Womens international teams are that good the United States (one of the best ones) got turned over by Dallas FC under 15 team.
So what? That's why men and women play in different teams. Men are naturally stronger and faster. It doesn't mean that the women are therefore no good at the sport, or not entertaining to watch.
Do you also use this kind of of comparison for the Paralympics?
Womens international teams are that good the United States (one of the best ones) got turned over by Dallas FC under 15 team.
So what? That's why men and women play in different teams. Men are naturally stronger and faster. It doesn't mean that the women are therefore no good at the sport, or not entertaining to watch.
Do you also use this kind of of comparison for the Paralympics?
I don't watch Paralympics either I'm afraid. Each to their own. In response to ( @holyjo ) it's the same sport ? Football.
Womens international teams are that good the United States (one of the best ones) got turned over by Dallas FC under 15 team.
So what? That's why men and women play in different teams. Men are naturally stronger and faster. It doesn't mean that the women are therefore no good at the sport, or not entertaining to watch.
Do you also use this kind of of comparison for the Paralympics?
I don't watch Paralympics either I'm afraid. Each to their own. In response to ( @holyjo ) it's the same sport ? Football.
Well then, here's a suggestion. How about you shut up and leave it to people who DO watch it, and might therefore have an opinion that's just a teensy bit more relevant than you uninformed one?
I entirely agree Women’s football is a different sport.
As someone asked if anyone was in support of the change of name, rather than simply decrying the decision which will take us nowhere I remain open to the argument. It palpably is an issue to be addressed. I concede I have a fundamental problem with anyone being defined by « labels » whatever they are.
So if this is simply a « it’s my fiefdom » decision then it is not only the rebranding which is wrong it is the message which comes with it.
I thank Weegie for putting her head above the proverbial parapets.
I respect her position. I have expressed my own reservations.
Though it is open to all to respond I believe she has no little expertise in Marketing & Communications and thus at the very least a working knowledge of brand asset management. I will thus play devils advocate to pose one question.
Whether you reject the change of name or not, tell me how do you grow the market, the brand and the revenues of Charlton Athletic Professional Women's Football to move beyond the current financial largesse.
We all know the background here. For reasons beyond its control this gender specific industry has limited community profiles, no meaningful tradition, no meaningful grassroots infrastructure, no meaningful pathway, and at this point even at the highest levels a relatively very modest quality performance product. (While it is a different sport it will by dint of organisational structure be compared to the men’s game)
(I mean no disrespect to any player, official and body of support for the club in situ or who have enabled it to trade over the past decade or more. I spent 30yrs in and around levels 7-9 of the male football pyramid. I recognise the endeavour, the skills and competitive nature of the game at such levels)
I concede I have limited knowledge of the competitive environment of a women's changing room beyond some decades ago when recovering from an injury myself I spent 6 months assisting with the physio and injury treatment of a very competitive women's hockey team.
In all honesty the "industrial" nature of the environment did not seem dramatically different to most male football team working environments. So I like to think I have a little understanding of the « sensitivities » of such a competitive women's sporting environment being alienated by the name change.
Yet this is a new business and whatever the title a new professional brand in a largely very sparsely populated marketplace.
So to a new business engineer the words "but women is the brand everyone uses in this market » or "this is what every one in the professional game thinks" are pure poison.
The very last thing I want to do with a new business is what everyone else is doing.
Crucially to be brutal selling to those currently all about Women's football will never generate the market numbers or revenues to make the women's game financially viable. Take the proposition down to Charlton's Women's football current entourage where the starting numbers are miniscule and the journey to commercial viability is huge.
In essence Marketing to those already in the game will not make a gnats difference to the commercial viability of the game at a club level. Sky's involvement is important but it would be delusional not to recognise televising the Women's game represents low cost screen time notably as they continue to lose parity with competitors for the men's elite competitions.
The amount of screen fillers now on Sky Sports is becoming embarrassing. At the recent Champions League draw they had 3 supposed professionals in a studio commentating on someone extracting the balls for the draw. It was even more hilarious when the whole draw was ultimately void.
With Sky's parent company I can see its continued support of the Women's game because sponsorship and marketing revenues within US Women's Soccer despite recent challenges remain viable if not robust. So it can be done.
