What Scott was suggesting was that he wanted players with more ambition than to just play for Charlton IN LEAGUE ONE.
He didn't want players coming here for their retirement (EG Ben Watson) or for the money (EG Kirk - both examples mine not his) but players who want more than to cruise at this level (EG May) or who have the ability to and want to play at a higher level so have to be persuaded to sign for a mid league one club based on the ambition and future possibilities of that club.
So Bate and May both meet that criteria.
Was that bullshit? Quite possibly but we shall see.l May.
But virtually all players meet that criteria, bar those dropping down levels as careers wind down. Near enough every footballer is ambitious, wants to play at a higher level than they are currently at, wants to have a higher salary contract waved their way. No one wants to cruise at L1 with the potential huge step up in wages to Championship so close, unless their ability over time dictates that’s the cap of their ambition.
And as for ‘the Watson’s’, there is nothing wrong with those signings per se as long as you chose the right ones. We’ve just been signing the wrong ones, our recruitment policy across the board has not been good enough for years and we’ve not been able to keep what we do have fit. It’s left us with unbalanced squads, players not good enough, and players not suited to changes in tactics & formation.
And our use in the loan market has generally hindered progress rather than positively added. Bar Rak-Sakyi (thanks to Garner’s contacts), that has under delivered every summer & January since 18/19 which brought Byliek, Cullen, Purrington and summer 19/20 Gallagher & Cullen (and Field if he hadn’t got injured). Since then it’s been dire, most particularly the last two which Scott has chiefed.
Not disagreeing what you’re relaying what Scott may have said, more a rant of general frustration. As you say, proof will only be in the pudding as we’ve long seen through well delivered words and intentions failing to lead to success.
He's barely been in the job, properly, for 4 months.
I hope none of you are judged on your work so quickly
i'm not proposing he should be sacked. He now has the same problem that Holden had - no physical presence up top. I'm saying he could do better with what he has to work with and if he continues with may up top on his own then he will get shit performances and should get his coat - its ridiculous and so obvious.
What Scott was suggesting was that he wanted players with more ambition than to just play for Charlton IN LEAGUE ONE.
He didn't want players coming here for their retirement (EG Ben Watson) or for the money (EG Kirk - both examples mine not his) but players who want more than to cruise at this level (EG May) or who have the ability to and want to play at a higher level so have to be persuaded to sign for a mid league one club based on the ambition and future possibilities of that club.
So Bate and May both meet that criteria.
Was that bullshit? Quite possibly but we shall see. If it isn't BS then will the owners put the dollars in to back Scott's plans? We shall see
He also emphasised his preference for permanent deals over loans (without ruling out loans; he mentioned positive talks with Man City) and the need for "men" who can be leaders and mentors on and off the pitch for the excellent youngsters we have but upon whom we have, he felt, been over reliant.
Again, this is what he said. This, as said previously by me and Covered End, is not endorsing, agreeing or falling for what he said, just repeating it.
The proof will not be "in the pudding" (as Scott said!) but the proof of the January window pudding will be in its eating ie in the team's performance from January until May.
Yes and this is where you and covered end are both wrong - we all know what he means - he doesn't want players who are happy to coast along in the third division - so how does that rule May or Bate out? They both want to come to us, not to coast along in the third division but to achieve something and realise their potential with us. Very simple. Context is everything here and repeating what he said and therefore ruling Bate out is nonsense.
What Scott was suggesting was that he wanted players with more ambition than to just play for Charlton IN LEAGUE ONE.
He didn't want players coming here for their retirement (EG Ben Watson) or for the money (EG Kirk - both examples mine not his) but players who want more than to cruise at this level (EG May) or who have the ability to and want to play at a higher level so have to be persuaded to sign for a mid league one club based on the ambition and future possibilities of that club.
So Bate and May both meet that criteria.
Was that bullshit? Quite possibly but we shall see. If it isn't BS then will the owners put the dollars in to back Scott's plans? We shall see
He also emphasised his preference for permanent deals over loans (without ruling out loans; he mentioned positive talks with Man City) and the need for "men" who can be leaders and mentors on and off the pitch for the excellent youngsters we have but upon whom we have, he felt, been over reliant.
Again, this is what he said. This, as said previously by me and Covered End, is not endorsing, agreeing or falling for what he said, just repeating it.
The proof will not be "in the pudding" (as Scott said!) but the proof of the January window pudding will be in its eating ie in the team's performance from January until May.
Yes and this is where you and covered end are both wrong - we all know what he means - he doesn't want players who are happy to coast along in the third division - so how does that rule May or Bate out? They both want to come to us, not to coast along in the third division but to achieve something and realise their potential with us. Very simple. Context is everything here and repeating what he said and therefore ruling Bate out is nonsense.
