It is all very strange. I would be rather disappointed if I asked the team one month then a few months later a new wave of players find out what was previously agreed and start pushing back.
I wouldn't not listen though. I would enter discussions and review accordingly.
If that was true but the very best that could be said is that his version of that is contested - and that’s a stretch.
I mean that's the same story put out by Cawley earlier too.
I understand but I mean that it is TS’s account, which as with social media is his chosen interpretation. I wasn’t there so I won’t call it dishonest but there is a very different narrative coming from people who have reason to know what happened.
I understand the temptation to view this as an argument with a number of supporters. But that is just the fallout from an ongoing dispute with the players and the football authorities.
“We’ve had a lot of conversations internally. Does this conflict with being the most progressive club in all of England when it comes to EDI (equality, diversity and inclusion)? There is absolutely no conflicts with that. I think it’s just as good as the word women – I consider maybe a little more respectful, if there is any difference.
There’s his reason, TS thinks it’s more respectful.
My question is. How did the current womens team approach TS over the name change?
Doesnt make sence to me. TS has got the hump, I think he knows the name wont be changed. But in the meantime TS is causing mayhem. Theres more to this behind the scenes.
Whats the point of the fan forum if he's just going to do what he wants anyways?
Do you think a fans forum should just be CAST turning up and telling the owner what he should and shouldn't do and then he just does as he's told?
Do you think the decision should be made without its input and it should be told on first discussion that it is done and won’t be changed regardless?
The decision has been made with it's input and the reasons for that decision outlined.
That surely is the purpose of a fans forum, questions are asked and then answered.
Not according to TS. His stated view is that the decision was made many months ago and he has made no claim that the trust or the FF were consulted. He advised the forum, where individuals dissented, in its first discussion of the issue that the decision had been made and would not be changed.
in any event, the club did not change the name months ago and has not changed the name. But I repeat, the issue is not what fans think, it is with the players and the football authorities. That is not resolved.
“We’ve had a lot of conversations internally. Does this conflict with being the most progressive club in all of England when it comes to EDI (equality, diversity and inclusion)? There is absolutely no conflicts with that. I think it’s just as good as the word women – I consider maybe a little more respectful, if there is any difference.
There’s his reason, TS thinks it’s more respectful.
“Respect the players by ignoring them”
My assumption (I don’t know) is that the players ordinarily don’t use either term and just speak in terms of playing for Charlton or Charlton Athletic.
The compromise might be the formal name with the authorities is just Charlton Athletic I.e. neither term added and ‘Ladies’ is only used internally to differentiate one team from the other.
Everyone acknowledges what TS has done for Charlton womens' team and Charlton, without whom, we would not have a club.
The fact that the decision was taken 6 months ago doesn't make it a good one. Trouble is, more that TS digs his heels over it the less he is want to back down. Its difficult though to see why TS is taking such a determined stand over this. Surely, its not worth the aggro - to say nothing of being counterproductive to building the brand.
I'm interested in etymology and checking out "lady" found it's a concept unique to the English language and early reference was "woman chosen as an object of chivalrous love".
"Woman", comes from Saxon for bread maker, but just means female person, so had it been in modern times we might be discussing the Charlton Hooverers. (Joke)
I do worry that when Sandgaard is told 'no' about something, it just makes him more determined to plough on with it.
Well that hasn’t been the case so far with his tenure. In fact he’s listened to the fans and changed decisions a few times . Personally I can’t see the issue with the name change unless it’s just that he didn’t consult the team that’s the problem ?
So, this has just become another tedious chapter in the culture wars with the usual suspects on each side.
I suppose TS's mistake was agreeing to fund the loss making ladies side in the first place. Women's football is one of the fulminating frontlines of the culture wars and thus it is always going to be more trouble than it is worth. Whatever he does will never be enough.
A lose-lose situation, and one that he has to keep throwing money at whilst being crucified for it. He only has to take a look at this thread, where his inner thoughts and motivations have been divined by the all-knowing priests of the new religion and he has been found guilty of sexism, narcissism and much else, on the basis of their unique powers of mind reading.