However the USA has had decades of infrastructure, pathway development from schools, colleges, Universities (Scholarships) not only feeding into their professional game but into the related consumer market. Seeing girls bedecked in soccer gear with families heading for a post game meal is a common place as boys.
My granddaughter aged 4 goes to soccer training every week.
Indeed I want to understand why Mr Sandgaard feels the name change will be seen differently in the US or any global market where comparable gender label contradictions exist. If it is no more than a stubborn whim he has an even bigger journey to travel.
That said and whether you, I or anyone likes it, the reality is in the UK today, the only reason Charlton's Women Professionals have a voice is because someone; - brought them in under the one club professional brand - integrated them into the organisational & operational infrastructure to enjoy integrated training and medical facilities - offered them full time professional contracts
That IS empowering.
As it stands the only reason Charlton's Women Professionals will likely have a voice in 5yrs time is because of the very same someone.
Ultimately for me actions speak louder than words. These young women have been afforded equal career opportunities at every operational level. Fully accepting workplace branding is important, the brand itself in a gender specific industry is at best a borderline equal opportunities issue. It is a different sport.
I can but further express one word of caution, While I recognize the experience will be new to many with equal professional opportunities come equal professional responsibilities.
Leaked articles to the media serve no one in this situation but the media. One national newspaper article with half a dozen added tweets and 20 pages on a message board don't really hit the mark in seeking to generate constructive change.
If someone gives you a voice within a professional community you have to respect the responsibility. Respect is a two way street.
I remain unconvinced by the change made but while butting heads in these circumstances may be good for the soul there has to be a better way forward.
...I concede I have limited knowledge of the competitive environment of a women's changing room beyond some decades ago when recovering from an injury myself I spent 6 months assisting with the physio and injury treatment of a very competitive women's hockey team...
...I concede I have limited knowledge of the competitive environment of a women's changing room beyond some decades ago when recovering from an injury myself I spent 6 months assisting with the physio and injury treatment of a very competitive women's hockey team...
..you sly dog, you...
I’ll wager in that time he only treated one player once he started telling her what was wrong with her…..
Just for the record, it is for the FA to sanction changes of name. It is not within the owner’s gift to make unilateral changes. He does not have their consent.
If you're happy that, as the new owner, Thomas Sandaard is perfectly entitled to change the name; and if you're equally happy that "the very last thing I want to do with a new business is what everyone else is doing", then, presumably, you'd have absolutely no problem with him changing the name to Charlton Athletic Soccer Club.
If you're happy that, as the new owner, Thomas Sandaard is perfectly entitled to change the name; and if you're equally happy that "the very last thing I want to do with a new business is what everyone else is doing", then, presumably, you'd have absolutely no problem with him changing the name to Charlton Athletic Soccer Club.
Wouldn't it be Charlton Athletic Association Football Club?
If you're happy that, as the new owner, Thomas Sandaard is perfectly entitled to change the name; and if you're equally happy that "the very last thing I want to do with a new business is what everyone else is doing", then, presumably, you'd have absolutely no problem with him changing the name to Charlton Athletic Soccer Club.
Wouldn't it be Charlton Athletic Association Football Club?
No, soccer is a derivative of Association Football and will add appeal to sales in the US
Womens international teams are that good the United States (one of the best ones) got turned over by Dallas FC under 15 team.
Women’s cycling is a good example, both on the track and on the road, of how women’s sport can be just as exciting as men’s, despite their physical disadvantages. The major differences are that their average speeds are lower, and that the women are less well known than the men at the moment, but that’ll change as the sport gets more TV coverage.
I once stumbled upon coverage of a woman’s triathlon on Eurosport, and the commentators were very good at giving you background information on the participants. I found it really fascinating, despite not being a triathlon fan. One of the women was a legend of the sport, making her comeback after a year or two away, and she won the event. When their race had finished the coverage switched the the men’s race. I watched for 10 minutes but found it less engaging as I didn’t know participants and didn’t watch for long enough to learn their back stories.
So given a level playing field women’s sport can be even more entertaining than the men’s.
