Peterborough United vs Charlton Athletic | Saturday 21st January 2023 | Match Preview - GAME OFF

I don't care how far away the ref lives from the ground, he has to get there a lot earlier than 12 noon to do an inspection for a 3pm game.

I was a bit puzzled that Dean Holden had asked the secretary to contact Peterborough on Friday afternoon. I’d have thought the secretary should have been all over that without having to be asked, but then again he may not have the relationships the previous one did. Chris would also have been at the ground on the day.

palarsehater said:

killerandflash said:

palarsehater said:

Think the reaction from some is ridic - people wishing pboro to go bust etc. people in glasshouses etc. 

For balance my good pal is a efl Lino he was due to do the Lincoln game - it was called off at 9am

Who called it off though? Either the ref went there early, or a local ref did it.

I'm sure the travelling Burton fans were happy not to make a wasted journey

Was a local ref that called it off my pal was only an hour into his journey so not too bad. 

Thanks. That shows that getting local refs in to check the pitch early is still the normal practice. And what Peterborough, for whatever reasons, didn't do.

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

I was a bit puzzled that Dean Holden had asked the secretary to contact Peterborough on Friday afternoon. I’d have thought the secretary should have been all over that without having to be asked, but then again he may not have the relationships the previous one did. Chris would also have been at the ground on the day.

Just trying to understand if you are suggesting something more here. 

Are you saying our new secretary isn’t doing what you would expect and that is a further example of the behind the scenes challenges we have? 

Do you also imply that the secretary does not regularly attend our away fixtures as CP did and you consider this  unusual compared to other clubs also?

To play devils advocate Holden comments may be taken too literally. It could also be that the secretary had been in previous contact but DH wanted the latest / most up to date position on Friday afternoon? It isn’t necessarily wrong to trust the secretary at Peterborough to be competent and keep the away team fully informed?

I wonder what you think the secretary’s role is? It’s absolutely to be the point of liaison between the club and its opponents, as well as the football authorities. It’s often relationship based and it’s a fact that Chris Parkes would have been there.

Sandgaard’s apparent priority has been to cut the cost of the role (although I’m not aware that Chris was particularly expensive). When Chris was retired it appears TS didn’t even advertise for a replacement before his retirement date, so he stayed on, just as Mick Everett is still acting as safety officer eight months after he retired AFAIK because the club hasn’t replaced him (one person who was appointed quickly left).

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

I was a bit puzzled that Dean Holden had asked the secretary to contact Peterborough on Friday afternoon. I’d have thought the secretary should have been all over that without having to be asked, but then again he may not have the relationships the previous one did. Chris would also have been at the ground on the day.

Just trying to understand if you are suggesting something more here. 

Are you saying our new secretary isn’t doing what you would expect and that is a further example of the behind the scenes challenges we have? 

Do you also imply that the secretary does not regularly attend our away fixtures as CP did and you consider this  unusual compared to other clubs also?

To play devils advocate Holden comments may be taken too literally. It could also be that the secretary had been in previous contact but DH wanted the latest / most up to date position on Friday afternoon? It isn’t necessarily wrong to trust the secretary at Peterborough to be competent and keep the away team fully informed?

I wonder what you think the secretary’s role is? It’s absolutely to be the point of liaison between the club and its opponents, as well as the football authorities. It’s often relationship based and it’s a fact that Chris Parkes would have been there.

Sandgaard’s apparent priority has been to cut the cost of the role (although I’m not aware that Chris was particularly expensive). When Chris was retired it appears TS didn’t even advertise for a replacement before his retirement date, so he stayed on, just as Mick Everett is still acting as safety officer eight months after he retired AFAIK because the club hasn’t replaced him (one person who was appointed quickly left).

To facilitate the saving on the secretary role the club appointed someone from the eighth tier of the pyramid, presumably with contacts and experience to match. I doubt if the secretary is paid to go to away games now, whether that’s needed or not.

Of course we can just rely on the Peterborough secretary to look after Charlton’s interests. How did that work out yesterday, do you think?

You have clarified that’s why I asked. I’m not defending anyone. 

Your original post left me wondering if most club secretaries attend away games or if that was as much because CP was a fan too. 

I hadn’t really considered previously if Ron (?) was doing much differently. I agree we have replaced with someone with less experience and it smacks of cost cutting but also I guess it’s a relatively small pool to fish in to get someone with comparable experience  

It’s still plausible that he may have been in contact with Peterborough without Holdens request on Friday afternoon. I didn’t infer (as you seem to have) that his comment meant the new secretary didn’t proactively make and maintain contact. But you may know differently. That conversation wouldn’t need experience however so much as common sense wouldn’t it? 

I don’t think it’s fair to blame the current secretary, but it’s really a very strange state of affairs that a game which was always going to be off - by the sound of it - isn’t even flagged as doubtful until it’s called off silly late. That’s more difficult when there are longstanding relationships between officials at different clubs, because you cannot tell me that there weren’t Peterborough officials who knew that it was in doubt from the time they turned up, if not the previous day. If the groundsman didn’t know he cannot be competent.

You can get the odd fussy referee who makes a controversial decision but nobody is claiming this was playable. That’s what is so unusual.