He said Bate and May both meet the criteria - ruling them in, not out.
Don't disagree with most of that other than the proof is NOT in the pudding.
The proof of the pudding is in its eating ie the outcome not the process
And that no, most players don't meet that criteria hence Watson, Arter, Madison etc etc
Scott said that for too long the attitude at Charlton has been "we'll just sign better players and it will be OK" but it hasn't worked because everything else has been lacking eg fitness, infrastructure, scouting, etc etc. I would add interference from owners, lack of consistency in style of play, rapid turnover of managers and coaches, pushing too many good kids into the 1st team too soon and I could go on.
Will this lot change that? I'm far from convinced but what they are saying does makes sense IF and it is a huge IF the owners are willing, as Rodwell claimed, to spend.
Is that consistent with their mantra of reducing losses and the ongoing redundancies of non football staff? No, it's not hence my skepticism.
I too have been battered by decades of failure and nonsense from previous regimes, and this one so far, so I have little patience or willingness to look on the bright side left.
What Scott was suggesting was that he wanted players with more ambition than to just play for Charlton IN LEAGUE ONE.
He didn't want players coming here for their retirement (EG Ben Watson) or for the money (EG Kirk - both examples mine not his) but players who want more than to cruise at this level (EG May) or who have the ability to and want to play at a higher level so have to be persuaded to sign for a mid league one club based on the ambition and future possibilities of that club.
So Bate and May both meet that criteria.
Was that bullshit? Quite possibly but we shall see. If it isn't BS then will the owners put the dollars in to back Scott's plans? We shall see
He also emphasised his preference for permanent deals over loans (without ruling out loans; he mentioned positive talks with Man City) and the need for "men" who can be leaders and mentors on and off the pitch for the excellent youngsters we have but upon whom we have, he felt, been over reliant.
Again, this is what he said. This, as said previously by me and Covered End, is not endorsing, agreeing or falling for what he said, just repeating it.
The proof will not be "in the pudding" (as Scott said!) but the proof of the January window pudding will be in its eating ie in the team's performance from January until May.
Yes and this is where you and covered end are both wrong - we all know what he means - he doesn't want players who are happy to coast along in the third division - so how does that rule May or Bate out? They both want to come to us, not to coast along in the third division but to achieve something and realise their potential with us. Very simple. Context is everything here and repeating what he said and therefore ruling Bate out is nonsense.
He said Bate and May both meet the criteria - ruling them in, not out.
He was aligning himself with what covered end said for some reason - what covered end said was that what scott said ruled bate out - which it doesn't - anyway whatever was said was said and i'm happy with what i've said - enough said
The poor signings are woeful and the ok ones are fine for mid table L1. We should be a team who aspire to more. To fail to get one real gem out of something like 10 signings is not a great start.
Why should we? We're clearly a League 1 yo yo club these days.
We yo-yo between being in the bottom six to mid table over the last few years but unfortunately we aren't top 6 quality despite the standard being mediocre.
Sad but true at the moment and never helped by the injuries. (Buying players with injuries haven't helped or who had limited game time before signing)
I do have trust in Scott with his words, his talent still to be proven, same as I believe Appleton would get us promoted if given the right support.
My pessimism comes from a belief that CM has smooth talked a bunch of investors in to success on an unrealistic low budget and his group of decision makers being smarter then others in the game.
As always though, I would prefer Charlton points over personal internet points so I hope they prove me wrong.
Charlton’s Technical Director Andy Scott led the recruitment process, supported by Managing Director James Rodwell and Simon Lenagan, Sporting Director of the club’s owners Global Football Partners.
Scott commented: “The appointment of Michael comes following an in-depth recruitment process. We had a clear idea of the type of person we wanted, the way they work and how they manage.
“When speaking to the various candidates that we met, Michael demonstrated very clearly that he would have the ability to take the current group and mould them into a successful team.
“He has worked at the very top level so he understands what high standards are required to win. He is a leader on the grass, as well as in the dressing room, has a winning mentality and has had many positive and negative experiences as a manager that have shaped him into the coach that we believe will be the best person for the job.
“He is a coach who knows what it takes to get a team promoted. He has a track record of working with, and developing, young players, which is vital given our outstanding academy. In addition, he has experience working in a modern set-up where his responsibilities are on managing a group of players and getting the best out of them on the pitch.”
Andy Scott, James Rodwell and Simon Lenagan, get your coats.
Andy Scott is a total fraud and utterly classless to sack a manager that HE hired ten minutes after a game....Appleton is not the only one that needs to get out of the club
I’m amazed he’s still there. Think a new senior management team is required, sack the lot of them. Nearly 65 years of supporting Charlton what a shambles.
