others were at least naive enough to believe in it. This lot I’m not so sure. Their audience is not us but the investors.
Are we not in Jimenez and Cash territory here as opposed to Duchatelet/ Sandgaard?
By that I mean a single person has a grand 'masterplan' for running a football club but doesn't have the funds to get it off the ground ( Methven/Jimenez) So they go in search of serious funding and find person or persons that know very little about football but are willing to throw some money in ,albeit with very little obligation to fund the club should things quickly go sour ( Cash/ Friedman/Brener) And we all know what happened when things went sour last time.
They're playing Russian Roulette with our football club again aren't they.
To be fair, Jimenez had very little to do with what happened on the pitch in 2011/12. It certainly wasn’t his master plan. His interventions mostly went nowhere, but he did let the incumbent professionals get on with it. The problem came in 2012 when the regime ran out of money.
Not sure what his job is exactly or how we measure his success but if it's recruiting good footballers the evidence to date suggests that he's not very good at it.
If it's offloading poor footballers like Kirk he's not very good at that.
And if it's developing youth talent from the academy and easing them into first team football, he's not very good at that either.
Is he interfering in team selection and tactics?
Like most things at the club, including the ownership, it's a secret.
And when the team fails it will always be the head coach's fault and he can waffle his way out of it.
Spot on Grumpy. He should be sacked? He spent money recklessly when at Notts Forest for dross players. With a track record like that we should have steered clear.
His role is not a secret… it’s technical director. A role that many other clubs have in place too - this isn’t Charlton making up some fantasy to get someone on the payroll.
Just because it’s not a traditional role of years past doesn’t mean you can’t look it up and find out for yourself what it’s all about.
I am not advocating Scott loses his job. I am just observing that he hasn't been successful so far and speculate that some of the reasons for that may not be down to him. However I do hope he understands that and learns from mistakes, if there have been any, and puts it right in January. I haven't yet heard that January is a poor window to do business in, and I hope not to hear it. We still have the possibility of success this season and January is the time we can make it possible.
I am not advocating Scott loses his job. I am just observing that he hasn't been successful so far and speculate that some of the reasons for that may not be down to him. However I do hope he understands that and learns from mistakes, if there have been any, and puts it right in January. I haven't yet heard that January is a poor window to do business in, and I hope not to hear it. We still have the possibility of success this season and January is the time we can make it possible.
If this doesn’t go well though he should lose his job before Appleton does. If 2 managers fail then it’s probably time to look upstairs for the problem
I agree but we shouldnt be talking about that yet. I really hope he understands the signings need to be better and am happy to see him putting that right. A good thing and I hope it is happening is that Appleton is at the heart of this saying what we need and Scott is trying to bring in the qualities that Appleton thinks we need. I am not the manager but I think we need some players with real strength and steel.
Spot on Grumpy. He should be sacked? He spent money recklessly when at Notts Forest for dross players. With a track record like that we should have steered clear.
That’s not really what happened at Forest, and the recruitment worked out with Forest comfortably staying up
I agree but we shouldnt be talking about that yet. I really hope he understands the signings need to be better and am happy to see him putting that right. A good thing and I hope it is happening is that Appleton is at the heart of this saying what we need and Scott is trying to bring in the qualities that Appleton thinks we need. I am not the manager but I think we need some players with real strength and steel.
We are in real problems if it is the other way round and Scott is making all of the calls and the manager is supposed to get on with it.
I agree but we shouldnt be talking about that yet. I really hope he understands the signings need to be better and am happy to see him putting that right. A good thing and I hope it is happening is that Appleton is at the heart of this saying what we need and Scott is trying to bring in the qualities that Appleton thinks we need. I am not the manager but I think we need some players with real strength and steel.
We are in real problems if it is the other way round and Scott is making all of the calls and the manager is supposed to get on with it.
I agree but we shouldnt be talking about that yet. I really hope he understands the signings need to be better and am happy to see him putting that right. A good thing and I hope it is happening is that Appleton is at the heart of this saying what we need and Scott is trying to bring in the qualities that Appleton thinks we need. I am not the manager but I think we need some players with real strength and steel.
We are in real problems if it is the other way round and Scott is making all of the calls and the manager is supposed to get on with it.
Why would that mean we are in real problems?
Scott has had a shocking two transfer windows, coupled with it would be nice for a manager getting players HE wants.
