If the women's team are saying they dont want be called Charlton Ladies, lets just go with that eh?
I agree, the board of directors of my place of work always run things past me - an employee - whenever they make decisions.
Maybe we should double check and see if they're still happy to play in red wile we're at it.
So if Sandgaard wanted to change the name of the club to Charlton United, he should just be able to do that regardless of what the players or supporters think because he's the boss?
If the women's team are saying they dont want be called Charlton Ladies, lets just go with that eh?
I agree, the board of directors of my place of work always run things past me - an employee - whenever they make decisions.
Maybe we should double check and see if they're still happy to play in red wile we're at it.
So if Sandgaard wanted to change the name of the club to Charlton United, he should just be able to do that regardless of what the players or supporters think because he's the boss?
Personally I say woman's team in recent years as it's sport and ladies doesn't seem appropriate. The woman players always seem to call each other girls, so that must be acceptable; whether 17 to 35 year olds players or Emma Hayes (Chelsea Manager) talking about her girls.
So woman's football and men's football but obviously, the male football players will say "the lads" or "the boys" and I believe I have only heard woman football players address each other as girls when talking about a group of team mates.
Since the successful Preston woman/ladies/girls were banned by the Blazers at the FA a century ago I believe woman footballers should decide the correct Etymology.
Now I'm off to the pub with my mask to see the new Wench who started today 🤦🏻♂️
@Grapevine49's comment about avoiding what everyone else is doing in marketing intrigued me. Of course you want to differentiate your brand, but it might reasonably be observed that creating one that was likely to alienate not just your primary brand carriers but the market itself is as foolhardy as could be imagined.
Someone else raised a comparison with the paralympics. It would be a bit like running a paralympic team and branding them, the handicapped team. For many removed from the sport, who are not up to date with the language, or indeed are not directly affected, it may have little impact, but then of course they're unlikely to be your market. In the meantime, sponsors, partners, governing bodies, and the core of your intended market will notice and they will see your brand as toxic.
Even more foolish is to ignore the messages of your key focus groups. As I understand it, the appointed fan advisor, the Supporters' Trust, the Fans Forum, multiple individuals, and broader related organisations have been consistent in their opposition, and of course we know the feelings of the players, managers, and their counterparts at other clubs. It is tone deafness at its most extreme.
And the overriding message it sends is, pipe down ladies, the man's here now. Not a good look.
I'm really pleased that JJ got appointed permanently and the post victory music got stopped, so we can all concentrate our complaining on this topic now with the full focus it deserves.
I know that the womens' players were fine with the name change last season after which the wheels were set in motion, but the majority of this season's players don't like it so I think it needs to be stopped immediately. In today's day and age sensitivity is absolutely paramount, so I strongly believe we should canvas the players at the start of each season to decide what our name should be. Furthermore, if we sign players in the January window that may give enough numbers to tip the vote to a different name then clearly we should have a re-vote mid season.
Let's not forget that they are being paid as a fully professional team this season also, so that comes with a lot of additional pressure which may affect them. Having the team that they play for called Ladies could easily be the last straw.
Quite frankly I've had it with Sandgaard. His boyish enthusiasm, genuine desire to bring both clubs together, and financing of our club just seems at odds with the Charlton way.
I'm really pleased that JJ got appointed permanently and the post victory music got stopped, so we can all concentrate our complaining on this topic now with the full focus it deserves.
I know that the womens' players were fine with the name change last season after which the wheels were set in motion, but the majority of this season's players don't like it so I think it needs to be stopped immediately. In today's day and age sensitivity is absolutely paramount, so I strongly believe we should canvas the players at the start of each season to decide what our name should be. Furthermore, if we sign players in the January window that may give enough numbers to tip the vote to a different name then clearly we should have a re-vote mid season.
Let's not forget that they are being paid as a fully professional team this season also, so that comes with a lot of additional pressure which may affect them. Having the team that they play for called Ladies could easily be the last straw.
Quite frankly I've had it with Sandgaard. His boyish enthusiasm, genuine desire to bring both clubs together, and financing of our club just seems at odds with the Charlton way.
