It puzzles me why people are so obsessed with bringing Floyd and Harvey back, when they were just generic mascots anyway with no connection to us.
Its something that people can associate with their youth and the happier times at the Valley - What we must remember and be careful of at the same time is there will be kids who attend the Valley who relate to the Knight and Robin now
I think kids today are generally quite capable of spotting things that are rubbish. Off with their heads!
Never mind the Football League's Fit and Proper Test, put prospective owners in front of clubs' junior supporters and see what reaction they give.
If Airman's correct the bairns will sift out the wrong 'uns in an instant!
Thanks to CAS Trust and TS for an excellent evening. What an amazing contrast between last night and those strangulated, stage managed, content controlled and censored events endured by Meire (and shunned by Duchatalet). Thomas was warm, engaging, inspiring and as open as he was legally possible to be.
Very well managed by all the Trust Board members present, but with a special mention for Sam who handled the selection of questions and prompting of Thomas very well indeed.
Yes well done Sam for sensibly ignoring my question about how much Money Mouthall walked away with even though it got enough up votes!
Oh it was you. :-) The way it was phrased made it most unlikely it was going to be asked, because Sam was otherwise playing a straight bat and reading out all questions exactly as phrased. But I doubt TS'd have wanted to talk about any settlements anyway, and there would be confidentiality clauses.
Wasn't expecting it to be asked. I threw it in the hat early before we were told how the evening would work. Was half hoping Thomas could be coaxed into a rant about the previous scumbags but other than his message "you dont mess with Charlton anymore" I dont think he wanted to say more.
Looking to have a Fan Liaison Officer, not sure how that's going to pan out.
That was my question.
Depending how much they expect and what the pay may be like, I’ll apply.
Please do @Sage This was the one thing that troubled me last night. It would be awful for that role to go to some wannabe character rather than someone who can work across all areas of the fanbase.
I was amazed that he said that the club hadn't looked into the issue re half year season tickets as a lot of loyal fans refused to buy one as the money would have gone to the leeches in charge at the time.
That seems a massive oversight to me. I've been a regular for 52 years and didn't renew purely because of the owner situation. I actually feel more loyal than those that bought tickets tbh. I apply the same principle to the B20 etc who boycotted during home games during the Roland era. I just could not do it, but I have massive admiration for them.
Looking to have a Fan Liaison Officer, not sure how that's going to pan out.
That was my question.
Depending how much they expect and what the pay may be like, I’ll apply.
Please do @Sage This was the one thing that troubled me last night. It would be awful for that role to go to some wannabe character rather than someone who can work across all areas of the fanbase.
I was amazed that he said that the club hadn't looked into the issue re half year season tickets as a lot of loyal fans refused to buy one as the money would have gone to the leeches in charge at the time.
That seems a massive oversight to me. I've been a regular for 52 years and didn't renew purely because of the owner situation. I actually feel more loyal than those that bought tickets tbh. I apply the same principle to the B20 etc who boycotted during home games during the Roland era. I just could not do it, but I have massive admiration for them.
Whats the point though if people have paid for Season Tickets when they cant be let into games though?
They've got a bit of a nightmare with 4,000 ST holders so cant see them being overly eager to make life worse for themselves
Looking to have a Fan Liaison Officer, not sure how that's going to pan out.
That was my question.
Depending how much they expect and what the pay may be like, I’ll apply.
Please do @Sage This was the one thing that troubled me last night. It would be awful for that role to go to some wannabe character rather than someone who can work across all areas of the fanbase.
Don't doubt @sage would be great but we already have a supporters' liaison officer
Don’t want to sound mean but you have to question the current effectiveness if you seem to be the only person aware of this.
lots of people seem to get excited about this Fan Liaison role and recommend others for it etc. I don’t think the vast majority of fans have much of an idea of what such a role most likely entails. I think they’d lower their interest or change their suggestions if they did.
That's a very fair point although I don't think all the blame sits with the role holder. How easy would that role have been before Sandgaard arrived? Almost impossible IMHO.
What it entails is really about what it's aims are/should be and how they fit into the bigger picture. Could the role be beefed up and given a higher profile and bigger remit? Absolutely.
It's now very common for businesses to have customer liaison staff, why wouldn't a club want a more substantial role in communicating with customers fans
It puzzles me why people are so obsessed with bringing Floyd and Harvey back, when they were just generic mascots anyway with no connection to us.
Its something that people can associate with their youth and the happier times at the Valley - What we must remember and be careful of at the same time is there will be kids who attend the Valley who relate to the Knight and Robin now
Looking at it objectively a knight and a robin make far more sense than a cat and dog. It must be solely because they were brought in by Meire that people are against them. Imo it's the only good decision she made. Just rename them Floyd and Harvey and it all makes sense.
