RevidgeBlue

His thousands of subscribers must lap it up though.

"Short bursts of doing ok" describes Hyam to a tee. Ironically alongside Wharton and later Batth.

Hmm.... definitely wouldn't call him lazy. Hopefully irrelevant now but by no means a given that the Club will ever recover from the position he left us in, stripped to the bone at a point where the owners have lost interest.

Aye, he's so thick, he allegedly conned money out of Andy Cole and somehow commandeered salaries of several hundreds of thousands of pounds for running his respective Clubs into the ground everywhere he went.

Best defender we have when he's fit and playing well. If someone had to go would be far better off shipping out the massively over-rated Hyam.

Jackson needs to avoid becoming the PR man for the Regime again. Why would merely re- signing one of our players up on a new deal represent a major statement of intent? We can't even get 34 year old Batth over the line for another season. As others have said - just announce signings after they're made. Otherwise it's a complete non story.

Be careful not to be used as the PR mouthpiece for Waggott. His camp have obviously leaked the alleged story about him previously being receptive to the idea of external investment in the women's team as if true it tends to paint him in a positive light. However I'd say it's doubtful at this stage whether the women's side has any real intrinsic value as an investment vehicle and unfortunately for him (probably fortunately for us) he was not at liberty to be selling off chunks of equity in any part of the Club ( or the training ground). He's not the owner. I'd tend to take the massive hike in his own personal remuneration as a more reliable guide to his character.

Yes, he's the undertaker all right.

Complaining about Tuchel's squads now is a bit like complaining about who Ismael selects in the pre season friendlies. All that matters is what happens at the World Cup. I still have a lot more confidence of Tuchel bringing success than I ever would have under wet lettuce Southgate.

Mark Brfc beat me to it but - No, just cheaper inferior ones to replace the ones we've already got.

The suggestion that Pasha has been telling the owners that all is well and they don't need to spend has been doing the rounds for a few seasons now from a variety of "inside" sources. I didn't give it any credence at first, it's just too ludicrous for words, who apart from their right mind (apart from Mowbray) would be discouraging the owners from spending? Anyone normal on the ground would be doing their utmost to persuade the owners to spend as much on players as they possibly could. Does seem to be an increasingly common suggestion though - not least from one of our former managers" "Ask Suhail".

Question not directed at me but I've always thought it was those on the ground at Ewood whose cushy little number with minimum hassle would be affected - Suhail, Waggott, Mowbray, Venus, Lowe, Caley etc etc. Gestede has now come in and seemingly bought quickly into the "Play offs weren't the target this season it was building for next year" line. Can't see why the owners wouldn't want promotion if only to recoup some losses.

Exactly. Conversely if they'd gone the other way and suddenly decided to fully fund the women's side for good PR, bearing in mind it's not PSR related, but not communicated the decision miles in advance, that would have been absolutely fine. In general terms there genuinely isn't any impediment to them funding the women's side if they wanted to, they obviously just don't want to. It does make me continue to worry if funding has now been completely cut off all round , no matter what the situation, but we haven't quite got to crisis point yet.

Somebody who holds a stake? Beyond that I'm no wiser than you are. Trendy buzzword for something or other I presume.

Just seen a decent article online alleging Waggott and the owners clashed over the women's team. Apparently a meeting was held last season at which a firm which invests in women's football by taking an equity share offered external investment into the Rovers women's side. The article alleges that Waggott would have been up for such investment but the owners refused because they thought the optics of accepting investment for the women but not the men's team looked bad. Interesting if true. Edit: It might be this Company have done us a massive favour by hastening Waggott's long overdue departure even if they didn't get their investment.

What if we lose the first six or seven last season? Will you change your mind again and concede you were right in the first place and wrong to change your mind when we won a few? 🙂

Because a better CEO might have the mindset that he or she can achieve similar results by attempting to increase revenues or at least bums on seats rather than just shrinking the Club and merely cutting costs.

It is technically possible I suppose that they could appoint someone just as bad or even worse. Id suggest they'd have to go go some though if it was anyone external.

So do you think the owners micromanage the Club from India on a daily basis and Waggott just sat there not doing anything other than what he was specifically told? I'm sure for £300k p.a. (initially) he'd have had a lot more latitude than that and neither do I believe the owners show enough interest in the Club to have that level of involvement.

Who apart from you and WATR care whether they communicate? It's whether they do the right thing or not which matters.

Waggott has done exactly what HE'S wanted for years.

https://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/80230/steve-waggott-appointed-chief-executive-of-blackburn/p4 Looks like the Charlton fans had Waggott sussed many years before we ever heard of him - and not a Suhail type villain to be typecast as the main culprit in sight. Unbelievable he cost them c£500k for two years of not very much as well. How do people like him keep getting gigs on those sort of salaries?

Didn't it say in the LT our initial proposal to him had been rejected? I mean how difficult can it really be to re-sign a 34 year old CB for a further 12 months? What the hell were we offering?

Well said Sir. My thoughts exactly.

The only cautionary note to be sounded about Waggott leaving is that he wouldn't leave that cushy number unless it were absolutely necessary. Having massively upped his own remuneration in the last set of accounts that might have been one last hurrah from him before he left knowing the s**t was flying unerringly towards the fan. Might be he wanted to exit stage left before he got the blame for none of the better players being signed up to new deals this summer or next etc. If it is a sign of internal implosion and the owners' exit possibly being hastened, most will view that as a positive I'm sure.