All these things take time, and right now I prefer men’s football, tennis and cycling over women’s, but would I watch the women’s versions of those sports? Yes, and I do. It’s remarkable how the gap in quality between them has narrowed over the last ten or twenty years. And the more you watch the sports the more you get to know the individuals taking part, and the more entertaining it becomes.
Womens international teams are that good the United States (one of the best ones) got turned over by Dallas FC under 15 team.
Women’s cycling is a good example, both on the track and on the road, of how women’s sport can be just as exciting as men’s, despite their physical disadvantages. The major differences are that their average speeds are lower, and that the women are less well known than the men at the moment, but that’ll change as the sport gets more TV coverage.
I once stumbled upon coverage of a woman’s triathlon on Eurosport, and the commentators were very good at giving you background information on the participants. I found it really fascinating, despite not being a triathlon fan. One of the women was a legend of the sport, making her comeback after a year or two away, and she won the event. When their race had finished the coverage switched the the men’s race. I watched for 10 minutes but found it less engaging as I didn’t know participants and didn’t watch for long enough to learn their back stories.
So given a level playing field women’s sport can be even more entertaining than the men’s.
All these things take time, and right now I prefer men’s football, tennis and cycling over women’s, but would I watch the women’s versions of those sports? Yes, and I do. It’s remarkable how the gap in quality between them has narrowed over the last ten or twenty years. And the more you watch the sports the more you get to know the individuals taking part, and the more entertaining it becomes.
"Level playing field" is a terrible metaphor to use in this case.
But I agree with everything else!
If you want to watch the "best" of most things (even chess), you should just watch machines. But it's seeing people with human limitations struggling against each other that makes sport dramatic and fun to watch.
interesting that the report on the Watford game on the OS refers to Watford as "Watford Women" and Charlton as "Charlton" without a gender description, seems a good way to go
interesting that the report on the Watford game on the OS refers to Watford as "Watford Women" and Charlton as "Charlton" without a gender description, seems a good way to go
The Twitter feed is still Charlton Women.
The Tweet about last night's win was liked by Thomas without him referring to Charlton Ladies. A difference from all his previous retweets.
Womens international teams are that good the United States (one of the best ones) got turned over by Dallas FC under 15 team.
Women’s cycling is a good example, both on the track and on the road, of how women’s sport can be just as exciting as men’s, despite their physical disadvantages. The major differences are that their average speeds are lower, and that the women are less well known than the men at the moment, but that’ll change as the sport gets more TV coverage.
I once stumbled upon coverage of a woman’s triathlon on Eurosport, and the commentators were very good at giving you background information on the participants. I found it really fascinating, despite not being a triathlon fan. One of the women was a legend of the sport, making her comeback after a year or two away, and she won the event. When their race had finished the coverage switched the the men’s race. I watched for 10 minutes but found it less engaging as I didn’t know participants and didn’t watch for long enough to learn their back stories.
So given a level playing field women’s sport can be even more entertaining than the men’s.
All these things take time, and right now I prefer men’s football, tennis and cycling over women’s, but would I watch the women’s versions of those sports? Yes, and I do. It’s remarkable how the gap in quality between them has narrowed over the last ten or twenty years. And the more you watch the sports the more you get to know the individuals taking part, and the more entertaining it becomes.
"Level playing field" is a terrible metaphor to use in this case.
But I agree with everything else!
If you want to watch the "best" of most things (even chess), you should just watch machines. But it's seeing people with human limitations struggling against each other that makes sport dramatic and fun to watch.
Not sure you mean that. Have you watched robot football?
With Chess, the machines are almost there but, when you talk about 'best', that has to include the drama. Check out Game 6 of the recent Carlsen v Nepomniachitchi World Championship. That is sporting perfection.
Sport is more than just technical ability. It is a ballet, a dance, a play, a story. 'Best' doesn't just mean technical capability.
And siding with one team or another is part of the theatre.
Ladies? Women? I don't care.
But don't compare the two versions of football to one another. Enjoy each for what it is.
Decided to try and engage on Twitter about the change of name. Some men get angry about being able to call it the ladies team as they respect ladies while being overly aggressive and confrontational to women. To me that doesn’t tally up.
Decided to try and engage on Twitter about the change of name. Some men get angry about being able to call it the ladies team as they respect ladies while being overly aggressive and confrontational to women. To me that doesn’t tally up.
