30 Aug 2025 17:08:03
Well it looks like jackson is coming back so BM fans need not wory lol.
30 Aug 2025 17:20:25
Apparently Jackson furious about this late decision made after Delap. injury but also after he'd reached Germany. Do we want a furious Jackson who feels he isn't really wanted at the Bridge back i squad? Of course Delap injury makes bringing him back logical but surely SDSs could have realised that we needed three strikers in squad . especially as Pedro arguably better as a number 10?
30 Aug 2025 17:44:41
Delap injury having pretty major consequences.
Do most on here agree or disagree with decion to recall Jackson? Having initially not wanted him to go i got used to the idea and the Bayern deal seemed a good one. But can also see the logic at this stage in window of not being left with o ly one striker. So am not sure quite how to take this surprise return but if happening can only trust Jackson will be properly professional plus get his fairly hot tempered back in right space ASAP. Plus has apparently like Nkunku was been twining with squad until departure so hopefully on technical level adaptation back and to many players he has played with already will not ve too difficult. But Bayern must be pretty angry and may now end any interest they had in signing him permanently in due course?
30 Aug 2025 18:10:55
JBS, I think it is a very poor and shortsighted decision by the club. I don’t blame Jackson and Bayern Munich for being angry. It’s worrying that we feel unable to adapt to Delap’s injury. Many top clubs do not have a recognised No 9, which by the way Jackson isn’t. Pedro is much closer to that profile than Jackson. What is the point of spending all that money on wingers to put the ball into the 12 yard box with Jackson nowhere to be seen. A classic knee jerk reaction, I wonder who made the decision?
30 Aug 2025 19:01:55
i wouldn't recall him personally he's a loose cannon but totally understand the decision he does start all day long with delap out.
30 Aug 2025 20:57:17
Madness to recall him at this stage. What's the point? You think of model professionals who will just get on with the job, and then there are players who thrive on solely emotion. Jackson is 100% of the latter type. Is a disinterested Jackson (hardly a natural finisher to start with) worth having in the team? What about in the squad? Surely just give an academy player (Shim, for example, who's already made his first-team debut last season) a few minutes here and there where needed?
30 Aug 2025 21:30:47
Poch, yes I agree an understandable decision by the club. The decision makers have a duty of care to the club/ team.
I can understand Jackson being annoyed but he has a contract with the club. Anyway he can go in the next window if Delap has recovered.
30 Aug 2025 22:14:55
Edw, exactly. As I said the fact that we apparently can’t cope when one of our two strikers is out for 8 weeks is bizarre. Arsenal have played a 15 year old and Liverpool a 17 year old already in the PL. This makes us look ridiculous and untrustworthy as a club.
30 Aug 2025 22:46:10
I’m not sure what the age of players playing for another club has to with the decision makers at Chelsea thinking that the best option for the club is not to go ahead with the Jackson loan.
I suppose we might have a young CF ready to step in as premiership cover but I haven’t seen one.
31 Aug 2025 08:12:29
Tom, if you’re sure, why comment.? “Duty of care… “ absolute nonsense; this is not a safeguarding issue.
31 Aug 2025 15:25:49
Jimbo,
For you info Directors and managers have a fiduciary duty to ALL shareholders that also have a duty of care towards the company and its staff, private or public.
Directors/ decision makers have to work in the best interests of their respective company.
31 Aug 2025 17:01:37
Tom, I am fully aware of what the fiduciary duty of care is. From you attempt to use it in the context of the cancellation of the loan agreement; I suggest you brush up on it. There are no fiduciary duty of care issues involved in the decision by the club; it is a football decision. One again; utter nonsense.
31 Aug 2025 17:54:31
It was very clearly made about the club not the player in this case. I never referred to a duty of care for the player. So, yet again it is your misinterpretation that is utter nonsense.
Just so you know, Directors, managers and employer’s have a duty of care to the shareholders and staff but in this case I was clearly referring to the club.
As far as “brushing up on it” I was a CEO and chairman of a multi national company for 15 years. I was well aware of my responsibilities then and I well await of a companies management duties now!
31 Aug 2025 21:41:37
Tom, bully for you. I have never mentioned Jackson; he is irrelevant to the issue of the proposed loan deal. You firstly justified your position by asserting general issues regarding “duty of care” . Then when challenged turned to fiduciary duty of care for the club’s decision. For your argument to stand up, within a couple of hours after a player suffered a common injury the hierarchy became so concerned about their duties as a fiduciary and a potential breach thereof that they decided to cancel a loan deal. i would be interested to know which beneficiaries of trust would be affected by the loan deal. Try the United Nations Convention on Human Rights next time, it might be more relevant.
31 Aug 2025 22:22:03
I used the term “fiduciary duty and “duty of care” in the same post as an example of directors/ managers responsibility to the club/ company.
You are the person/ poster questioning my point about directors/ managers responsibility.
I have NEVER mentioned any “beneficiaries of trust” or the “United Nations. ”
I did mention earlier in this thread how “I can understand how Jackson might be annoyed” but I also said “he has a contract. ”
I will try and make my point clearer. The player may well be annoyed but the director’s/ manager have a duty to the club.
31 Aug 2025 23:43:19
I am totally disinterested about Jackson’s annoyance albeit understandable for reasons I alluded to previously. I will try to make my point clearer; the knee jerk reaction by the club to a common place occurrence is bizarre. i have also explained why I think so. I have also given my opinion about contracts. The decision by the club is a minor footballing decision albeit a strange one and nothing to do with some higher duty of care to the club.
01 Sep 2025 06:33:44
It’s hardly “bizarre” or unusual for a club to pull out of a transfer for lots of reasons, including injuries to other players. The manager/ directos should at all times be acting in the best interest of the club. That is there duty.
That you are disinterested in other people’s opinions on the matter is up to you. I personally will leave the editing to the Ed’s.