I agree but we shouldnt be talking about that yet. I really hope he understands the signings need to be better and am happy to see him putting that right. A good thing and I hope it is happening is that Appleton is at the heart of this saying what we need and Scott is trying to bring in the qualities that Appleton thinks we need. I am not the manager but I think we need some players with real strength and steel.
We are in real problems if it is the other way round and Scott is making all of the calls and the manager is supposed to get on with it.
Why would that mean we are in real problems?
Because despite all the fan fare and promises, three of our loans are rubbish, one is injured and we've sacked one manager and the new one has just overseen a very poor month for this club and we're mid table still.
I mean this season we have lost to Crawley, Newport and Gillingham and got a draw with Cray Valley Paper Mills, whilst mustering ourselves to a season's best 10th place in League One.
It is the most pitiful season I can remember in 40yrs as a fan. Scott is the Technical Director and has overseen the majority of two transfer windows so far.
Andy Scott was sacked at Notts Forest because he bought dross players. Cooper was notwithstanding Scott’s poor recruitment able to keep them in the premiership.
Andy Scott was sacked at Notts Forest because he bought dross players. Cooper was notwithstanding Scott’s poor recruitment able to keep them in the premiership.
Scott wasn’t in charge of recruitment was he? He was head of scouting which is a different role. They got promoted but then the owner and his son got more involved in recruitment when they went up to the premier league (where have we seen that before?)
Andy Scott was sacked at Notts Forest because he bought dross players. Cooper was notwithstanding Scott’s poor recruitment able to keep them in the premiership.
Scott wasn’t in charge of recruitment was he? He was head of scouting which is a different role. They got promoted but then the owner and his son got more involved in recruitment when they went up to the premier league (where have we seen that before?)
So we have to base our opinions on his advice to Skintgaard in January and his performance in August.
Andy Scott was sacked at Notts Forest because he bought dross players. Cooper was notwithstanding Scott’s poor recruitment able to keep them in the premiership.
Scott wasn’t in charge of recruitment was he? He was head of scouting which is a different role. They got promoted but then the owner and his son got more involved in recruitment when they went up to the premier league (where have we seen that before?)
So we have to base our opinions on his advice to Skintgaard in January and his performance in August.
Not looking great is it.
His previous record in football is quite good. Forest got promoted, Swansea got play offs in 2 years he was there.
It’s not been good at all, but last January he still had Sandgaard in charge, and this summer he didn’t actually join until half the summer was done. So there are reasonably good excuses for both windows. This January there are no excuses though
I genuinely believe Scott and think they’ll get us promoted within the next 2 and a bit seasons.
The only motivation for Scott seems to be as every day passes and he is still here he gets paid
Why do you get that impression?
He has a long history in football, as a player, manager and director. He's not a Southall. I think he genuinely wants to do a good job - not every transfer has been a hit, but it sounds like he's getting good people in place to do the jobs they're good at. The new director of performance is the most recent and obvious example of that.
I said in today's match thread that this club has been so poorly managed and mistreated for nearly a decade. If we want proper progression to becoming an established Championship club again (rather than what we got in 2019 which was a promotion and immediate relegation back) then it's going to take building us back up from near enough zero. I personally have seen evidence of those building blocks being put in place. Unfortunately results on the pitch haven't been immediate.
We've been poor for so long that I understand the lack of patience to get it right. But the owners, the directors and to an extent the manager need to be given time to put their stamp on the squad and the club. It's hard going right now but I'm hopefully that it will start to pay off soon.
There is simply no risk for Scott/Rodwell/Methven. They have found someone(s) to put in the funding and they have jobs and salaries off the back of it. If they can make it work great, if don't they walk away, we can't.
Don’t understand this as an argument personally - especially for Scott. Rodwell and Methven maaaybe. Regardless, isn’t that what being an employee rather employer is?
I don’t think there was any financial risk for Gallen, for Tracey Leaburn currently or any other past or present club employees that are correctly supported and praised by the fanbase.
Scott comes with a decent pedigree, a competitive spirit. I really don’t think any of this adds up to anything malicious on his part.
The jury is still out on whether he’s any good for us. But if he fails it won’t be because he doesn’t care.
Are people suggesting that the SMT work for free and only claim a promotion bonus?
It's not clear the conditions Scott and others worked under during their seven weeks last January. Nor when it came to liaising with Peter Storrie once their relaunched bid was under consideration.