There’s a load of massive pricks on there.
Written by me, a lady…..
Presumably the massive pricks don't just belong to the men though? I would assume that some non-binary or non-gender specific people also have, or can act like, massive pricks?
Decided to try and engage on Twitter about the change of name. Some men get angry about being able to call it the ladies team as they respect ladies while being overly aggressive and confrontational to women. To me that doesn’t tally up.
There’s a load of massive pricks on there.
Written by me, a lady…..
Presumably the massive pricks don't just belong to the men though? I would assume that some non-binary or non-gender specific people also have, or can act like, massive pricks?
Decided to try and engage on Twitter about the change of name. Some men get angry about being able to call it the ladies team as they respect ladies while being overly aggressive and confrontational to women. To me that doesn’t tally up.
There’s a load of massive pricks on there.
Written by me, a lady…..
Presumably the massive pricks don't just belong to the men though? I would assume that some non-binary or non-gender specific people also have, or can act like, massive pricks?
Sandgaard has got both sides on this debate on strings. As soon as mentions the word ‘Ladies’ the same old usual individuals from both sides pop up and are full of it.
He’s getting a kick out of it now, but both sides don’t want to take it any further and just pontificate about it on twitter. No plan B
Decided to try and engage on Twitter about the change of name. Some men get angry about being able to call it the ladies team as they respect ladies while being overly aggressive and confrontational to women. To me that doesn’t tally up.
There’s a load of massive pricks on there.
Written by me, a lady…..
Good post B. I did have a little laugh at this as well. It’s odd how some men twist this into a discussion about how much they respect women. It’s not about that. Not to open up the whole Sarah Everard debate again, but I was amazed how quickly that turned into some blokes crying about how they would never hurt a woman, as if it’s something other women should be grateful for. A lot of the time people can miss the point with these things, and in pointing out they missed the point, this then turns to anger on their part for missing the point being brought to their attention
Sandgaard has got both sides on this debate on strings. As soon as mentions the word ‘Ladies’ the same old usual individuals from both sides pop up and are full of it.
He’s getting a kick out of it now, but both sides don’t want to take it any further and just pontificate about it on twitter. No plan B
Which is pathetic isn’t it. This is clearly a serious issue for those involved in the womens team.
Not only is he not listening to what they’re telling him but now you could argue he’s goading them on Twitter. He’s gone massively down in my estimation over this.
Comments
Do you also use this kind of of comparison for the Paralympics?
As someone asked if anyone was in support of the change of name, rather than simply decrying the decision which will take us nowhere I remain open to the argument. It palpably is an issue to be addressed. I concede I have a fundamental problem with anyone being defined by « labels » whatever they are.
So if this is simply a « it’s my fiefdom » decision then it is not only the rebranding which is wrong it is the message which comes with it.
I thank Weegie for putting her head above the proverbial parapets.
I respect her position. I have expressed my own reservations.
Though it is open to all to respond I believe she has no little expertise in Marketing & Communications and thus at the very least a working knowledge of brand asset management. I will thus play devils advocate to pose one question.
Whether you reject the change of name or not, tell me how do you grow the market, the brand and the revenues of Charlton Athletic Professional Women's Football to move beyond the current financial largesse.
We all know the background here. For reasons beyond its control this gender specific industry has limited community profiles, no meaningful tradition, no meaningful grassroots infrastructure, no meaningful pathway, and at this point even at the highest levels a relatively very modest quality performance product. (While it is a different sport it will by dint of organisational structure be compared to the men’s game)
(I mean no disrespect to any player, official and body of support for the club in situ or who have enabled it to trade over the past decade or more. I spent 30yrs in and around levels 7-9 of the male football pyramid. I recognise the endeavour, the skills and competitive nature of the game at such levels)
I concede I have limited knowledge of the competitive environment of a women's changing room beyond some decades ago when recovering from an injury myself I spent 6 months assisting with the physio and injury treatment of a very competitive women's hockey team.
In all honesty the "industrial" nature of the environment did not seem dramatically different to most male football team working environments. So I like to think I have a little understanding of the « sensitivities » of such a competitive women's sporting environment being alienated by the name change.