It puzzles me why people are so obsessed with bringing Floyd and Harvey back, when they were just generic mascots anyway with no connection to us.
Its something that people can associate with their youth and the happier times at the Valley - What we must remember and be careful of at the same time is there will be kids who attend the Valley who relate to the Knight and Robin now
Looking at it objectively a knight and a robin make far more sense than a cat and dog. It must be solely because they were brought in by Meire that people are against them. Imo it's the only good decision she made. Just rename them Floyd and Harvey and it all makes sense.
At least Floyd looked the business unlike the knight in his poundland outfit.
It puzzles me why people are so obsessed with bringing Floyd and Harvey back, when they were just generic mascots anyway with no connection to us.
Now now... Floyd Road and Harvey Gardens, but a dog and a cat is better than a slab of tarmac and a bloke wearing some astroturf with a flower pot on his head.
The animals have no connection to us. You could have a fridge and a kangaroo named Floyd and Harvey and it would have just as much relevance
The current mascots aren't great but at least they do have some connection to our history, and previous nicknames
Ultimately, nothing has any connection with us other than time and what goes on in our heads.
Take the knight. There are no knights in the Charlton story, except for Bertram Knight who played three games back in 1922 (and yes, I had to look that up). I'm guessing that the connection in most peoples' heads is that the knight carries a sword and there's a sword on the Charlton badge. That sword may have been with us for fifty years, but it wasn't really ours. We culturally appropriated it from the City of London. They didn't really own it either, they copied it from the church. The church didn't have to copy it though, because their whole stock in trade is just making things up; if they want to invent a sword they'll just invent one and a saint to carry it. Anyway, the knight is called Sir Valiant. So perhaps that's the connection. But that's the nickname that is never heard anymore because that has been roundly rejected by most Charlton fans.
Then take the robin, or as it is known for some reason, Robyn. Why are were Charlton The Robins? Because they come out to the song The Red Red Robin? Possibly. Because they wear red shirts? More likely, but why do they play in red shirts? There's no known historical reason and certainly nothing of any great meaning. Maybe it was someone's favourite colour. Maybe when they went to the haberdashers it was the only colour they could get in sufficient quantities. We'll probably never know the exact answer but ultimately the only reason red is the Charlton colour is because we think it is.
Based against this, rejecting Floyd and Harvey because they have no connection to our history seems very harsh. I'm beaconing to thing Henry's fishmonger mascot is the only true way to go.
I believe that we wear red shirts due to getting Arsenal's throwaways just as they got theirs from Forest. I stand to be corrected but I'm not making it up. I've read something along these lines in one of many football history books I've read.
I think a fishmonger mascot is a good idea as long as he is partnered by a trainspotter mascot holding a thermos flask and blanket.
Was strange to see the robin and knight out yesterday given Sandgaard’s comments about them being rested due to COVID, but my main takeaway was being reminded just how god awful the robin looks
It puzzles me why people are so obsessed with bringing Floyd and Harvey back, when they were just generic mascots anyway with no connection to us.
Now now... Floyd Road and Harvey Gardens, but a dog and a cat is better than a slab of tarmac and a bloke wearing some astroturf with a flower pot on his head.
The animals have no connection to us. You could have a fridge and a kangaroo named Floyd and Harvey and it would have just as much relevance
The current mascots aren't great but at least they do have some connection to our history, and previous nicknames
Ultimately, nothing has any connection with us other than time and what goes on in our heads.
Take the knight. There are no knights in the Charlton story, except for Bertram Knight who played three games back in 1922 (and yes, I had to look that up). I'm guessing that the connection in most peoples' heads is that the knight carries a sword and there's a sword on the Charlton badge. That sword may have been with us for fifty years, but it wasn't really ours. We culturally appropriated it from the City of London. They didn't really own it either, they copied it from the church. The church didn't have to copy it though, because their whole stock in trade is just making things up; if they want to invent a sword they'll just invent one and a saint to carry it. Anyway, the knight is called Sir Valiant. So perhaps that's the connection. But that's the nickname that is never heard anymore because that has been roundly rejected by most Charlton fans.
Then take the robin, or as it is known for some reason, Robyn. Why are were Charlton The Robins? Because they come out to the song The Red Red Robin? Possibly. Because they wear red shirts? More likely, but why do they play in red shirts? There's no known historical reason and certainly nothing of any great meaning. Maybe it was someone's favourite colour. Maybe when they went to the haberdashers it was the only colour they could get in sufficient quantities. We'll probably never know the exact answer but ultimately the only reason red is the Charlton colour is because we think it is.
Based against this, rejecting Floyd and Harvey because they have no connection to our history seems very harsh. I'm beaconing to thing Henry's fishmonger mascot is the only true way to go.
I believe that we wear red shirts due to getting Arsenal's throwaways just as they got theirs from Forest. I stand to be corrected but I'm not making it up. I've read something along these lines in one of many football history books I've read.