If only the Bromley Addicks meeting with Scott was a few weeks later. He has been a complete disaster. This Jan window for us feels like his last at Forest just at a different level in the pyramid. Blindly signing any player that will come here without a plan.
I've just messaged one of the investors making clear that in my view any attempt to blame the current mess entirely on Appleton would be inappropriate.
League 1 merry go round managers are on the League 1 merry go round for a reason - they’re not good enough for a better job. No doubt they’re good at knowing what to say to get another job though.
We need a manager who can sort us out defensively before we worry about possession or exciting football. We got worse under Appleton when he was appointed to develop young players and improve us as a team.
Weren’t relegated the last two times we had three managers in a season? Huge decision for the ownership/Andy Scott.
I've just messaged one of the investors making clear that in my view any attempt to blame the current mess entirely on Appleton would be inappropriate.
Did you ever get your hands on Methvens sales pitch to these people?
League 1 merry go round managers are on the League 1 merry go round for a reason - they’re not good enough for a better job. No doubt they’re good at knowing what to say to get another job though.
We need a manager who can sort us out defensively before we worry about possession or exciting football. We got worse under Appleton when he was appointed to develop young players and improve us as a team.
Weren’t relegated the last two times we had three managers in a season? Huge decision for the ownership/Andy Scott.
I think you can say the same for any manager that has the 'knows this league' tag
They know it for a reason. They weren't bloody good enough to get out of it
Comments
The proof of the pudding is in its eating ie the outcome not the process
And that no, most players don't meet that criteria hence Watson, Arter, Madison etc etc
Scott said that for too long the attitude at Charlton has been "we'll just sign better players and it will be OK" but it hasn't worked because everything else has been lacking eg fitness, infrastructure, scouting, etc etc. I would add interference from owners, lack of consistency in style of play, rapid turnover of managers and coaches, pushing too many good kids into the 1st team too soon and I could go on.
Will this lot change that? I'm far from convinced but what they are saying does makes sense IF and it is a huge IF the owners are willing, as Rodwell claimed, to spend.
Is that consistent with their mantra of reducing losses and the ongoing redundancies of non football staff? No, it's not hence my skepticism.
I too have been battered by decades of failure and nonsense from previous regimes, and this one so far, so I have little patience or willingness to look on the bright side left.
We yo-yo between being in the bottom six to mid table over the last few years but unfortunately we aren't top 6 quality despite the standard being mediocre.
Sad but true at the moment and never helped by the injuries. (Buying players with injuries haven't helped or who had limited game time before signing)
I was ruling both IN
My pessimism comes from a belief that CM has smooth talked a bunch of investors in to success on an unrealistic low budget and his group of decision makers being smarter then others in the game.
As always though, I would prefer Charlton points over personal internet points so I hope they prove me wrong.
Charlton’s Technical Director Andy Scott led the recruitment process, supported by Managing Director James Rodwell and Simon Lenagan, Sporting Director of the club’s owners Global Football Partners.
Scott commented: “The appointment of Michael comes following an in-depth recruitment process. We had a clear idea of the type of person we wanted, the way they work and how they manage.
“When speaking to the various candidates that we met, Michael demonstrated very clearly that he would have the ability to take the current group and mould them into a successful team.
“He has worked at the very top level so he understands what high standards are required to win. He is a leader on the grass, as well as in the dressing room, has a winning mentality and has had many positive and negative experiences as a manager that have shaped him into the coach that we believe will be the best person for the job.
“He is a coach who knows what it takes to get a team promoted. He has a track record of working with, and developing, young players, which is vital given our outstanding academy. In addition, he has experience working in a modern set-up where his responsibilities are on managing a group of players and getting the best out of them on the pitch.”
Andy Scott, James Rodwell and Simon Lenagan, get your coats.
Apart from probably picking up a fair old wedge each week for doing next to f**k all!
He brought in Appleton and said he was good enough. Again he was pretty much the only person who thought so.
He also said he'd come out and hold his hands up if it all didn't work out. Still waiting on that.
The guy has failed. Must feel lucky to keep his job.
Scott certainly should be next for a p45....
As for Rodwell and that bloody PowerPoint 8+8+8 =39...what a load of bollox... Yes we want 8 fit players, 8 unfit players and 8 under 11's.
Talk about mugging a living!
We need a manager who can sort us out defensively before we worry about possession or exciting football. We got worse under Appleton when he was appointed to develop young players and improve us as a team.
Weren’t relegated the last two times we had three managers in a season? Huge decision for the ownership/Andy Scott.
They know it for a reason. They weren't bloody good enough to get out of it