Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Sandgaard ownership discussion 2022-3 onwards (Meeting with CAST p138)

1…154155157159160…170

Comments

  • J BLOCK
    J BLOCK Posts: 8,309
    cabbles said:
    bolloxbolder said:
    This week according to Garner.
    Be curious to see the level of unrest/frustration outside of this site if he’s at the game 
    I'll be there and hope people make it clear how bad this all is. 
  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 36,007
    Callumcafc said:
    Bloke is possibly more Brent than Sandgaard.

    To be fair most of the youth would probably rather listen to that than Sandgaard's song.

    Might even wake the east stand up!
  • Lewis Coaches
    Lewis Coaches Posts: 5,408
    Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.
  • shirty5
    shirty5 Posts: 19,220
    Lewis Coaches said:
    Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.
    Hopefully for everyone attending the evening, he does not get his Banjo out 
  • LargeAddick
    LargeAddick Posts: 32,559
    alburyaddick said:
    PragueAddick said:
    alburyaddick said:
    I'm not trying to be nasty but to be honest if Dan Burke didn't tell Raelynn that this was a stupid idea for about 100 sensible reasons before he set this up, he deserved to get fired 
    FFS, Dan’s a little guy on a little salary while Raelynn is the owner’s “partner”. 

    I’m not trying to be nasty but having had a basinful of it on the Charlton Twitter shitfest, I’m getting really sick of Charlton fans who 
    pick on the little people. Pack it in.
    Prague 
    That's rather harsh, maybe I overdid it a bit but honestly , it doesn't matter where you sit in an organization, if you can't persuade your boss that something is completely idiotic when it obviously is without 'testing' it first that is disappointing at best ! 
    I chair quite a few businesses and when/ if I come up with stupid ideas the 'little people' ( which btw is a pretty derogatory term that I wouldn't consider using) aka the people who actually do the work generally tell me quite promptly !
    Surely that all depends on how your boss is going to react? If you have questioned them before on other issues and their response has been to pooh pooh it, and we all know how it’s Sandgaard’s way or no way, then you are unlikely to bother next time you feel something should be said because you know you are hitting your head against a brick wall.
  • blackpool72
    blackpool72 Posts: 23,668
    Fanny Fanackapan said:
    shirty5 said:
    Lewis Coaches said:
    Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.
    Hopefully for everyone attending the evening, he does not get his Banjo out 
    Shouldn't that be on the sexual innuendo thread ? 
    You have a very dirty mind young lady.
  • shirty5
    shirty5 Posts: 19,220
    Fanny Fanackapan said:
    shirty5 said:
    Lewis Coaches said:
    Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.
    Hopefully for everyone attending the evening, he does not get his Banjo out 
    Shouldn't that be on the sexual innuendo thread ? 

  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,734
    Lewis Coaches said:
    Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.
    I expect there will be the usual fawning from the usual people. 
  • valleynick66
    valleynick66 Posts: 4,886
    Airman Brown said:
    Lewis Coaches said:
    Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.
    I expect there will be the usual fawning from the usual people. 
    Who is being alluded to?
  • Sponsored links:



  • RedChaser
    RedChaser Posts: 19,885
    Airman Brown said:
    Lewis Coaches said:
    Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.
    I expect there will be the usual fawning from the usual people. 

  • Fanny Fanackapan
    Fanny Fanackapan Posts: 18,737
    Airman Brown said:
    Lewis Coaches said:
    Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.
    I expect there will be the usual fawning from the usual people. 
    Think we can rule out a certain ex manager who'll be present. 
  • Bailey
    Bailey Posts: 3,265
    NabySarr said:
    Bailey said:
    NabySarr said:
    carly burn said:
    It's all getting very Rolandy.

    I've not seen anything to suggest the current dozy incumbent of this great club is doing any less damage than Roland.
    We've protested over on par situations in the past.
    Can anyone tell me one positive implementation that this fella has bought to us in nigh on two years?