Heretics will not be tolerated, after all. I don't know why he bothers. The sense of entitlement on show is staggering.
In ten years time, the word woman will be deemed derogatory and the permanently offended will be telling us to use lady again and what a bad person you are if you don’t. There are so many things in the world that require change. I don’t understand why people don’t channel their energy into real things rather than tosh like this.
Several times as this discussion has gone round and round in circles, people have pointed out that the women's team is loss-making, as if that on its own made the team unimportant. If that's the case, I'm afraid I have some really bad news for you about how profitable the men's team is.
Several times as this discussion has gone round and round in circles, people have pointed out that the women's team is loss-making, as if that on its own made the team unimportant. If that's the case, I'm afraid I have some really bad news for you about how profitable the men's team is.
What does that have to do with a change of name? All sporting clubs are loss making bar a few around the world.
I prefer women to ladies, perhaps because of the clichéd lady character below
The day I made a contribution to the CL kit sponsorship scheme - to which I'm pleased the women's team were included - I also purchased a woman's season ticket. I admit I haven't seen them play, but it was intended by the way of encouragement, albeit in a small way.
I have a daughter and two granddaughters and really appreciate the advancements made by these pioneers in women's sport. It was 100 years ago that men banned women from playing football - so let's not stand in the way of progress now, just as things are beginning to move along in the right direction.
For those of us who are pretty ignorant of the relevant facts could someone in the know tell us, or give us a "best guess" on;
- the average attendance at a home league game - how much it costs to get in - the number of season ticket holders - how much a season ticket costs - the sort of dough the players are getting, on average, now the club has gone professional - how much it is all likely to cost to bank roll the womens team for a year
Just interested in getting some facts out there as I dont really have much idea on any of the above.
Such an unnecessary change. Weigh it up...how much happiness does calling it Ladies give to Sandgaard versus how much displeasure it gives the women players/women fans?
Doesn't bother me really because whilst wanting the women's game to improve having a daughter I pay little interest to it other than the world cup etc and not a big deal in my eyes or many of us not interested in the (current) womens' game....but it does seem important to many of those who are involved in it and therefore their views should be the most prominent.
Seems an odd one to dig in over. At the same time doesn't make Sandgaard Genghis Khan for doing so.
“We’ve had a lot of conversations internally. Does this conflict with being the most progressive club in all of England when it comes to EDI (equality, diversity and inclusion)? There is absolutely no conflicts with that. I think it’s just as good as the word women – I consider maybe a little more respectful, if there is any difference.
There’s his reason, TS thinks it’s more respectful.
I think he's seriously misread the difference between British and American culture here (I'm being charitable). In the interview in the SLP he comes across as patronising, this is not just about any name change, it's about changing the identity of the team. I don't think many professional sportswomen would buy into it, nor will it appeal to potential fans. He's damaged the women's team's brand already with this - word will get about and better players will choose somewhere else all other things being equal. And if the football authorities say no, is he going to get into a big fight about it and drag down the reputation of Charlton Athletic as a whole? It will soon start to damage the men's teams brand and the community trust's brand as well, which presumably all those trolls think are things that matter. Yeah, Charlton do great community work, but they are not serious about sexism are they?
It comes to something when the football authorities are ahead of the game on something.
Whats the point of the fan forum if he's just going to do what he wants anyways?
Do you think a fans forum should just be CAST turning up and telling the owner what he should and shouldn't do and then he just does as he's told?
Or let him run roughshod all over the club and any other opinions be damned? Of course there should be a middle ground, but swimming against the tide on issues such as these won't help his image.
In ten years time, the word woman will be deemed derogatory and the permanently offended will be telling us to use lady again and what a bad person you are if you don’t. There are so many things in the world that require change. I don’t understand why people don’t channel their energy into real things rather than tosh like this.