Thanks for your contribution. I have a few questions if you don’t mind. Just precisely what is the Charlton way?
Could you explain how you see the Charlton way has supported Charlton’s women football?
In now taking this matter seriously how has your stakeholder interest has, in the past, been manifested in support of Charlton’s Women’s football and how will it continue to do so in the future?
@Grapevine49's comment about avoiding what everyone else is doing in marketing intrigued me. Of course you want to differentiate your brand, but it might reasonably be observed that creating one that was likely to alienate not just your primary brand carriers but the market itself is as foolhardy as could be imagined.
Someone else raised a comparison with the paralympics. It would be a bit like running a paralympic team and branding them, the handicapped team. For many removed from the sport, who are not up to date with the language, or indeed are not directly affected, it may have little impact, but then of course they're unlikely to be your market. In the meantime, sponsors, partners, governing bodies, and the core of your intended market will notice and they will see your brand as toxic.
Even more foolish is to ignore the messages of your key focus groups. As I understand it, the appointed fan advisor, the Supporters' Trust, the Fans Forum, multiple individuals, and broader related organisations have been consistent in their opposition, and of course we know the feelings of the players, managers, and their counterparts at other clubs. It is tone deafness at its most extreme.
And the overriding message it sends is, pipe down ladies, the man's here now. Not a good look.
Thank you for responding but you make my point so very well because the current brand support of which you speak doesn’t amount to a financial, historic, legacy and traditional « hill of beans » does it.
Despite the very best efforts of many good people it has not progressed beyond the very worthy limited empowerment of a decent semi professional organisation. I applaud those efforts.
I have also made my personal position clear. The challenge I have is those who seem determined to almost cut off their nose to spite their face. Now if they have genuine stakeholder credentials I might respect the argument but I challenge those credentials.
In terms of industry relations any number of organisations carry the same brand.
The appointed fan advisor is entitled to her view.
I am a great supporter of the Trust and the people who serve it but would you like to show where there has been any intent to previously involve itself and it’s members with the Women’s Game.
It is not even a specific part of its Constitution is it? How then is it even a stakeholder in the women’s game?
I further respect the Fans Forum but is there a Women’s Club Fans Club Representative?
The only fanzine even has a perfect arm length barrier. The Women’s Team have no connection with the The Valley.
I cannot deal with sundry individuals and organisations because I don’t know their relevance to the Women’s game or Charlton.
I do know the relevance of the professional young women currently contracted to the club and thank them for their contribution. Having been a contracted semi professional footballer myself I can but enquire how many do you think would be with us without the full professional contract?
I pose this question because most aspiring young professional sportspeople are intent on pursuing a career to test themselves at the highest level of their sport.
In light of this weeks Elite Women’s European Cup Competition which saw Chelsea Women defeated 4-0 I wonder how many would love to secure contracts at that level. Chelsea’s opponent’s? Wolfsburg Ladies. How many of our aspiring young women professionals intent on pursuing their career would, domestic circumstances permitting, sign for them in a heartbeat?
It is a commercial reality.
Why do they currently even have a step on the career ladder? Because a key stakeholder empowered them.
Lots of questions. I won't attempt to answer them all, but with the greatest of respect I fear you've entirely missed the point. I wasn't talking about the current brand support, but the potential market.
Let's go back to what we do know. Sandgaard has stated he wants to change the name as part of bringing everything under a one team umbrella. Let's be honest with ourselves for a second: a decision to rename the team to a backward looking and inappropriate name doesn't even begin to achieve that basic aim.
Surely the best way he could achieve that is to rename the women's team simply "Charlton Athletic" and refer to men's teams and women's teams, just as many WSL clubs have done. Instead he's chosen a path that makes the women's team feel disenfranchised entirely - even the so-called consultation was insulting.
And had he done so, he could have used our traditionally progressive brand to help market the women's team, to build that support, to bring together the kind of initiative that is attempting to fill the Valley. He doesn't have to, of course, but one might reasonably argue it's a shortcut.