But next January is certainly key in terms of removing players who make little or no contribution to be replaced by those who might improve the spine of the side.
As for questions, one might ask Andy Scott how he finds CAFC compared to his other clubs. Or how many they're looking to recruit in January.
And how long before recruitment, coaching, team building plus the new performance director have a tangible effect - how long before we perform consistently in alignment with our top six budget?
The last time we were promoted back in 2018/19 we had a top six budget. But it was only after Meire and Robinson left the club that the journey from 9th or 10th to the play-offs commenced.
Perhaps too early to call our squad and SMT performance - let's see where we are at the end of January 2024.
The proof of the ambition or otherwise of the owners will soon be known. Will Scott be able to deliver or will it be another set of loans and freebies?..we'll find out soon enough!
The proof of the ambition or otherwise of the owners will soon be known. Will Scott be able to deliver or will it be another set of loans and freebies?..we'll find out soon enough!
Nothing wrong with frees or loans, look at the likes of Bolton, Oxford, Portsmouth transfer business this summer. Their signings are nearly all frees and loans and they are doing just fine.
We are in league 1, it is going to cheap fees and loans at best. We’ve already spent more than nearly all teams at this level do in buying May, Edun and Taylor this summer
The proof of the ambition or otherwise of the owners will soon be known. Will Scott be able to deliver or will it be another set of loans and freebies?..we'll find out soon enough!
Nothing wrong with frees or loans, look at the likes of Bolton, Oxford, Portsmouth transfer business this summer. Their signings are nearly all frees and loans and they are doing just fine.
We are in league 1, it is going to cheap fees and loans at best. We’ve already spent more than nearly all teams at this level do in buying May, Edun and Taylor this summer
Don't disagree, but the last group of loans have been poor at best, with the exception of L Watson. My concern is the owners go for the loan option again and we get similar outcomes. We need to buy a striker, one who is committed to us, many loans don't have the same connection, for obvious reasons, and with Chucks and Miles out, we need a fully committed player, one who can build a future with us. If we are going down the loan route, they need to be far better than those that came in during the summer, I just fear we'll get more of the 'Tedic' type not the 'Rak-Saki' type.
I thought this was a really good post by Mundell over on ITTV about why clubs have Director of Football or Technical Director roles in modern football…
“ I know it might be fairly obvious and for some fairly uncontroversial, but I thought I’d post a comment on why most modern owners do not give their Manager or Head Coach carte blanche when it comes to player recruitment, preferring instead to operate with a Director of Football (or Technical Director) who works in partnership with a Head Coach while having overall responsibility and accountability for player recruitment and trading.
As I see it, there are two main reasons for this DOF model. The first is that the interests of owner (or investor) and Head Coach are simply not aligned. Most obviously, the Head Coach will want the owner to spend as much money as possible while the owner is likely to want to operate within a budget (or within financial fair play rules) - some may recall the slippery Alan Pardew saying that one of his roles was “to loosen the owners pockets”.
A more problematic misalignment of interests though concerns timeframe and the type of player recruited. The Head Coach will want to sign experienced players in the hope this will deliver immediate success, indifferent to the fact that this may lead to lots of wasted money in the long-term, while an owner might be more inclined to sign younger players with potential, focusing more on value for money and being less concerned about short term results. We don’t know why on earth we resigned Chuks Aneke, but that sort of signing would make a lot more sense to the Head Coach (he might just have helped the club sneak a playoff place) than to the owner (who is then stuck with an expensive long-term contract, long after the Head Coach has moved on). It’s very important to note here that we’re dealing with uncertain outcomes and it’s the different impact of that uncertainty on Head Coach and owner that is critical to the dynamic. It will always pay the Head Coach to gamble because there is nothing to lose. That’s not true for the owner.
The role of the DOF (or in our case Technical Director) is to sit between the owner (investor) and the Head Coach and seek to reconcile their different objectives. If the relationship between Head Coach and DOF works, the Head Coach will be able to make it clear what he needs to succeed while the DOF will seek to ensure that this is done in a way which doesn’t compromise the owner’s objectives. In this ‘model’ the Head Coach needs to be clear what he wants while respecting the parameters within which the DOF is required to operate. The DOF needs to understand the owner’s objectives while making it clear what’s feasible and what the implication of those objectives might be. If there are enough grown ups in the room the result is a coherent strategy which everyone understands, buys into and seeks to execute with confidence.