In ten years time, the word woman will be deemed derogatory and the permanently offended will be telling us to use lady again and what a bad person you are if you don’t. There are so many things in the world that require change. I don’t understand why people don’t channel their energy into real things rather than tosh like this.
And the Charlton Women's team isn't one of them
So if it did not require change why did TS go to full time from part time? Why did TS need to bring it in house for the first time in 14 years
I do worry that when Sandgaard is told 'no' about something, it just makes him more determined to plough on with it.
Well that hasn’t been the case so far with his tenure. In fact he’s listened to the fans and changed decisions a few times . Personally I can’t see the issue with the name change unless it’s just that he didn’t consult the team that’s the problem ?
Comments
I understand the temptation to view this as an argument with a number of supporters. But that is just the fallout from an ongoing dispute with the players and the football authorities.
How did the current womens team approach TS over the name change?
Doesnt make sence to me.
TS has got the hump, I think he knows the name wont be changed.
But in the meantime TS is causing mayhem.
Theres more to this behind the scenes.
That surely is the purpose of a fans forum, questions are asked and then answered.
Did the womens team approach the trust on this matter ?
in any event, the club did not change the name months ago and has not changed the name. But I repeat, the issue is not what fans think, it is with the players and the football authorities. That is not resolved.
"Woman", comes from Saxon for bread maker, but just means female person, so had it been in modern times we might be discussing the Charlton Hooverers. (Joke)
Personally I can’t see the issue with the name change unless it’s just that he didn’t consult the team that’s the problem ?
I suppose TS's mistake was agreeing to fund the loss making ladies side in the first place. Women's football is one of the fulminating frontlines of the culture wars and thus it is always going to be more trouble than it is worth. Whatever he does will never be enough.
A lose-lose situation, and one that he has to keep throwing money at whilst being crucified for it. He only has to take a look at this thread, where his inner thoughts and motivations have been divined by the all-knowing priests of the new religion and he has been found guilty of sexism, narcissism and much else, on the basis of their unique powers of mind reading.
Heretics will not be tolerated, after all. I don't know why he bothers. The sense of entitlement on show is staggering.
I prefer women to ladies, perhaps because of the clichéd lady character below
The day I made a contribution to the CL kit sponsorship scheme - to which I'm pleased the women's team were included - I also purchased a woman's season ticket. I admit I haven't seen them play, but it was intended by the way of encouragement, albeit in a small way.
I have a daughter and two granddaughters and really appreciate the advancements made by these pioneers in women's sport. It was 100 years ago that men banned women from playing football - so let's not stand in the way of progress now, just as things are beginning to move along in the right direction.
- the average attendance at a home league game
- how much it costs to get in
- the number of season ticket holders
- how much a season ticket costs
- the sort of dough the players are getting, on average, now the club has gone professional
- how much it is all likely to cost to bank roll the womens team for a year
Just interested in getting some facts out there as I dont really have much idea on any of the above.
Doesn't bother me really because whilst wanting the women's game to improve having a daughter I pay little interest to it other than the world cup etc and not a big deal in my eyes or many of us not interested in the (current) womens' game....but it does seem important to many of those who are involved in it and therefore their views should be the most prominent.
Seems an odd one to dig in over. At the same time doesn't make Sandgaard Genghis Khan for doing so.
Just seems very odd/ unique.
I think he's seriously misread the difference between British and American culture here (I'm being charitable). In the interview in the SLP he comes across as patronising, this is not just about any name change, it's about changing the identity of the team. I don't think many professional sportswomen would buy into it, nor will it appeal to potential fans. He's damaged the women's team's brand already with this - word will get about and better players will choose somewhere else all other things being equal. And if the football authorities say no, is he going to get into a big fight about it and drag down the reputation of Charlton Athletic as a whole? It will soon start to damage the men's teams brand and the community trust's brand as well, which presumably all those trolls think are things that matter.
Yeah, Charlton do great community work, but they are not serious about sexism are they?
It comes to something when the football authorities are ahead of the game on something.
https://www.castrust.org/2021/12/charlton-women-why-we-oppose-the-name-change/