Not sure we have seen a week of such rancour amongst Charlton fans before. We have been angrier for sure - Katrien Meire united us like we hadn't been since the days of the Valley Party and Matt Southall had the entire fan-base looking for blood.
We have become increasingly frustrated since Thomas Sandgaard took over and we seem to split evenly over everything that happens at the club nowadays. There is obviously some frustration that having finally rid ourselves of the disinterested Roland Duchatelet and the ESI Conmen who threatened the existence of the club, progress under Sandgaard has continued to stall and we have made some of the same mistakes the fans are already too familiar with. The decision not to renew Johnnie Jackson's contract has divided opinion and brought a host of existing issues back into focus.
As a fan-base, we need to put a lot of this behind us and hope we can move forward as a club, although Thomas Sandgaard needs to get the next steps right. That starts by closing out some of the current hot-spots...
Jackson was a legend who deserved the close season and another go? Johnnie Jackson played 243 games for us over eight years with an impressive 51 goals from midfield. He was a leader on the pitch and a gentleman off it. No doubt he was a playing legend and that was rewarded with his assistant coaching role under Lee Bowyer and then Nigel Adkins. I think most of us would have said that there were some doubts that he was fully ready to manage the side after Adkins' departure. However, the bounce he achieved that moved us from the relegation places to 11th in a couple of months made it very difficult not to accept that he had earned a chance to do the job on a permanent basis and whilst there were some lingering doubts, appointing him was also a least-risk strategy after having to pay Adkins off after such a short tenure.
At the time of Jackson's permanent appointment, there was a clamour from the fans (me included) to give him the job but Sandgaard hesitated and said he wanted to cast his net wider. In the end, Sandgaard had little option because not appointing Jackson would have caused a strong reaction from the fans, even if results continued to be good and there was an obvious risk that a they might drop off under any other incoming manager. What is clear now, is that Sandgaard negotiated a much better deal with Jackson than he had with Adkins. Whilst making Jacko permanent, he cut a deal that protected the Club in the event that Jackson's bounce was only that and yet left him clear to earn a contract extension through continued strong performance.
The bottom-line is that we faded badly after the bounce and despite picking up points here and there, we were humiliated regularly in between by lesser clubs with weaker squads. The football was appalling to watch and Jackson was let down by most of his players - many of whom simply didn't look bothered. His problem was that he seemed unable to affect any change. A scrappy win when it came was followed by a couldn't-care-less performance and it hurt. He stuck rigidly to his 3-5-2 formation which everyone in the stadium could see wasn't working and he appeared too-ready to bring non-performing players back into the side a game or two after finally having been dropped. Why on earth were we not giving opportunities to some of the all-conquering U23's in the last few dead rubbers?
I believe Jackson was still safe going into the last month of the season in spite of the six defeats in seven from early February but the manner of the defeats at home to Morecambe and away at Ipswich did it for Sandgaard. Jackson's comments after the humiliation at Ipswich were incredibly naive and suggested that he was prepared to persevere with his tactics and the core of his squad, both of which let us all down very badly.
In summary, for me, he absolutely was a playing legend but that only gets you a chance and sentimentality shouldn't ever play a bigger role. I think Sandgaard had to act boldly after a second year of disappointment (and failure) and in our position, it starts with the manager. There is a major rebuild required and I didn't trust Jacko to do it thoroughly enough and the prospect of him losing too many games still by October, persevering with 3-5-2 and being unable to motivate the players was a bigger risk than bringing in someone with a better CV and no emotional attachment to the likes of 'Gilbs.'
Sandgaard bottled it by firing him over the phone? Yes, it would have been better to have had the conversation face-to-face. However, I can see how he may have found himself in a position whereby a phone call was the best he could do. He had been here for awhile and scheduled to fly back to the US after the Ipswich game. Jackson was attending the end-of-season POTY event on the Sunday night. It may be that Sandgaard was in two minds following the Ipswich shambles and was still reflecting on it as he left the country. Either way, we know Jackson had a performance-based contract in place and whether it guaranteed him an extension with a certain placing or not, it certainly appears to have limited the club's compensation exposure the further we finished down the table. I don't believe Jackson signed a deal that only compensated his end-of-season departure without a forward-looking reward for success - he was in too strong a position when it was signed to have done that and if he did, it was his own fault. So I think it should have been very clear to Jackson just what was at stake and I have no doubt that he wasn't having easy post-match conversations after every disappointing performance because Sandgaard was getting dog's abuse on social media for them. The phone call can't have been a big surprise to Jacko.
