Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Charlton Women to rebrand as "Charlton Ladies" - turned down by FA (p28)
Comments
-
Probably because the change has happened (see website) or is happening and the actual team disagree so the story has been leakedValleyGary said:
So what’s the point of the story in your opinion?Airman Brown said:
Zero.sammy391 said:Is there actually anything in this story?
surely people would have come out and said either way, and would have been announced on the OS?
how likely is it that, due to TS tweeting ‘ladies’ a few times (and the few replies he had got complaining of the language) is at fault here0 -
But why is "Ladies" offensive?!0
-
If someone started calling you Dazzler22 and you said to them "please, it's Dazzler21" but they insisted on carrying on, would you be annoyed?Dazzler21 said:Still not getting why ladies is offensive.
Gentlemen certainly isn't.
Yes it's perhaps not 'offensive' to the extent of racism or homophobia but at the very least, to go against someone's clearly stated wishes is a bit of a dickhead move don't you think? In my eyes, it's all about being courteous and a good person.
I'm not a woman and can't speak for women so if they feel more strongly about it than I portray above, I'm sure I'll get pulled up on my analogy but I'm trying to reason man-to-man here. At the very least, we can be considerate people.9 -
I think in modern speak the term lady may be viewed as elitist, racist, derisory and sexist.
The connotations of Lords and Ladies (probably white) are where he worked, she stayed at home and they both held status above the workers. It does in the least sound a bit archaic.
Besides, women want to be called women - let's not argue - it ain't worth it.
3 -
But the team was Charlton Ladies team before the club disbanded it wasn't it?Curb_It said:
But it isn’t known as the gentleman’s team is it? When have you known it as that?Dazzler21 said:Still not getting why ladies is offensive.
Gentlemen certainly isn't.
A very weird move by him. Completely unnecessary.
It was then reformed as Charlton Women's team wasn't it?
To move it back to Ladies probably in Sandgaard's head brings it back under the umbrella as it once was.
(I am fairly certain that's how it became the Women's team but could be mis-remembering).
P.s it's still the "Womens" team here:
https://cafcwomen.co.uk/first-team/0 -
Bizarre, unnecessary, unwanted0
-
Something that could be quickly cleared up at the Fans Forum tomorrow?0
-
Absolute hit the nail on the head for me. I remember talking to Steve Adamson a couple of years ago and I asked why “women” as opposed to “ladies” and he explained how it was regarded a somewhat dated term and it was important to the women. I didn’t push it as I genuinely didn’t, and still don’t see the difference.AFKABartram said:Now clear it was brewing a while, last week there was a bit of coordinated resistance being put out after I suspect an earlier stage of TS failing to ‘read the room’ from those involved with the team.The leaked attempt to create a bit of social media noise (which it clearly did) I guess fell on deaf ears in terms of reconsideration by TS.Personally I think it’s a bit much ado about nothing, but then again i’m not a women. The desire by TS to ignore what seems the clear preference of those close to is more the bigger concern to me.
it does strike me as an owner not fussed about upsetting the status quo however I personally think it’s a bit misguided on this occasion.4 - Sponsored links:
-
The desperation for some Charlton fans to paint Sandgaard as a bad guy all the time for every decision he makes is beyond weird.
Not just on here on all forms of Social Media. Always seems to be the same few.
Sandgaard will make the right choice again... People will back down.
7 -
Because it’s outdated and archaic and the women’s team have asked not to be called that. But I suppose a middle-aged man knows better.Dazzler21 said:But why is "Ladies" offensive?!8 -
Dazzler / AFKA etc - just think about the word "ladylike" and all the restrictive connotations it carries about what a woman should or shouldn't do. When women's football was banned by the FA in 1921 might it have been because it wasn't considered ladylike ?Dazzler21 said:
But the team was Charlton Ladies team before the club disbanded it.Curb_It said:
But it isn’t known as the gentleman’s team is it? When have you known it as that?Dazzler21 said:Still not getting why ladies is offensive.
Gentlemen certainly isn't.
A very weird move by him. Completely unnecessary.
It was then reformed as Charlton Women's team wasn't it?
To move it back to Ladies probably in Sandgaard's head brings it back under the umbrella as it once was.
(I am fairly certain that's how it became the Women's team).