Instead we have a confused brand. One that sports the traditional progressive Charlton Athletic brand with the regressive term "ladies", one that he's been repeatedly told by women not to use. You must see the message it sends when a man ignores the voice of women on a women's issue - man alive, just look at some of the responses here.
And if harmonisation is indeed the aim, then he is already looking at the market potential of the existing supporter base. So who better to consult than the woman he appointed to advise on the supporter base's thinking, or the Supporters Trust the voice of 2000 members and beyond, or the women (and men) on the Fans' Forum?
Of course consultation doesn't need to rest with existing brand supporters, and indeed it might be unwise to rest there. However good practice consultation with your potential market and existing stakeholders involves listening and responding, especially when you have a need to test an idea you're considering.
In this case, its not landed with anyone. Even the blokes who loudly proclaim it's not an issue will readily concede they've no idea why the name needed changing in the first place.
And more than that, he's received active opposition from the women's team themselves, and the game's governors, who may indeed not even approve the name change. So who's actually winning here? Certainly not the commercials.
Finally, I want to pick you up on your parting comment about the reason the women even have a step on the ladder. I think you've nailed it, but not in the way you think.
Here is a man expecting the 'ladies' to know their place - it's down to him they even have a professional career. Not their talent, which earned them a professional contract - presumably they have to be good enough and not just have legs that please the men. No, they owe everything to him, the man in charge.
And nowhere more is that in evidence than a faux consultation with them that ends in him dismissing the women's issues they raised and telling them the man knows better.
Arrogant, entitled, misogynistic, and utterly utterly unnecessary.
@Grapevine49 Dammit, meant to add - Wolfsburg who?
I think you'll find they go by the name of VfL Wolfsburg these days, like the men. Their nickname is the She-wolves, which doesn't scream out 'ladies' to me.
@Grapevine49 Thank you for your stalwart support of CAST. In answer to your question on our interest in the women’s team, you can refer to our AGM in November this year when we held a vote to amend our rules to ensure our definition of “club” included the women and not only Charlton Athletic Football Company. The resolution was passed almost unanimously. That was a few weeks before the Ladies / Women controversy arose.
Myself and @Pico also met with Thomas and Raelynn before the Ipswich match and described directly to them why CAST were opposed to the rumoured change once it was being reported.
Lots of questions. I won't attempt to answer them all, but with the greatest of respect I fear you've entirely missed the point. I wasn't talking about the current brand support, but the potential market.
Let's go back to what we do know. Sandgaard has stated he wants to change the name as part of bringing everything under a one team umbrella. Let's be honest with ourselves for a second: a decision to rename the team to a backward looking and inappropriate name doesn't even begin to achieve that basic aim.
Surely The best way he could achieve that is to rename the women's team simply "Charlton Athletic" and refer to men's teams and women's teams, just as many WSL clubs have done. Instead he's chosen a path that makes the women's team feel disenfranchised entirely - even the so-called consultation was insulting.
And had he done so, he could have used our traditionally progressive brand to help market the women's team, to build that support, to bring together the kind of initiative that is attempting to fill the Valley. He doesn't have to, of course, but one might reasonably argue it's a shortcut.
Instead we have a confused brand. One that sports the traditional progressive Charlton Athletic brand with the regressive term "ladies", one that he's been repeatedly told by women not to use. You must see the message it sends when a man ignores the voice of women on a women's issue - man alive, just look at some of the responses here.
And if harmonisation is indeed the aim, then he is already looking at the market potential of the existing supporter base. So who better to consult than the woman he appointed to advise on the supporter base's thinking, or the Supporters Trust the voice of 2000 members and beyond, or the women (and men) on the Fans' Forum?
Of course consultation doesn't need to rest with existing brand supporters, and indeed it might be unwise to rest there. However good practice consultation with your potential market and existing shareholders involves listening and responding, especially when you have a need to test an idea you're considering.
In this case, its not landed with anyone. Even the blokes who loudly proclaim it's not an issue will readily concede they've no idea why the name needed changing in the first place.
And more than that, he's received active opposition from the women's team themselves, and the game's governors, who may indeed not even approve the name change. So who's actually winning here? Certainly not the commercials.