Sandgaard micro-managing the club and interfering in team selection? This has been boiling for awhile. The management of the club has certainly been a big disappointment after the experiences of the last few years because Sandgaard appears unwilling to heed the lessons of the past or listen to those best-placed to give him advice. The marketing and commercial activities (with the notable exception of Charlton TV) have been laughable and a tragic missed opportunity at the same time. However, Sandgaard ultimately pays the price for this because he foots the cost of the failure. He has moved, reluctantly I believe, to appoint a Chief Operating Officer, in Brian Jokat. It's too soon to see what difference this might make but the very fact that Jokat is COO and CEO tells you that Sandgaard intends to continue to be more heavily involved in day-to-day decisions that either he is not best-qualified for or which can't be done as effectively from Colorado whilst he is also running a multi-national-company.
I don't believe for a minute that he has been interfering in team selection. If he had we might have seen a change in formation or the blooding of youngsters in the final weeks of the season. Let's face it, he has even been paying for PL loanees who Jackson has decided not to use. What hasn't helped Sandgaard here is his attempts to appear more knowledgeable about the game than he really is. The "high press, low block" comments were naive and made it look like he is keen to play at manager, whereas I think he was really trying to say he wanted to see more positive attacking football. No-one would have called him out if he had said that.
His comment over recruitment timescales was also open to misinterpretation. Some read it as him not being concerned whether a replacement is found now or closer to kick-off because they won't have much say in player recruitment. We certainly have a broader recruitment model now and it didn't work well last year but I put much of the failure down to timing, a mistake I don't think we will make again. Some don't like the idea of data-informed recruitment or even anyone else having a say bar the manager. Both models can work equally successfully as we can see all around us, especially at the top of the game, so why not have more information if you are prepared to collect and consider it? No-one wants to see players being brought in purely on data but that would be foolish, as would even an over-reliance on it but that is only likely to be a risk if it proves successful.
The choice of new manager may also put some of these concerns to rest, so you have to hope the incomer is someone we all recognise as experienced, with a recent track record of success and a mind of their own. Nothing can be guaranteed, of course, but that might help calm the waters.
Sandguard is Duchatelet with a guitar! Jimmy Stone's well chosen phrase encapsulates what many are complaining about. Well he is a wealthy businessman owner with a big ego and a stubborn streak - not uncommon among successful businessman and certainly not amongst football club owners. He also understands far less about the game than he purports to and he is originally a mainland European and he does play guitar. Both have a record, so far, of getting through managers but both have experienced failure and it would be very harsh to compare Adkins or Jackson with Luzon, Fraye or Slade. Beyond that the comparison doesn't fare as well. Duchatelet practically never came to London and hardly ever saw us play. Sangaard has made huge efforts to be here and see games live. Duchatelet managed the club through Meire and she didn't care about the club's history or the supporters. Sandgaard has been very open to everything about the club and regularly plays guitar to the fans in the local after the game (however naff it may be). He and his partner have tried to be as open as possible and engage on social media although they appear to have learnt lessons with that and are toning it down.
Beyond that, Sandgaard is still in decent credit with me for rescuing the club at a time when we were desperate. He has put reasonable money in to clear debts, lift the transfer embargo and remove the threat of Administration. He has invested in players, even if this might have been below the level some expected and if we have had as many disappointments thus far as successes.
The jury is still out though over Sandgaard and he needs to make a number of good decisions now. The whole Women v Ladies thing was poorly thought-through and roughly executed. I can't see what it gains him but it's very obvious what it's cost - huge goodwill in and outside the club. Given his willingness elsewhere to listen, I am surprised he has chosen to continue with that one.
The choice of manager is critical as is the depth and quality of squad rebuilding. I think he also needs to focus on rebuilding some bridges with and between supporters ahead of next season. If the recruitment decisions are viewed favourably, he should look to build on that with some imaginatve and progressive initiatives around the club to excite supporters. The return of a family open day at Sparrows Lane in the Summer? An imaginative and attractive pre-season tour? Even a more imaginative package of incentives to encourage people to renew their season-tickets. He has to get this right and he must unite the support-base behind him and the club.