Language matters, quite apart from the fact that the current women's team have expressed a clear desire to continue to be referred to as women27 -
He’s allowed to be criticised.Dazzler21 said:The desperation for some Charlton fans to paint Sandgaard as a bad guy all the time for every decision he makes is beyond weird.
Not just on here on all forms of Social Media. Always seems to be the same few.
Sandgaard will make the right choice again... People will back down.17 -
Who gives a shit about what it was called years ago, before we bought Croydon, disbanded etc etc. The team is Charlton Women’s team.Dazzler21 said:
But the team was Charlton Ladies team before the club disbanded it.Curb_It said:
But it isn’t known as the gentleman’s team is it? When have you known it as that?Dazzler21 said:Still not getting why ladies is offensive.
Gentlemen certainly isn't.
A very weird move by him. Completely unnecessary.
It was then reformed as Charlton Women's team wasn't it?
To move it back to Ladies probably in Sandgaard's head brings it back under the umbrella as it once was.
(I am fairly certain that's how it became the Women's team but could be mis-remembering).
P.s it's still the "Womens" team here:
https://cafcwomen.co.uk/first-team/Honestly… I very much doubt Sandgaard is changing the name because that’s what they were called years ago. Rubbish.
Lots of big men been mouthing off on Twitter the last few days when a woman raised the subject. “Who cares what they’re called”, “stop crying, grow up”… on and on. Well the team care very much and that, to me, is the most important part of this story. They don’t want it!38 -
Of course he is, but the same people criticise every single move he makes.The Red Robin said:
He’s allowed to be criticised.Dazzler21 said:The desperation for some Charlton fans to paint Sandgaard as a bad guy all the time for every decision he makes is beyond weird.
Not just on here on all forms of Social Media. Always seems to be the same few.
Sandgaard will make the right choice again... People will back down.
Whether it's free tickets,
a song at the end of a game,
hiring a manager,
hiring a director,
playing a song prior to a game,
sacking a manager,
Not sacking a senior member of staff,
not buying a CB,
not hiring a CEO,
not pumping his entire wealth into signings,
signing Washington and Gilbey,
using the black box,
giving Jacko a run of games before appointment,
Not buying SL & The Valley when buying the club,
Only putting in £10m a year,etc...
The list goes on and now it's admittedly a unique and unneeded decision to rename any part of the club, but people immediately jump on the "it's his ego" bandwagon.7 -
It is also pointlessly divisive and will set Charlton fans against each other, for no gain whatsoever. It was quite clear it would be a national news story and that it would be damaging to his reputation with some fans, but here we are.AFKABartram said:Now clear it was brewing a while, last week there was a bit of coordinated resistance being put out after I suspect an earlier stage of TS failing to ‘read the room’ from those involved with the team.The leaked attempt to create a bit of social media noise (which it clearly did) I guess fell on deaf ears in terms of reconsideration by TS.Personally I think it’s a bit much ado about nothing, but then again i’m not a women. The desire by TS to ignore what seems the clear preference of those close to is more the bigger concern to me.15 -
Is it..?,I’ve never heard a speech start with Woman & Gentleman before…🤔,anyways if the Woman’s team don’t like it I agree with them it shouldn’t be changed…The Red Robin said:
Because it’s outdated and archaic and the women’s team have asked not to be called that. But I suppose a middle-aged man knows better.Dazzler21 said:But why is "Ladies" offensive?!3 -
Looks to me like you’re conflating multiple different things. I don’t really get your stance on this one tbhDazzler21 said:
Of course he is, but the same people criticise every single move he makes.The Red Robin said:
He’s allowed to be criticised.Dazzler21 said:The desperation for some Charlton fans to paint Sandgaard as a bad guy all the time for every decision he makes is beyond weird.
Not just on here on all forms of Social Media. Always seems to be the same few.
Sandgaard will make the right choice again... People will back down.
Whether it's free tickets, a song at the end of a game, hiring a manager, hiring a director, playing a song prior to a game, sacking a manager, not buying a CB, not hiring a CEO, not pumping his entire wealth into signings, signing Washington and Gilbey, using the black box, giving Jacko a run of games before appointment etc... The list goes on.12 -
By the same token, isn’t “men” an abbreviation of gentlemen? Because there are connotations with that term and they certainly don’t apply to the majority of footballers.Pico said:
Dazzler / AFKA etc - just think about the word "ladylike" and all the restrictive connotations it carries about what a woman should or shouldn't do. When women's football was banned by the FA in 1921 might it have been because it wasn't considered ladylike ?Dazzler21 said:
But the team was Charlton Ladies team before the club disbanded it.Curb_It said:
But it isn’t known as the gentleman’s team is it? When have you known it as that?Dazzler21 said:Still not getting why ladies is offensive.