    #Sandgaardout!
    I think the protests would probably start after January if/when we’ve fallen way off the play offs. Somehow we are still not that far off them at the moment so TS has a January window to try and save himself  
    I don't think protests will be necessary, Sandgaard doesn't have the money that RD has and is getting desperate to offload. I suppose he might worry if he was showing prospective buyers around and it was all kicking off, one flaw in that plan though, nobody will give him a bean for the club so there won't be anyone to show around.
    Is he desperate to offload? That’s an assumption. If he wanted out I don’t know why he wouldn’t just say so to avoid any grief. Even if he is looking for a way out I think he would need pressure put on him to drop his probably deluded asking price so protests would still be necessary
    Did protests make Roland drop his price then ?
  • AFKABartram
    AFKABartram Posts: 57,824
    Lewis Coaches said:
    Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.
    Unfortunately he couldn’t afford the ridiculous £96 ticket price and after the Southall & co fleecing, he can’t put it on the company card and write it off as a tax offset like most others going :-) 
  • J BLOCK
    J BLOCK Posts: 8,309
    Bailey said:
    NabySarr said:
    Bailey said:
    NabySarr said:
    carly burn said:
    It's all getting very Rolandy.

    I've not seen anything to suggest the current dozy incumbent of this great club is doing any less damage than Roland.
    We've protested over on par situations in the past.
    Can anyone tell me one positive implementation that this fella has bought to us in nigh on two years?

    #Sandgaardout!
    I think the protests would probably start after January if/when we’ve fallen way off the play offs. Somehow we are still not that far off them at the moment so TS has a January window to try and save himself  
    I don't think protests will be necessary, Sandgaard doesn't have the money that RD has and is getting desperate to offload. I suppose he might worry if he was showing prospective buyers around and it was all kicking off, one flaw in that plan though, nobody will give him a bean for the club so there won't be anyone to show around.
    Is he desperate to offload? That’s an assumption. If he wanted out I don’t know why he wouldn’t just say so to avoid any grief. Even if he is looking for a way out I think he would need pressure put on him to drop his probably deluded asking price so protests would still be necessary
    Did protests make Roland drop his price then ?
    I’m confident if protests were directed towards TS he would sell up. 
  • AFKABartram
    AFKABartram Posts: 57,824
    J BLOCK said:
    Bailey said:
    NabySarr said:
    Bailey said:
    NabySarr said:
    carly burn said:
    It's all getting very Rolandy.

    I've not seen anything to suggest the current dozy incumbent of this great club is doing any less damage than Roland.
    We've protested over on par situations in the past.
    Can anyone tell me one positive implementation that this fella has bought to us in nigh on two years?

    #Sandgaardout!
    I think the protests would probably start after January if/when we’ve fallen way off the play offs. Somehow we are still not that far off them at the moment so TS has a January window to try and save himself  
    I don't think protests will be necessary, Sandgaard doesn't have the money that RD has and is getting desperate to offload. I suppose he might worry if he was showing prospective buyers around and it was all kicking off, one flaw in that plan though, nobody will give him a bean for the club so there won't be anyone to show around.
    Is he desperate to offload? That’s an assumption. If he wanted out I don’t know why he wouldn’t just say so to avoid any grief. Even if he is looking for a way out I think he would need pressure put on him to drop his probably deluded asking price so protests would still be necessary
    Did protests make Roland drop his price then ?
    I’m confident if protests were directed towards TS he would sell up. 
    He hasn’t got anything to sell other than players 
  • RedChaser
    RedChaser Posts: 19,885
    edited November 2022
    AFKABartram said:
    J BLOCK said:
    Bailey said:
    NabySarr said:
    Bailey said:
    NabySarr said:
    carly burn said:
    It's all getting very Rolandy.

    I've not seen anything to suggest the current dozy incumbent of this great club is doing any less damage than Roland.
    We've protested over on par situations in the past.
    Can anyone tell me one positive implementation that this fella has bought to us in nigh on two years?

    #Sandgaardout!
    I think the protests would probably start after January if/when we’ve fallen way off the play offs. Somehow we are still not that far off them at the moment so TS has a January window to try and save himself  
    I don't think protests will be necessary, Sandgaard doesn't have the money that RD has and is getting desperate to offload. I suppose he might worry if he was showing prospective buyers around and it was all kicking off, one flaw in that plan though, nobody will give him a bean for the club so there won't be anyone to show around.
    Is he desperate to offload? That’s an assumption. If he wanted out I don’t know why he wouldn’t just say so to avoid any grief. Even if he is looking for a way out I think he would need pressure put on him to drop his probably deluded asking price so protests would still be necessary
    Did protests make Roland drop his price then ?
    I’m confident if protests were directed towards TS he would sell up. 
    He hasn’t got anything to sell other than players 
    Don’t forget the Golden Share membership of the EFL mate for what it’s worth 😉.
  • T_C_E
    T_C_E Posts: 16,418
    bobmunro said:
    thetomahawkkid said:
    bobmunro said:
    Redmidland said:
    Fanny Fanackapan said:
    Chunes said:
    Fanny Fanackapan said:
    carly burn said:

    How can this be legal ????