Finally, I want to pick you up on your parting comment about the reason the women even have a step on the ladder. I think you've nailed it, but not in the way you think.
Here is a man expecting the 'ladies' to know their place - it's down to him they even have a professional career. Not their talent, which earned them a professional contract - presumably they have to be good enough and not just have legs that please the men. No, they owe everything to him, the man in charge.
And nowhere more is that in evidence than a faux consultation with them that ends in him dismissing the women's issues they raised and telling them the man knows better.
Arrogant, entitled, misogynistic, and utterly utterly unnecessary.
@Grapevine49 Thank you for your stalwart support of CAST. In answer to your question on our interest in the women’s team, you can refer to our AGM in November this year when we held a vote to amend our rules to ensure our definition of “club” included the women and not only Charlton Athletic Football Company. The resolution was passed almost unanimously. That was a few weeks before the Ladies / Women controversy arose.
Myself and @Pico also met with Thomas and Raelynn before the Ipswich match and described directly to them why CAST were opposed to the rumoured change once it was being reported.
@Grapevine49 Thank you for your stalwart support of CAST. In answer to your question on our interest in the women’s team, you can refer to our AGM in November this year when we held a vote to amend our rules to ensure our definition of “club” included the women and not only Charlton Athletic Football Company. The resolution was passed almost unanimously. That was a few weeks before the Ladies / Women controversy arose.
Myself and @Pico also met with Thomas and Raelynn before the Ipswich match and described directly to them why CAST were opposed to the rumoured change once it was being reported.
I'm really pleased that JJ got appointed permanently and the post victory music got stopped, so we can all concentrate our complaining on this topic now with the full focus it deserves.
I know that the womens' players were fine with the name change last season after which the wheels were set in motion, but the majority of this season's players don't like it so I think it needs to be stopped immediately. In today's day and age sensitivity is absolutely paramount, so I strongly believe we should canvas the players at the start of each season to decide what our name should be. Furthermore, if we sign players in the January window that may give enough numbers to tip the vote to a different name then clearly we should have a re-vote mid season.
Let's not forget that they are being paid as a fully professional team this season also, so that comes with a lot of additional pressure which may affect them. Having the team that they play for called Ladies could easily be the last straw.
Quite frankly I've had it with Sandgaard. His boyish enthusiasm, genuine desire to bring both clubs together, and financing of our club just seems at odds with the Charlton way.
Thanks for your contribution. I have a few questions if you don’t mind. Just precisely what is the Charlton way?
Could you explain how you see the Charlton way has supported Charlton’s women football?
In now taking this matter seriously how has your stakeholder interest has, in the past, been manifested in support of Charlton’s Women’s football and how will it continue to do so in the future?
Thanks
Erm, I think you've been "wooshed" there @Grapevine.
@Grapevine49's comment about avoiding what everyone else is doing in marketing intrigued me. Of course you want to differentiate your brand, but it might reasonably be observed that creating one that was likely to alienate not just your primary brand carriers but the market itself is as foolhardy as could be imagined.
Someone else raised a comparison with the paralympics. It would be a bit like running a paralympic team and branding them, the handicapped team. For many removed from the sport, who are not up to date with the language, or indeed are not directly affected, it may have little impact, but then of course they're unlikely to be your market. In the meantime, sponsors, partners, governing bodies, and the core of your intended market will notice and they will see your brand as toxic.
Even more foolish is to ignore the messages of your key focus groups. As I understand it, the appointed fan advisor, the Supporters' Trust, the Fans Forum, multiple individuals, and broader related organisations have been consistent in their opposition, and of course we know the feelings of the players, managers, and their counterparts at other clubs. It is tone deafness at its most extreme.
And the overriding message it sends is, pipe down ladies, the man's here now. Not a good look.
Thank you for responding but you make my point so very well because the current brand support of which you speak doesn’t amount to a financial, historic, legacy and traditional « hill of beans » does it.
Despite the very best efforts of many good people it has not progressed beyond the very worthy limited empowerment of a decent semi professional organisation. I applaud those efforts.