Second, in the modern game, rightly or wrongly, Head Coaches (or Managers) tend not to stay in their jobs very long. They’re either sacked if they fail or move on to bigger and better things if they succeed. At most clubs Head Coaches are recycled over shorter periods that many of the player contracts being awarded and certainly well within any plausible strategic planning period. If each time a new Head Coach is appointed he’s given free rein to release and sign players in order to build the squad he fancies the result can be endless, expensive turnover and a complete absence of any long-term planning and consistency. The role of the DOF, therefore, is to ensure a degree of continuity and some long-term planning. In part this is about ensuring that when a new Head Coach is appointed he buys into the established playing strategy and doesn’t expect to be given a completely new squad.
It’s very obvious from this that the relationship between Andy Scott and Michael Appleton is absolutely critical. They are in partnership and neither can succeed without the other. Appleton needs to be clear what he needs to succeed, but he needs to be realistic. For his part, Scott needs to translate Appleton’s requirements into a package that fits with the strategy agreed with the owners. The two then need to work together to execute.
Both Scott and Appleton need to behave like consenting adults. Appleton is more likely to lose his job than Scott if results aren’t good, but Scott won’t survive for much longer if it’s perceived thaf the problem is recruitment. We don’t know, for sure, why Dean Holden was sacked but there is certainly a suggestion that having agreed one style of play, and with recruitment targeted accordingly, he then decided to play a different system (3-5-2) which we clearly hadn’t recruited for. You simply can’t run a proverbial ballroom this way and if there’s any truth in this version of events then Scott had no option other than to show Holden a red card. ”
This 'one style of play, with recruitment targeted accordingly' sounds a bit primitive. All very well if you're winning, but surely a manager needs to be able to tinker/adapt/change formation when necessary. Just saying
The proof of the ambition or otherwise of the owners will soon be known. Will Scott be able to deliver or will it be another set of loans and freebies?..we'll find out soon enough!
Nothing wrong with frees or loans, look at the likes of Bolton, Oxford, Portsmouth transfer business this summer. Their signings are nearly all frees and loans and they are doing just fine.
We are in league 1, it is going to cheap fees and loans at best. We’ve already spent more than nearly all teams at this level do in buying May, Edun and Taylor this summer
Edun was a free with a sell on clause attached to the deal. Taylor was a compensation payment & Alfie was a mind blowing 250K, hardly heading the big spenders.
The proof of the ambition or otherwise of the owners will soon be known. Will Scott be able to deliver or will it be another set of loans and freebies?..we'll find out soon enough!
Nothing wrong with frees or loans, look at the likes of Bolton, Oxford, Portsmouth transfer business this summer. Their signings are nearly all frees and loans and they are doing just fine.
We are in league 1, it is going to cheap fees and loans at best. We’ve already spent more than nearly all teams at this level do in buying May, Edun and Taylor this summer
Edun was a free with a sell on clause attached to the deal. Taylor was a compensation payment & Alfie was a mind blowing 250K, hardly heading the big spenders.
This 'one style of play, with recruitment targeted accordingly' sounds a bit primitive. All very well if you're winning, but surely a manager needs to be able to tinker/adapt/change formation when necessary. Just saying
Generally when you’re not winning, it’s not the formation that’s the problem… it’s the players or the coaching.
Comments
If it's offloading poor footballers like Kirk he's not very good at that.
And if it's developing youth talent from the academy and easing them into first team football, he's not very good at that either.
Is he interfering in team selection and tactics?
Like most things at the club, including the ownership, it's a secret.
And when the team fails it will always be the head coach's fault and he can waffle his way out of it.
Perfect.
Perhaps?
It is the most pitiful season I can remember in 40yrs as a fan. Scott is the Technical Director and has overseen the majority of two transfer windows so far.
Not looking great is it.
It's not clear the conditions Scott and others worked under during their seven weeks last January. Nor when it came to liaising with Peter Storrie once their relaunched bid was under consideration.
But next January is certainly key in terms of removing players who make little or no contribution to be replaced by those who might improve the spine of the side.
As for questions, one might ask Andy Scott how he finds CAFC compared to his other clubs. Or how many they're looking to recruit in January.
And how long before recruitment, coaching, team building plus the new performance director have a tangible effect - how long before we perform consistently in alignment with our top six budget?