Yet this is a new business and whatever the title a new professional brand in a largely very sparsely populated marketplace.
So to a new business engineer the words "but women is the brand everyone uses in this market » or "this is what every one in the professional game thinks" are pure poison.
The very last thing I want to do with a new business is what everyone else is doing.
Crucially to be brutal selling to those currently all about Women's football will never generate the market numbers or revenues to make the women's game financially viable. Take the proposition down to Charlton's Women's football current entourage where the starting numbers are miniscule and the journey to commercial viability is huge.
In essence Marketing to those already in the game will not make a gnats difference to the commercial viability of the game at a club level. Sky's involvement is important but it would be delusional not to recognise televising the Women's game represents low cost screen time notably as they continue to lose parity with competitors for the men's elite competitions.
The amount of screen fillers now on Sky Sports is becoming embarrassing. At the recent Champions League draw they had 3 supposed professionals in a studio commentating on someone extracting the balls for the draw. It was even more hilarious when the whole draw was ultimately void.
With Sky's parent company I can see its continued support of the Women's game because sponsorship and marketing revenues within US Women's Soccer despite recent challenges remain viable if not robust. So it can be done.
However the USA has had decades of infrastructure, pathway development from schools, colleges, Universities (Scholarships) not only feeding into their professional game but into the related consumer market. Seeing girls bedecked in soccer gear with families heading for a post game meal is a common place as boys.
My granddaughter aged 4 goes to soccer training every week.
Indeed I want to understand why Mr Sandgaard feels the name change will be seen differently in the US or any global market where comparable gender label contradictions exist. If it is no more than a stubborn whim he has an even bigger journey to travel.
That said and whether you, I or anyone likes it, the reality is in the UK today, the only reason Charlton's Women Professionals have a voice is because someone;
- brought them in under the one club professional brand
- integrated them into the organisational & operational infrastructure to enjoy integrated training and medical facilities
- offered them full time professional contracts
That IS empowering.
As it stands the only reason Charlton's Women Professionals will likely have a voice in 5yrs time is because of the very same someone.
Ultimately for me actions speak louder than words. These young women have been afforded equal career opportunities at every operational level. Fully accepting workplace branding is important, the brand itself in a gender specific industry is at best a borderline equal opportunities issue. It is a different sport.
I can but further express one word of caution, While I recognize the experience will be new to many with equal professional opportunities come equal professional responsibilities.
Leaked articles to the media serve no one in this situation but the media. One national newspaper article with half a dozen added tweets and 20 pages on a message board don't really hit the mark in seeking to generate constructive change.
If someone gives you a voice within a professional community you have to respect the responsibility. Respect is a two way street.
I remain unconvinced by the change made but while butting heads in these circumstances may be good for the soul there has to be a better way forward.
Unlike previous tweets he didn't use the word "ladies".
Women’s cycling is a good example, both on the track and on the road, of how women’s sport can be just as exciting as men’s, despite their physical disadvantages. The major differences are that their average speeds are lower, and that the women are less well known than the men at the moment, but that’ll change as the sport gets more TV coverage.
But I agree with everything else!
If you want to watch the "best" of most things (even chess), you should just watch machines. But it's seeing people with human limitations struggling against each other that makes sport dramatic and fun to watch.
The Tweet about last night's win was liked by Thomas without him referring to Charlton Ladies. A difference from all his previous retweets.
Not sure you mean that. Have you watched robot football?
With Chess, the machines are almost there but, when you talk about 'best', that has to include the drama. Check out Game 6 of the recent Carlsen v Nepomniachitchi World Championship. That is sporting perfection.
Sport is more than just technical ability. It is a ballet, a dance, a play, a story. 'Best' doesn't just mean technical capability.
And siding with one team or another is part of the theatre.
Ladies? Women? I don't care.
But don't compare the two versions of football to one another. Enjoy each for what it is.
I did indeed watch the World Chess Championship!
Machines are now "better" at chess than humans in the same way that cars can routinely move faster than human beings.
But I prefer the Olympics 100m final to watching cars moving twice as fast on the M25!
Written by me, a lady…..
He’s getting a kick out of it now, but both sides don’t want to take it any further and just pontificate about it on twitter. No plan B
It’s an odd world we live in