Multiple topics, so didn't want to put it just in a Wilder/Peck thread
Had a catch-up today with my contact. I reached out to ask about Peck, but it was much more insightful....
I will get to the Wilder bit, but it was really interesting to hear how much the inner workings of the club have changed since the new ownership came in. It seems a lot of it has been led by Bettis, internally, who I have previously (perhaps now unfairly) criticised as a CEO. He has had approval from the new owners to implement a lot of his operational improvements, which the Prince previously didn't allow him to do. They are very much hands-on with regards strategy, but leave all tactical operations to the CEO, and indeed delivery of their strategy, which is how most large businesses work. The Prince didn't operate like that. Probably a telling sign when they came in and then after a period, made the CEO position a board position, with Bettis in it.
Regarding Peck, no change on the last update I had. He wants to go, and the club see him as the best asset to return a net-positive improvement on the squad. The new ownership are incredibly tight on leaks, so I have no info at all on any other players, in or out.
So, Wilder. He has already been told his contract will be terminated. So anyone thinking it is being done while he is trying to enjoy a holiday, or thinking it'll wait till he comes back, it's already done. What wasn't/isn't fully done was the financial package for the termination, which is handled by Wilder's agent. It supposedly wasn't as simple as the reported 500k termination clause. It is staggered based upon year of contract, and Wilder wanted what was owed (100% fair), but the owners were negotiating. I don't know any more. But the headline I guess is he won't be the manager next season and won't be carrying out any other duties of the manager from now on. The meetings being talked about in the media/socials are either wrong in terms of dates, or wrong in terms of agenda. The sack decision is already done.
Why is he being sacked? It's very much performance-based but also due to an 'opportunity in replacement'. I take that to mean the owners have/had the opportunity to get someone in that they see as better, so in reaction they are dropping CW. That's the best way it could be done IMO. Better than "let's sack him because we don't want him, then look for someone else", instead they found the better one before deciding to get rid of Chris. My contact emphasised that the owners see year 2 of the parachute payments the key one if you want to make a mid-term manager change. It seems that year one is often one you play it fairly safe, then year two is your gamble year.
Interesting chat, though I still had so many deep-dive questions, but this regime would crucify anyone leaking truly sensitive stuff internally. All the above is basically out there by one source or another, except the Peck actually wanting to leave bit. But I already shared that on here back in April