The last time we were promoted back in 2018/19 we had a top six budget. But it was only after Meire and Robinson left the club that the journey from 9th or 10th to the play-offs commenced.
Perhaps too early to call our squad and SMT performance - let's see where we are at the end of January 2024.
We are in league 1, it is going to cheap fees and loans at best. We’ve already spent more than nearly all teams at this level do in buying May, Edun and Taylor this summer
If we are going down the loan route, they need to be far better than those that came in during the summer, I just fear we'll get more of the 'Tedic' type not the 'Rak-Saki' type.
“ I know it might be fairly obvious and for some fairly uncontroversial, but I thought I’d post a comment on why most modern owners do not give their Manager or Head Coach carte blanche when it comes to player recruitment, preferring instead to operate with a Director of Football (or Technical Director) who works in partnership with a Head Coach while having overall responsibility and accountability for player recruitment and trading.
As I see it, there are two main reasons for this DOF model. The first is that the interests of owner (or investor) and Head Coach are simply not aligned. Most obviously, the Head Coach will want the owner to spend as much money as possible while the owner is likely to want to operate within a budget (or within financial fair play rules) - some may recall the slippery Alan Pardew saying that one of his roles was “to loosen the owners pockets”.
A more problematic misalignment of interests though concerns timeframe and the type of player recruited. The Head Coach will want to sign experienced players in the hope this will deliver immediate success, indifferent to the fact that this may lead to lots of wasted money in the long-term, while an owner might be more inclined to sign younger players with potential, focusing more on value for money and being less concerned about short term results. We don’t know why on earth we resigned Chuks Aneke, but that sort of signing would make a lot more sense to the Head Coach (he might just have helped the club sneak a playoff place) than to the owner (who is then stuck with an expensive long-term contract, long after the Head Coach has moved on). It’s very important to note here that we’re dealing with uncertain outcomes and it’s the different impact of that uncertainty on Head Coach and owner that is critical to the dynamic. It will always pay the Head Coach to gamble because there is nothing to lose. That’s not true for the owner.
The role of the DOF (or in our case Technical Director) is to sit between the owner (investor) and the Head Coach and seek to reconcile their different objectives. If the relationship between Head Coach and DOF works, the Head Coach will be able to make it clear what he needs to succeed while the DOF will seek to ensure that this is done in a way which doesn’t compromise the owner’s objectives. In this ‘model’ the Head Coach needs to be clear what he wants while respecting the parameters within which the DOF is required to operate. The DOF needs to understand the owner’s objectives while making it clear what’s feasible and what the implication of those objectives might be. If there are enough grown ups in the room the result is a coherent strategy which everyone understands, buys into and seeks to execute with confidence.
Second, in the modern game, rightly or wrongly, Head Coaches (or Managers) tend not to stay in their jobs very long. They’re either sacked if they fail or move on to bigger and better things if they succeed. At most clubs Head Coaches are recycled over shorter periods that many of the player contracts being awarded and certainly well within any plausible strategic planning period. If each time a new Head Coach is appointed he’s given free rein to release and sign players in order to build the squad he fancies the result can be endless, expensive turnover and a complete absence of any long-term planning and consistency. The role of the DOF, therefore, is to ensure a degree of continuity and some long-term planning. In part this is about ensuring that when a new Head Coach is appointed he buys into the established playing strategy and doesn’t expect to be given a completely new squad.
It’s very obvious from this that the relationship between Andy Scott and Michael Appleton is absolutely critical. They are in partnership and neither can succeed without the other. Appleton needs to be clear what he needs to succeed, but he needs to be realistic. For his part, Scott needs to translate Appleton’s requirements into a package that fits with the strategy agreed with the owners. The two then need to work together to execute.
Both Scott and Appleton need to behave like consenting adults. Appleton is more likely to lose his job than Scott if results aren’t good, but Scott won’t survive for much longer if it’s perceived thaf the problem is recruitment. We don’t know, for sure, why Dean Holden was sacked but there is certainly a suggestion that having agreed one style of play, and with recruitment targeted accordingly, he then decided to play a different system (3-5-2) which we clearly hadn’t recruited for. You simply can’t run a proverbial ballroom this way and if there’s any truth in this version of events then Scott had no option other than to show Holden a red card. ”
All very well if you're winning, but surely a manager needs to be able to tinker/adapt/change formation when necessary.
Just saying