    Sounds like dodgy advice, possibly from the solicitor/lawyer that was strongly rumoured to have their place of work on an industrial site in Maidstone ? 

    SO glad you're out of this madhouse, Dan ! 
    Isn't that just a standard non-compete/non-solicitation clause? Had them in most of my contracts back when I was an employee. 
    Really ? 

    I guess as an ex civil service long term employee there was NO "associated company" ! 
    It used to be in my contacts in Finanial Services but it was 3 months not 12. I'm not sure 12 is legal, but stand to be corrected on that.
    Just picking up on this thread.

    A non-compete clause is the norm rather than the exception, however 12 months, although lawful to include, would be successfully challenged in court as being unreasonable and therefore unenforceable. 

    3-6 months is not unreasonable but even then would only be for senior staff and any period that the ex-employee would not be able to ply their trade would be expected to be paid.
    Hard to see on what basis most/all employees could be competing with Charlton unless working for another football club. Not sure how working for a sponsor is competing? Perhaps they are worried about someone working for a sponsor and then getting the sponsor to withdraw sponsorship? I am sure there would be other legal mechanisms in place to cover that though.

    It all seems bonkers and completely OTT, but it is sort of what you would expect isn't it? As others have said, things are starting to get as weird as in the Roland days. 
    Indeed - any non-compete clause would have to state clearly the nature of that 'competition'. CAFC is not in competition with heating and ventilation suppliers for example, or kit manufacturers.

    He can put whatever he likes into a contract change, but firstly the employees have to agree with that change and secondly even if they do it would be dead in the water if he ever thought about suing them (absolute madness for him to even think that would be doable). 
    Hiya Bob, my information is…… staff are well aware the law is on their side, but they are also well aware of the methods used if they refuse to sign
  • charltonbob
    charltonbob Posts: 8,254
    SporadicAddick said:
    I believe that to enforce a non compete clause, the club would be required to take out a retrospective injunction once the said employee had started work for the new company that is "competing" with Charlton.

    I can't envisage any role at the club where a non compete would be relevant.  

    And how could a non compete work if you had been sacked or made redundant? "We are getting rid of you, but we will stop you working for someone else". I can see that being laughed out of court (not that it would ever get there).

    It looks like Tommy boys solicitors are no longer at the Freshfields level!
    I don't think this is anything to do with competing with Charlton, it's more likely the case that having sacked/"made someone redundant" they don't want to see that person roll up to the Valley on Monday morning working for someone else which is I think what happened with Dan ? Sandgaard probably wasn't singing a happy song after that  :D:D:D
  • Sponsored links:



  • CheshireAddick
    CheshireAddick Posts: 1,305
    Just seen a twitter exchange with Peter Varney about an hour ago. Someone asked him if he was able to help shape the future, his response was 'that would be for other to decide!'. Cryptic comment or wishful thinking???
  • valleynick66
    valleynick66 Posts: 4,886
    So is this clause being added just as a housekeeping type thing or under some other explanation?

    Whilst easy to comment when not personally impacted I hope it can taken as a non issue on a practical level for most. 

    If you were concerned about not being able to join another company who are a sponsor / supplier wouldn’t you just resign and join them anyway if that offer existed today?

    Presumably they can’t introduce the clause against your will without some sort of severance if it’s a red line for anyone. But maybe they can?