I think a fishmonger mascot is a good idea as long as he is partnered by a trainspotter mascot holding a thermos flask and blanket.
Stand corrected. No evidence for that wild theory whatsoever @jimmymelrose
Pretty sure you've never read it in any Charlton book either
It puzzles me why people are so obsessed with bringing Floyd and Harvey back, when they were just generic mascots anyway with no connection to us.
Now now... Floyd Road and Harvey Gardens, but a dog and a cat is better than a slab of tarmac and a bloke wearing some astroturf with a flower pot on his head.
The animals have no connection to us. You could have a fridge and a kangaroo named Floyd and Harvey and it would have just as much relevance
The current mascots aren't great but at least they do have some connection to our history, and previous nicknames
Ultimately, nothing has any connection with us other than time and what goes on in our heads.
Take the knight. There are no knights in the Charlton story, except for Bertram Knight who played three games back in 1922 (and yes, I had to look that up). I'm guessing that the connection in most peoples' heads is that the knight carries a sword and there's a sword on the Charlton badge. That sword may have been with us for fifty years, but it wasn't really ours. We culturally appropriated it from the City of London. They didn't really own it either, they copied it from the church. The church didn't have to copy it though, because their whole stock in trade is just making things up; if they want to invent a sword they'll just invent one and a saint to carry it. Anyway, the knight is called Sir Valiant. So perhaps that's the connection. But that's the nickname that is never heard anymore because that has been roundly rejected by most Charlton fans.
Then take the robin, or as it is known for some reason, Robyn. Why are were Charlton The Robins? Because they come out to the song The Red Red Robin? Possibly. Because they wear red shirts? More likely, but why do they play in red shirts? There's no known historical reason and certainly nothing of any great meaning. Maybe it was someone's favourite colour. Maybe when they went to the haberdashers it was the only colour they could get in sufficient quantities. We'll probably never know the exact answer but ultimately the only reason red is the Charlton colour is because we think it is.
Based against this, rejecting Floyd and Harvey because they have no connection to our history seems very harsh. I'm beaconing to thing Henry's fishmonger mascot is the only true way to go.
I believe that we wear red shirts due to getting Arsenal's throwaways just as they got theirs from Forest. I stand to be corrected but I'm not making it up. I've read something along these lines in one of many football history books I've read.
I think a fishmonger mascot is a good idea as long as he is partnered by a trainspotter mascot holding a thermos flask and blanket.
Mmmm I’ve read a lot of books on us and on football history ... never seen that before and very much doubt it
It puzzles me why people are so obsessed with bringing Floyd and Harvey back, when they were just generic mascots anyway with no connection to us.
Now now... Floyd Road and Harvey Gardens, but a dog and a cat is better than a slab of tarmac and a bloke wearing some astroturf with a flower pot on his head.
The animals have no connection to us. You could have a fridge and a kangaroo named Floyd and Harvey and it would have just as much relevance
The current mascots aren't great but at least they do have some connection to our history, and previous nicknames
Ultimately, nothing has any connection with us other than time and what goes on in our heads.
Take the knight. There are no knights in the Charlton story, except for Bertram Knight who played three games back in 1922 (and yes, I had to look that up). I'm guessing that the connection in most peoples' heads is that the knight carries a sword and there's a sword on the Charlton badge. That sword may have been with us for fifty years, but it wasn't really ours. We culturally appropriated it from the City of London. They didn't really own it either, they copied it from the church. The church didn't have to copy it though, because their whole stock in trade is just making things up; if they want to invent a sword they'll just invent one and a saint to carry it. Anyway, the knight is called Sir Valiant. So perhaps that's the connection. But that's the nickname that is never heard anymore because that has been roundly rejected by most Charlton fans.
Then take the robin, or as it is known for some reason, Robyn. Why are were Charlton The Robins? Because they come out to the song The Red Red Robin? Possibly. Because they wear red shirts? More likely, but why do they play in red shirts? There's no known historical reason and certainly nothing of any great meaning. Maybe it was someone's favourite colour. Maybe when they went to the haberdashers it was the only colour they could get in sufficient quantities. We'll probably never know the exact answer but ultimately the only reason red is the Charlton colour is because we think it is.
Based against this, rejecting Floyd and Harvey because they have no connection to our history seems very harsh. I'm beaconing to thing Henry's fishmonger mascot is the only true way to go.
I believe that we wear red shirts due to getting Arsenal's throwaways just as they got theirs from Forest. I stand to be corrected but I'm not making it up. I've read something along these lines in one of many football history books I've read.
I think a fishmonger mascot is a good idea as long as he is partnered by a trainspotter mascot holding a thermos flask and blanket.