I have also made my personal position clear. The challenge I have is those who seem determined to almost cut off their nose to spite their face. Now if they have genuine stakeholder credentials I might respect the argument but I challenge those credentials.
In terms of industry relations any number of organisations carry the same brand.
The appointed fan advisor is entitled to her view.
I am a great supporter of the Trust and the people who serve it but would you like to show where there has been any intent to previously involve itself and it’s members with the Women’s Game.
It is not even a specific part of its Constitution is it? How then is it even a stakeholder in the women’s game?
I further respect the Fans Forum but is there a Women’s Club Fans Club Representative?
The only fanzine even has a perfect arm length barrier. The Women’s Team have no connection with the The Valley.
I cannot deal with sundry individuals and organisations because I don’t know their relevance to the Women’s game or Charlton.
I do know the relevance of the professional young women currently contracted to the club and thank them for their contribution. Having been a contracted semi professional footballer myself I can but enquire how many do you think would be with us without the full professional contract?
I pose this question because most aspiring young professional sportspeople are intent on pursuing a career to test themselves at the highest level of their sport.
In light of this weeks Elite Women’s European Cup Competition which saw Chelsea Women defeated 4-0 I wonder how many would love to secure contracts at that level. Chelsea’s opponent’s? Wolfsburg Ladies. How many of our aspiring young women professionals intent on pursuing their career would, domestic circumstances permitting, sign for them in a heartbeat?
It is a commercial reality.
Why do they currently even have a step on the career ladder? Because a key stakeholder empowered them.
Storm in a teacup. Hope I didn't offend the tea lady oops - sorry, should I have said 'tea woman'. Probably, I should refer to the 'tea person'? Or maybe the 'pourer of boiling water on the leaves' ? Buggered if I know what's correct these days.
@Grapevine49 Thank you for your stalwart support of CAST. In answer to your question on our interest in the women’s team, you can refer to our AGM in November this year when we held a vote to amend our rules to ensure our definition of “club” included the women and not only Charlton Athletic Football Company. The resolution was passed almost unanimously. That was a few weeks before the Ladies / Women controversy arose.
Myself and @Pico also met with Thomas and Raelynn before the Ipswich match and described directly to them why CAST were opposed to the rumoured change once it was being reported.
You and Pico had a meeting with TS before the Ipswich game. 2 days ago TS is referring to the womens team as the ladies team on twitter. If TS was listening would he still be referring to them as ladies on social media?
This is why its a bad idea, courtesy of the CAST :
Understanding of the nuance of the term "Ladies" has been reflected in the changes in women's football over the last two decades. Our top teams compete in the Women's Super League. Our team is in the Women's Championship. There is a Women's World Cup and Women's Olympic football. We have an England Women's national team. The consistent use of the word "Women" reflects the progress that has been made in recent years towards a more inclusive and modern approach to women’s football. Changing the name of our team from Women to Ladies at this point in time will inevitably be viewed as a contrarian statement in opposition to such progress.
Its almost like TS insisting that we change to Charlton Athletic Soccer Club, going against everything thats been established officially and in our culture that refers to our sport as football.
@Grapevine49 Thank you for your stalwart support of CAST. In answer to your question on our interest in the women’s team, you can refer to our AGM in November this year when we held a vote to amend our rules to ensure our definition of “club” included the women and not only Charlton Athletic Football Company. The resolution was passed almost unanimously. That was a few weeks before the Ladies / Women controversy arose.
Myself and @Pico also met with Thomas and Raelynn before the Ipswich match and described directly to them why CAST were opposed to the rumoured change once it was being reported.
You and Pico had a meeting with TS before the Ipswich game. 2 days ago TS is referring to the womens team as the ladies team on twitter. If TS was listening would he still be referring to them as ladies on social media?
He also didn’t listen to the Fans’ Forum on the matter.
@Grapevine49 Thank you for your stalwart support of CAST. In answer to your question on our interest in the women’s team, you can refer to our AGM in November this year when we held a vote to amend our rules to ensure our definition of “club” included the women and not only Charlton Athletic Football Company. The resolution was passed almost unanimously. That was a few weeks before the Ladies / Women controversy arose.
