Taking sides

José Riga's playing a good game, taking every opportunity to put some distance between himself and the Duchâtelet deathstar. Here's what he said to the BBC on his return to Charlton.

A lot of people think I am part of the network but I am not at all, because I went to other places. For me it is a professional relationship between an owner and a coach - not more.

But it's very similar to what he said when he was appointed as head coach at Standard for the second time:

[Duchâtelet] is just a chairman looking for a coach, full stop. [...] Just like when he first gave me a job with Standard, or the job with Charlton.

So, that's four times now that Duchâtelet has been just a chairman looking for a coach, and Riga has been that coach.

Either Riga is exploiting Duchâtelet's fear of strangers, or Duchâtelet is exploiting Riga's fear of the dole queue.

Today the talk has all been about Reece Oxford, by all accounts a brilliant 17 year old defensive midfielder with West Ham. Opinions were divided on whether his putative loan move to Charlton was a good thing or not. Consensus: excellent prospect, but not what Charlton most need, especially with Tony Watt apparently heading out the door again.

Late in the day it appeared the deal had broken down because Riga had vetoed it. And suddenly the story offered a bewildering flowerhead of possibilities.

1 In time-honoured fashion, the deathstar arranged the deal without speaking to Riga. On learning about it, he said no.

2 Oxford did a bit of research, realised what a snakepit Charlton is, said no, for god's sake no, and Charlton devised a story to cover this up.

3 The whole thing was never going to happen, but it made Riga look like an independent-minded man.

The problem with option 1 is that it assumes Riga has the power to say no. Option 2 doesn't seem likely: it's based on a tweet by Oxford that was misinterpreted. His anger and frustration was not at being shipped off to Charlton but at the fact that his chance to get some gametime was being denied. Option 3 could only be true if Charlton were run and managed by a lying, immoral group of chancers who are desperately trying to regain some credibility.

Hmmmmmmmmm. Which of these, dear readers, is the most likely explanation?