Gentlemen certainly isn't.
A very weird move by him. Completely unnecessary.
It was then reformed as Charlton Women's team wasn't it?
To move it back to Ladies probably in Sandgaard's head brings it back under the umbrella as it once was.
(I am fairly certain that's how it became the Women's team).
Language matters, quite apart from the fact that the current women's team have expressed a clear desire to continue to be referred to as women1 - Sponsored links:
-
The suggestion that TS does not listen to feedback on this but goes ahead with his ideas is worrying. He is not a football person knows little about our industry in this country so I wonder how he recruiting NAs replacement.
It sounds a little Belgium to me3 -
Charlton Ladies was not disbanded by the club because it was not controlled by the club.Dazzler21 said:
But the team was Charlton Ladies team before the club disbanded it wasn't it?Curb_It said:
But it isn’t known as the gentleman’s team is it? When have you known it as that?Dazzler21 said:Still not getting why ladies is offensive.
Gentlemen certainly isn't.
A very weird move by him. Completely unnecessary.
It was then reformed as Charlton Women's team wasn't it?
To move it back to Ladies probably in Sandgaard's head brings it back under the umbrella as it once was.
(I am fairly certain that's how it became the Women's team but could be mis-remembering).
P.s it's still the "Womens" team here:
https://cafcwomen.co.uk/first-team/0 -
Very irritated my suggestions for renaming the woman's team have been ignored.
The Randy Robins, Harvey Lady Gardens FC and the Floyd Road Floozies are all solid, imaginative and respectful names.
Someone needs to tell the 'Danish Danger' that it's not the 1980's anymore.3 -
Surely the point of making a change, of any kind, in business, is to make an improvement.
I’m really failing to see what the benefit of this change is, and indeed how it isn’t obvious that it would get negative publicity.
I’ve defended Sandgaard on practically everything to date, but I can’t get my head round this.11 -
My stance has shifted as the threads gone on with how people dig at the owner at every opportunity. We've seen him reverse/alter decisions several times already when steered to.AFKABartram said:
Looks to me like you’re conflating multiple different things. I don’t really get your stance on this one tbhDazzler21 said:
Of course he is, but the same people criticise every single move he makes.The Red Robin said:
He’s allowed to be criticised.Dazzler21 said:The desperation for some Charlton fans to paint Sandgaard as a bad guy all the time for every decision he makes is beyond weird.
Not just on here on all forms of Social Media. Always seems to be the same few.
Sandgaard will make the right choice again... People will back down.
Whether it's free tickets, a song at the end of a game, hiring a manager, hiring a director, playing a song prior to a game, sacking a manager, not buying a CB, not hiring a CEO, not pumping his entire wealth into signings, signing Washington and Gilbey, using the black box, giving Jacko a run of games before appointment etc... The list goes on.
People still immediately assume the worst in him.
My actual stance was simply not understanding the issue. Swisdom has given the best answer. I accept that he was told by an important figure that the women's team didn't want to be referred to as ladies anymore.
That's fine. That's that bit done
Curb_It said:
Honestly I saw nothing of this before this thread.
Who gives a shit about what it was called years ago, before we bought Croydon, disbanded etc etc. The team is Charlton Women’s team.Dazzler21 said:
But the team was Charlton Ladies team before the club disbanded it.Curb_It said:
But it isn’t known as the gentleman’s team is it? When have you known it as that?Dazzler21 said:Still not getting why ladies is offensive.
Gentlemen certainly isn't.
A very weird move by him. Completely unnecessary.
It was then reformed as Charlton Women's team wasn't it?
To move it back to Ladies probably in Sandgaard's head brings it back under the umbrella as it once was.
(I am fairly certain that's how it became the Women's team but could be mis-remembering).
P.s it's still the "Womens" team here:
https://cafcwomen.co.uk/first-team/Honestly… I very much doubt Sandgaard is changing the name because that’s what they were called years ago. Rubbish.