Myself and @Pico also met with Thomas and Raelynn before the Ipswich match and described directly to them why CAST were opposed to the rumoured change once it was being reported.
You and Pico had a meeting with TS before the Ipswich game. 2 days ago TS is referring to the womens team as the ladies team on twitter. If TS was listening would he still be referring to them as ladies on social media?
He also didn’t listen to the Fans’ Forum on the matter.
No. So what next from the trust and various groups?
Comments
TS is baiting the Womens team , so what's the trust view on this?
Maybe we should double check and see if they're still happy to play in red wile we're at it.
Is the FA approval just a formality or could they deny the request?
So woman's football and men's football but obviously, the male football players will say "the lads" or "the boys" and I believe I have only heard woman football players address each other as girls when talking about a group of team mates.
Since the successful Preston woman/ladies/girls were banned by the Blazers at the FA a century ago I believe woman footballers should decide the correct Etymology.
Now I'm off to the pub with my mask to see the new Wench who started today 🤦🏻♂️
Someone else raised a comparison with the paralympics. It would be a bit like running a paralympic team and branding them, the handicapped team. For many removed from the sport, who are not up to date with the language, or indeed are not directly affected, it may have little impact, but then of course they're unlikely to be your market. In the meantime, sponsors, partners, governing bodies, and the core of your intended market will notice and they will see your brand as toxic.
Even more foolish is to ignore the messages of your key focus groups. As I understand it, the appointed fan advisor, the Supporters' Trust, the Fans Forum, multiple individuals, and broader related organisations have been consistent in their opposition, and of course we know the feelings of the players, managers, and their counterparts at other clubs. It is tone deafness at its most extreme.
And the overriding message it sends is, pipe down ladies, the man's here now. Not a good look.
FA CUP REPORT | Gillingham Women 0 Charlton 1
https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/61c0a6d64920a/fa-cup-report-gillingham-women-0-charlton-1I know that the womens' players were fine with the name change last season after which the wheels were set in motion, but the majority of this season's players don't like it so I think it needs to be stopped immediately. In today's day and age sensitivity is absolutely paramount, so I strongly believe we should canvas the players at the start of each season to decide what our name should be. Furthermore, if we sign players in the January window that may give enough numbers to tip the vote to a different name then clearly we should have a re-vote mid season.
Let's not forget that they are being paid as a fully professional team this season also, so that comes with a lot of additional pressure which may affect them. Having the team that they play for called Ladies could easily be the last straw.
Quite frankly I've had it with Sandgaard. His boyish enthusiasm, genuine desire to bring both clubs together, and financing of our club just seems at odds with the Charlton way.
Could you explain how you see the Charlton way has supported Charlton’s women football?
In now taking this matter seriously how has your stakeholder interest has, in the past, been manifested in support of Charlton’s Women’s football and how will it continue to do so in the future?
Thanks
Despite the very best efforts of many good people it has not progressed beyond the very worthy limited empowerment of a decent semi professional organisation. I applaud those efforts.
I have also made my personal position clear. The challenge I have is those who seem determined to almost cut off their nose to spite their face. Now if they have genuine stakeholder credentials I might respect the argument but I challenge those credentials.
In terms of industry relations any number of organisations carry the same brand.
The appointed fan advisor is entitled to her view.
I am a great supporter of the Trust and the people who serve it but would you like to show where there has been any intent to previously involve itself and it’s members with the Women’s Game.
It is not even a specific part of its Constitution is it? How then is it even a stakeholder in the women’s game?
I further respect the Fans Forum but is there a Women’s Club Fans Club Representative?
The only fanzine even has a perfect arm length barrier. The Women’s Team have no connection with the The Valley.
I cannot deal with sundry individuals and organisations because I don’t know their relevance to the Women’s game or Charlton.
I do know the relevance of the professional young women currently contracted to the club and thank them for their contribution. Having been a contracted semi professional footballer myself I can but enquire how many do you think would be with us without the full professional contract?
I pose this question because most aspiring young professional sportspeople are intent on pursuing a career to test themselves at the highest level of their sport.
