Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Q and A With Mr Sandgaard.
Comments
-
That was my guess, but just a guess.SoundAsa£ said:
Simon Webster?Redmidland said:
I think he said new physio to be announced today and is someone who knows the club well! But I may have misheard.oohaahmortimer said:
New physio coming in to be announced soon , new equipment going in , something about some machinery to help test the strength of hamstringsChunes said:Thanks for the updates. Did he answer anything about our injury record?0 -
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.Airman Brown said:
I think kids today are generally quite capable of spotting things that are rubbish. Off with their heads!ForeverAddickted said:
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 nowkillerandflash said: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.
If Airman's correct the bairns will sift out the wrong 'uns in an instant!0 -
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.PragueAddick said:
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.cantersaddick said:
Yes well done Sam for sensibly ignoring my question about how much Money Mouthall walked away with even though it got enough up votes!Davo55 said: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.
1 -
Can I be the first to say, @Sage out!Davo55 said:
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.Sage said:
That was my question.aliwibble said:Looking to have a Fan Liaison Officer, not sure how that's going to pan out.
Depending how much they expect and what the pay may be like, I’ll apply.11 -
I've never been aware of this.Chunes said:Tia Walby is the Fan's Liason Officer, although it's stated as "interim."
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.
0 -
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.8 -
I don’t know how handle half season tickets in a world where there is a good chance London will be tier 3 for a good few months4
-
Getting the boot before an application, @LoOkOuT trying to break Katrien Meire's record I see...LoOkOuT said:
Can I be the first to say, @Sage out!Davo55 said:
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.Sage said:
That was my question.aliwibble said:Looking to have a Fan Liaison Officer, not sure how that's going to pan out.
Depending how much they expect and what the pay may be like, I’ll apply.
Just this time, not interviews, rather the sack!2 -
Sorry if this has already been asked.
When and where will this Q&A be on line to view?0 -
Whats the point though if people have paid for Season Tickets when they cant be let into games though?bolloxbolder said: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.
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 themselves5 -
Sponsored links:
-
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.AFKABartram said:
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.Henry Irving said:
Don't doubt @sage would be great but we already have a supporters' liaison officerDavo55 said:
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.Sage said:
That was my question.aliwibble said:Looking to have a Fan Liaison Officer, not sure how that's going to pan out.
Depending how much they expect and what the pay may be like, I’ll apply.
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.
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
2 -
https://www.castrust.org/2020/12/thomas-sandgaard-meets-the-fans/SoundAsa£ said:Sorry if this has already been asked.
When and where will this Q&A be on line to view?
1 -
it was very encouraging and uplifting evening. Hats off to Thomas but thanks to the Trust for organising.5
-
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.ForeverAddickted said:
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 nowkillerandflash said: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.0 -
At least Floyd looked the business unlike the knight in his poundland outfit.jimmymelrose said:
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.ForeverAddickted said:
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 nowkillerandflash said: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.1 -
Administrative nightmare. I cannot see any benefit whatsoever for ticket office or fan.Rothko said:I don’t know how handle half season tickets in a world where there is a good chance London will be tier 3 for a good few months0 -
I believe that we wear red shirts due to getting Arsenal's throwaways just as they got theirs from Forest.Stig said:
Ultimately, nothing has any connection with us other than time and what goes on in our heads.killerandflash said:
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 relevanceDazzler21 said:
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.killerandflash said: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.
The current mascots aren't great but at least they do have some connection to our history, and previous nicknames
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 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.3 -
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 looks1
-
Stand corrected. No evidence for that wild theory whatsoever @jimmymelrosejimmymelrose said:
I believe that we wear red shirts due to getting Arsenal's throwaways just as they got theirs from Forest.Stig said:
Ultimately, nothing has any connection with us other than time and what goes on in our heads.killerandflash said:
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 relevanceDazzler21 said:
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.killerandflash said: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.
The current mascots aren't great but at least they do have some connection to our history, and previous nicknames
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 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 either1 -
Where's this new head Physio we were promised?
Is @sage demanding too much money, the greedy ingrate? 😉
4 -
Sponsored links:
-
Mmmm I’ve read a lot of books on us and on football history ... never seen that before and very much doubt itjimmymelrose said:
I believe that we wear red shirts due to getting Arsenal's throwaways just as they got theirs from Forest.Stig said:
Ultimately, nothing has any connection with us other than time and what goes on in our heads.killerandflash said:
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 relevanceDazzler21 said:
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.killerandflash said: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.
The current mascots aren't great but at least they do have some connection to our history, and previous nicknames
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 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.0 -
What happened to Red, Red Robin yesterday?
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?0 -
Seriously, Any official announcement yet on our new head of the Medical department yet?0
-
It was played about 10 seconds after we got out on the pitch. I suspect due to the teams not coming out together this throws them in the PA roomLenGlover said:3What happened to Red, Red Robin yesterday?
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?1 -
Got a paper cut on his first day. Out for 9 weeksHenry Irving said:Where's this new head Physio we were promised?
Is @sage demanding too much money, the greedy ingrate? 😉4 -
And the East stand tannoy is so bad, you can barely hear it anyway.JohnnyH2 said:
It was played about 10 seconds after we got out on the pitch. I suspect due to the teams not coming out together this throws them in the PA roomLenGlover said:3What happened to Red, Red Robin yesterday?
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?0 -
I heard it on the stream and wasn’t trying to listen for it so was pretty clearLenGlover said:What happened to Red, Red Robin yesterday?
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?0 -
This thread is a great read.0
-
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.
Stand corrected. No evidence for that wild theory whatsoever @jimmymelrosejimmymelrose said:
I believe that we wear red shirts due to getting Arsenal's throwaways just as they got theirs from Forest.Stig said:
Ultimately, nothing has any connection with us other than time and what goes on in our heads.killerandflash said:
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 relevanceDazzler21 said:
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.killerandflash said: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.
The current mascots aren't great but at least they do have some connection to our history, and previous nicknames
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 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
0 -
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.jimmymelrose said:
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.
Stand corrected. No evidence for that wild theory whatsoever @jimmymelrosejimmymelrose said:
I believe that we wear red shirts due to getting Arsenal's throwaways just as they got theirs from Forest.Stig said:
Ultimately, nothing has any connection with us other than time and what goes on in our heads.killerandflash said:
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 relevanceDazzler21 said:
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.killerandflash said: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.
The current mascots aren't great but at least they do have some connection to our history, and previous nicknames
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 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
And Arsenal historians dispute the story that Forest gave them their first set of shirts.0