Stand corrected. No evidence for that wild theory whatsoever @jimmymelrose
Pretty sure you've never read it in any Charlton book either
From Wikipedia: Forest were a multi-sports club. As well as their roots in bandy and shinty, Forest's baseball club were British champions in 1899.[6] Forest's charitable approach helped clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Brighton & Hove Albion to form. In 1886, Forest donated a set of football kits to help Arsenal establish themselves – the North London team still wear red. Forest also donated shirts to Everton and helped secure a site to play on for Brighton.
It puzzles me why people are so obsessed with bringing Floyd and Harvey back, when they were just generic mascots anyway with no connection to us.
Now now... Floyd Road and Harvey Gardens, but a dog and a cat is better than a slab of tarmac and a bloke wearing some astroturf with a flower pot on his head.
The animals have no connection to us. You could have a fridge and a kangaroo named Floyd and Harvey and it would have just as much relevance
The current mascots aren't great but at least they do have some connection to our history, and previous nicknames
Ultimately, nothing has any connection with us other than time and what goes on in our heads.
Take the knight. There are no knights in the Charlton story, except for Bertram Knight who played three games back in 1922 (and yes, I had to look that up). I'm guessing that the connection in most peoples' heads is that the knight carries a sword and there's a sword on the Charlton badge. That sword may have been with us for fifty years, but it wasn't really ours. We culturally appropriated it from the City of London. They didn't really own it either, they copied it from the church. The church didn't have to copy it though, because their whole stock in trade is just making things up; if they want to invent a sword they'll just invent one and a saint to carry it. Anyway, the knight is called Sir Valiant. So perhaps that's the connection. But that's the nickname that is never heard anymore because that has been roundly rejected by most Charlton fans.
Then take the robin, or as it is known for some reason, Robyn. Why are were Charlton The Robins? Because they come out to the song The Red Red Robin? Possibly. Because they wear red shirts? More likely, but why do they play in red shirts? There's no known historical reason and certainly nothing of any great meaning. Maybe it was someone's favourite colour. Maybe when they went to the haberdashers it was the only colour they could get in sufficient quantities. We'll probably never know the exact answer but ultimately the only reason red is the Charlton colour is because we think it is.
Based against this, rejecting Floyd and Harvey because they have no connection to our history seems very harsh. I'm beaconing to thing Henry's fishmonger mascot is the only true way to go.
I believe that we wear red shirts due to getting Arsenal's throwaways just as they got theirs from Forest. I stand to be corrected but I'm not making it up. I've read something along these lines in one of many football history books I've read.
I think a fishmonger mascot is a good idea as long as he is partnered by a trainspotter mascot holding a thermos flask and blanket.
Stand corrected. No evidence for that wild theory whatsoever @jimmymelrose
Pretty sure you've never read it in any Charlton book either
From Wikipedia: Forest were a multi-sports club. As well as their roots in bandy and shinty, Forest's baseball club were British champions in 1899.[6] Forest's charitable approach helped clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal and Brighton & Hove Albion to form. In 1886, Forest donated a set of football kits to help Arsenal establish themselves – the North London team still wear red. Forest also donated shirts to Everton and helped secure a site to play on for Brighton.
No mention of Charlton getting their shirts from Arsenal which was your unique theory. The players bought the first set of shirts in a department store in Woolwich and dyed them red.
And Arsenal historians dispute the story that Forest gave them their first set of shirts.
Comments
If Airman's correct the bairns will sift out the wrong 'uns in an instant!
If I had, I would have addressed my email to her when I was "slightly miffed " with the season ticket lottery for matchday tickets a week ago.
I'm guessing it was filed away in a suitable receptacle.
That seems a massive oversight to me. I've been a regular for 52 years and didn't renew purely because of the owner situation. I actually feel more loyal than those that bought tickets tbh. I apply the same principle to the B20 etc who boycotted during home games during the Roland era. I just could not do it, but I have massive admiration for them.
Just this time, not interviews, rather the sack!
When and where will this Q&A be on line to view?
They've got a bit of a nightmare with 4,000 ST holders so cant see them being overly eager to make life worse for themselves
What it entails is really about what it's aims are/should be and how they fit into the bigger picture. Could the role be beefed up and given a higher profile and bigger remit? Absolutely.
It's now very common for businesses to have customer liaison staff, why wouldn't a club want a more substantial role in communicating with customers fans
I stand to be corrected but I'm not making it up. I've read something along these lines in one of many football history books I've read.
I think a fishmonger mascot is a good idea as long as he is partnered by a trainspotter mascot holding a thermos flask and blanket.
Pretty sure you've never read it in any Charlton book either
Is @sage demanding too much money, the greedy ingrate? 😉
I am a deaf old Git but I didn't hear even the odd bar over the stream.
Has it gone as part of the Bright New Regime?
And Arsenal historians dispute the story that Forest gave them their first set of shirts.