In light of this weeks Elite Women’s European Cup Competition which saw Chelsea Women defeated 4-0 I wonder how many would love to secure contracts at that level. Chelsea’s opponent’s? Wolfsburg Ladies. How many of our aspiring young women professionals intent on pursuing their career would, domestic circumstances permitting, sign for them in a heartbeat?
It is a commercial reality.
Why do they currently even have a step on the career ladder? Because a key stakeholder empowered them.
Lots of questions. I won't attempt to answer them all, but with the greatest of respect I fear you've entirely missed the point. I wasn't talking about the current brand support, but the potential market.
Let's go back to what we do know. Sandgaard has stated he wants to change the name as part of bringing everything under a one team umbrella. Let's be honest with ourselves for a second: a decision to rename the team to a backward looking and inappropriate name doesn't even begin to achieve that basic aim.
Surely the best way he could achieve that is to rename the women's team simply "Charlton Athletic" and refer to men's teams and women's teams, just as many WSL clubs have done. Instead he's chosen a path that makes the women's team feel disenfranchised entirely - even the so-called consultation was insulting.
And had he done so, he could have used our traditionally progressive brand to help market the women's team, to build that support, to bring together the kind of initiative that is attempting to fill the Valley. He doesn't have to, of course, but one might reasonably argue it's a shortcut.
Instead we have a confused brand. One that sports the traditional progressive Charlton Athletic brand with the regressive term "ladies", one that he's been repeatedly told by women not to use. You must see the message it sends when a man ignores the voice of women on a women's issue - man alive, just look at some of the responses here.
And if harmonisation is indeed the aim, then he is already looking at the market potential of the existing supporter base. So who better to consult than the woman he appointed to advise on the supporter base's thinking, or the Supporters Trust the voice of 2000 members and beyond, or the women (and men) on the Fans' Forum?
Of course consultation doesn't need to rest with existing brand supporters, and indeed it might be unwise to rest there. However good practice consultation with your potential market and existing stakeholders involves listening and responding, especially when you have a need to test an idea you're considering.
In this case, its not landed with anyone. Even the blokes who loudly proclaim it's not an issue will readily concede they've no idea why the name needed changing in the first place.
And more than that, he's received active opposition from the women's team themselves, and the game's governors, who may indeed not even approve the name change. So who's actually winning here? Certainly not the commercials.
Finally, I want to pick you up on your parting comment about the reason the women even have a step on the ladder. I think you've nailed it, but not in the way you think.
Here is a man expecting the 'ladies' to know their place - it's down to him they even have a professional career. Not their talent, which earned them a professional contract - presumably they have to be good enough and not just have legs that please the men. No, they owe everything to him, the man in charge.
And nowhere more is that in evidence than a faux consultation with them that ends in him dismissing the women's issues they raised and telling them the man knows better.
Arrogant, entitled, misogynistic, and utterly utterly unnecessary.
I think you'll find they go by the name of VfL Wolfsburg these days, like the men. Their nickname is the She-wolves, which doesn't scream out 'ladies' to me.
https://www.castrust.org/2021/12/charlton-women-why-we-oppose-the-name-change/
Ladies'.
Hope I didn't offend the tea lady oops - sorry, should I have said 'tea woman'.
Probably, I should refer to the 'tea person'? Or maybe the 'pourer of boiling water on the leaves' ?
Buggered if I know what's correct these days.
2 days ago TS is referring to the womens team as the ladies team on twitter.
If TS was listening would he still be referring to them as ladies on social media?
- Understanding of the nuance of the term "Ladies" has been reflected in the changes in women's football over the last two decades. Our top teams compete in the Women's Super League. Our team is in the Women's Championship. There is a Women's World Cup and Women's Olympic football. We have an England Women's national team. The consistent use of the word "Women" reflects the progress that has been made in recent years towards a more inclusive and modern approach to women’s football. Changing the name of our team from Women to Ladies at this point in time will inevitably be viewed as a contrarian statement in opposition to such progress.
Its almost like TS insisting that we change to Charlton Athletic Soccer Club, going against everything thats been established officially and in our culture that refers to our sport as football.So what next from the trust and various groups?