    To play devils advocate is the explanation actually it’s genuinely only a housekeeping tidy up on contracts that didn’t exist before and simplifies / harmonises for all?  Only some  more senior staff would practically see this  clause try to be invoked i.e. those with a longer notice period and then it’s a negotiation point between you and your prospective new employer isn’t it?

    but as I understand the club don’t pay very well it’s hard to see anyone not jumping ship if they had a genuine opportunity with a sponsor for example. 
  • bolloxbolder
    bolloxbolder Posts: 7,960
    CheshireAddick said:
    Just seen a twitter exchange with Peter Varney about an hour ago. Someone asked him if he was able to help shape the future, his response was 'that would be for other to decide!'. Cryptic comment or wishful thinking???
    Saw him in the West stand on Saturday.
  • Cafc43v3r
    Cafc43v3r Posts: 21,600
    How many people who don't work for the club work at the Valley?  Are we subletting offices out to sponsors or something?
  • Fumbluff
    Fumbluff Posts: 10,125
    Cafc43v3r said:
    How many people who don't work for the club work at the Valley?  Are we subletting offices out to sponsors or something?
    District Nurses
  • Fumbluff
    Fumbluff Posts: 10,125

  • Bailey
    Bailey Posts: 3,265
    J BLOCK said:
    Bailey said:
    NabySarr said:
    Bailey said:
    NabySarr said:
    carly burn said:
    It's all getting very Rolandy.

    I've not seen anything to suggest the current dozy incumbent of this great club is doing any less damage than Roland.
    We've protested over on par situations in the past.
    Can anyone tell me one positive implementation that this fella has bought to us in nigh on two years?

    #Sandgaardout!
    I think the protests would probably start after January if/when we’ve fallen way off the play offs. Somehow we are still not that far off them at the moment so TS has a January window to try and save himself  
    I don't think protests will be necessary, Sandgaard doesn't have the money that RD has and is getting desperate to offload. I suppose he might worry if he was showing prospective buyers around and it was all kicking off, one flaw in that plan though, nobody will give him a bean for the club so there won't be anyone to show around.
    Is he desperate to offload? That’s an assumption. If he wanted out I don’t know why he wouldn’t just say so to avoid any grief. Even if he is looking for a way out I think he would need pressure put on him to drop his probably deluded asking price so protests would still be necessary
    Did protests make Roland drop his price then ?
    I’m confident if protests were directed towards TS he would sell up. 
    Confidence comes from knowledge, so what is the basis of your confidence J Block ?
  • carly burn
    carly burn Posts: 19,458
    AFKABartram said:
    J BLOCK said:
    Bailey said:
    NabySarr said:
    Bailey said:
    NabySarr said:
    carly burn said:
    It's all getting very Rolandy.

    I've not seen anything to suggest the current dozy incumbent of this great club is doing any less damage than Roland.
    We've protested over on par situations in the past.
    Can anyone tell me one positive implementation that this fella has bought to us in nigh on two years?

    #Sandgaardout!
    I think the protests would probably start after January if/when we’ve fallen way off the play offs. Somehow we are still not that far off them at the moment so TS has a January window to try and save himself  
    I don't think protests will be necessary, Sandgaard doesn't have the money that RD has and is getting desperate to offload. I suppose he might worry if he was showing prospective buyers around and it was all kicking off, one flaw in that plan though, nobody will give him a bean for the club so there won't be anyone to show around.
    Is he desperate to offload? That’s an assumption. If he wanted out I don’t know why he wouldn’t just say so to avoid any grief. Even if he is looking for a way out I think he would need pressure put on him to drop his probably deluded asking price so protests would still be necessary
    Did protests make Roland drop his price then ?
    I’m confident if protests were directed towards TS he would sell up. 
    He hasn’t got anything to sell other than players 
    Think you're forgetting the ZXT291 Deluxe Hotdog catapult.
  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,734
    edited November 2022
    valleynick66 said:
    So is this clause being added just as a housekeeping type thing or under some other explanation?

    Whilst easy to comment when not personally impacted I hope it can taken as a non issue on a practical level for most. 

    If you were concerned about not being able to join another company who are a sponsor / supplier wouldn’t you just resign and join them anyway if that offer existed today?

    Presumably they can’t introduce the clause against your will without some sort of severance if it’s a red line for anyone. But maybe they can?

    To play devils advocate is the explanation actually it’s genuinely only a housekeeping tidy up on contracts that didn’t exist before and simplifies / harmonises for all?  Only some  more senior staff would practically see this  clause try to be invoked i.e. those with a longer notice period and then it’s a negotiation point between you and your prospective new employer isn’t it?

    but as I understand the club don’t pay very well it’s hard to see anyone not jumping ship if they had a genuine opportunity with a sponsor for example. 
    Or you could just look on it as more bullying, which is how I see it. There is good reason based on recent history to think staff who don’t sign it may be victimised, and it’s likely to intimidate them while having no practical effect in law.

Categories

“Marketplace”