Lots of big men been mouthing off on Twitter the last few days when a woman raised the subject. “Who cares what they’re called”, “stop crying, grow up”… on and on. Well the team care very much and that, to me, is the most important part of this story. They don’t want it!
I'm not going to assume Sandgaard's an arsehole just because he's a middle aged white man. Yet you assume that there's some alterior motive behind it? What's your theory then?0 -
Dazzler21 said:The desperation for some Charlton fans to paint Sandgaard as a bad guy all the time for every decision he makes is beyond weird.
Not just on here on all forms of Social Media. Always seems to be the same few.
Sandgaard will make the right choice again... People will back down.
The obsession others have in defending any scepticism or criticism of the owner who has been inexplicably elevated to messianic status in an eerily short space of time and shooting down of lifelong fans who dare to raise such objective concerns/ criticisms about the person who has the future of their club in their stewardship is also beyond weird.
Jackson's remarkable success over the last 2 months has certainly shielded and prevented criticism and papered over the calamity of the adkins appointment yet had we continued to flounder it would be an uncomfortable place at this juncture. However fortunately Jackson has worked wonders and brought the feel good back and turned a bunch of underperforming no hopers into promotion challengers (maths allowing). Hopefully he'll be recognised for that with a permanent contract of adequate duration to reflect that.
There is probably a very good balance and happy medium to be had from not sticking the boot in at every over analysed/ misinterpreted act whilst also not yanking ourselves off with unabashed vigour at ever tweet or soundbite pumped out by the chap.
8 -
Apologies if true, hence the misremembering bit.Airman Brown said:
Charlton Ladies was not disbanded by the club because it was not controlled by the club.Dazzler21 said:
But the team was Charlton Ladies team before the club disbanded it wasn't it?Curb_It said:
But it isn’t known as the gentleman’s team is it? When have you known it as that?Dazzler21 said:Still not getting why ladies is offensive.
Gentlemen certainly isn't.
A very weird move by him. Completely unnecessary.
It was then reformed as Charlton Women's team wasn't it?
To move it back to Ladies probably in Sandgaard's head brings it back under the umbrella as it once was.
(I am fairly certain that's how it became the Women's team but could be mis-remembering).
P.s it's still the "Womens" team here:
https://cafcwomen.co.uk/first-team/0 -
Well to be blunt how many of those with the club will still be here in 5yrs? Who owns the brand?That said it seems a very odd direction of travel.
If I read anything into it, I can see it as one of 3 messages in respecting club roots, or women’s football roots at the time of being banned in 1921 or a marketing brain fart likely coming from a US branding issue trying to differentiate/ take the brand outside of a set largely saturated « women’s sport » sponsorship bubble with an elite « ladies » label.
Remember TS had a career in global marketing.
I am certainly no expert on women but for all the equality of being treated as a women there is always the moment that many like to be treated as a lady.
In terms of linking to marketing it still seems a stretch because the US industry brand and European industry brand is most assuredly women.
I am more disquieted by the idea he would not have at least briefed the coaches and players he was considering such an initiative before registering such changes.
In principle I have no problem with idiosyncratic thinking but there is most certainly a time for pure common sense. The whole usage of the terms lady, ladies and women has not been a stone you want to turn for nigh on 40yrs, unless there is a burning issue.
I don’t see it but if there is a compelling business driver I am all ears.
2 -
Is ladies more commonplace in American teams?0
-
There is a lot of misinformation about what happened with the original team (not post 2007).Dazzler21 said:
Apologies if true, hence the misremembering bit.Airman Brown said:
Charlton Ladies was not disbanded by the club because it was not controlled by the club.Dazzler21 said:
But the team was Charlton Ladies team before the club disbanded it wasn't it?Curb_It said:
But it isn’t known as the gentleman’s team is it? When have you known it as that?Dazzler21 said:Still not getting why ladies is offensive.
Gentlemen certainly isn't.
A very weird move by him. Completely unnecessary.
It was then reformed as Charlton Women's team wasn't it?
To move it back to Ladies probably in Sandgaard's head brings it back under the umbrella as it once was.
(I am fairly certain that's how it became the Women's team but could be mis-remembering).
P.s it's still the "Womens" team here:
https://cafcwomen.co.uk/first-team/1