As for the pool to fish in, I seriously doubt you have to look in eighth tier to get someone to do the job - any more than you’d hire a manager from the eighth tier. In both cases, all the clubs in between have one.

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

I was a bit puzzled that Dean Holden had asked the secretary to contact Peterborough on Friday afternoon. I’d have thought the secretary should have been all over that without having to be asked, but then again he may not have the relationships the previous one did. Chris would also have been at the ground on the day.

Just trying to understand if you are suggesting something more here. 

Are you saying our new secretary isn’t doing what you would expect and that is a further example of the behind the scenes challenges we have? 

Do you also imply that the secretary does not regularly attend our away fixtures as CP did and you consider this  unusual compared to other clubs also?

To play devils advocate Holden comments may be taken too literally. It could also be that the secretary had been in previous contact but DH wanted the latest / most up to date position on Friday afternoon? It isn’t necessarily wrong to trust the secretary at Peterborough to be competent and keep the away team fully informed?

I wonder what you think the secretary’s role is? It’s absolutely to be the point of liaison between the club and its opponents, as well as the football authorities. It’s often relationship based and it’s a fact that Chris Parkes would have been there.

Sandgaard’s apparent priority has been to cut the cost of the role (although I’m not aware that Chris was particularly expensive). When Chris was retired it appears TS didn’t even advertise for a replacement before his retirement date, so he stayed on, just as Mick Everett is still acting as safety officer eight months after he retired AFAIK because the club hasn’t replaced him (one person who was appointed quickly left).

To facilitate the saving on the secretary role the club appointed someone from the eighth tier of the pyramid, presumably with contacts and experience to match. I doubt if the secretary is paid to go to away games now, whether that’s needed or not.

Of course we can just rely on the Peterborough secretary to look after Charlton’s interests. How did that work out yesterday, do you think?

You have clarified that’s why I asked. I’m not defending anyone. 

Your original post left me wondering if most club secretaries attend away games or if that was as much because CP was a fan too. 

I hadn’t really considered previously if Ron (?) was doing much differently. I agree we have replaced with someone with less experience and it smacks of cost cutting but also I guess it’s a relatively small pool to fish in to get someone with comparable experience  

It’s still plausible that he may have been in contact with Peterborough without Holdens request on Friday afternoon. I didn’t infer (as you seem to have) that his comment meant the new secretary didn’t proactively make and maintain contact. But you may know differently. That conversation wouldn’t need experience however so much as common sense wouldn’t it? 

I don’t think it’s fair to blame the current secretary, but it’s really a very strange state of affairs that a game which was always going to be off - by the sound of it - isn’t even flagged as doubtful until it’s called off silly late. That’s more difficult when there are longstanding relationships between officials at different clubs, because you cannot tell me that there weren’t Peterborough officials who knew that it was in doubt from the time they turned up, if not the previous day. If the groundsman didn’t know he cannot be competent.

You can get the odd fussy referee who makes a controversial decision but nobody is claiming this was playable. That’s what is so unusual.

Well quite it’s a poor scenario. 

Is the Peterborough secretary and colleagues new as well then?

You would expect Peterborough to be proactive even if they don’t yet know our new secretary very well. 

I’m not clear if you are  suggesting some blame lies on our side for not responding to feedback / messages or not? As I say it’s common sense to think about the possibility of a postponement that does not require extensive hands on experience. 

It’s a circular discussion. I think it’s odd that Holden said he asked the secretary to find out the position. I’d expect the secretary to be finding out and telling him without asking.

Football is a small world and club secretaries will all know each other and socialise at EFL events. It will assist open and honest communication. I suspect we’ve gone from having one of the best known secretaries to having one of the least. It won’t help.

i don’t think Peterborough have been open and honest here and I wonder why. But they have a commercial interest in concealing any doubt over the game and Charlton don’t.

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

I was a bit puzzled that Dean Holden had asked the secretary to contact Peterborough on Friday afternoon. I’d have thought the secretary should have been all over that without having to be asked, but then again he may not have the relationships the previous one did. Chris would also have been at the ground on the day.

Just trying to understand if you are suggesting something more here. 

Are you saying our new secretary isn’t doing what you would expect and that is a further example of the behind the scenes challenges we have? 

Do you also imply that the secretary does not regularly attend our away fixtures as CP did and you consider this  unusual compared to other clubs also?

To play devils advocate Holden comments may be taken too literally. It could also be that the secretary had been in previous contact but DH wanted the latest / most up to date position on Friday afternoon? It isn’t necessarily wrong to trust the secretary at Peterborough to be competent and keep the away team fully informed?

I wonder what you think the secretary’s role is? It’s absolutely to be the point of liaison between the club and its opponents, as well as the football authorities. It’s often relationship based and it’s a fact that Chris Parkes would have been there.

Sandgaard’s apparent priority has been to cut the cost of the role (although I’m not aware that Chris was particularly expensive). When Chris was retired it appears TS didn’t even advertise for a replacement before his retirement date, so he stayed on, just as Mick Everett is still acting as safety officer eight months after he retired AFAIK because the club hasn’t replaced him (one person who was appointed quickly left).

To facilitate the saving on the secretary role the club appointed someone from the eighth tier of the pyramid, presumably with contacts and experience to match. I doubt if the secretary is paid to go to away games now, whether that’s needed or not.

Of course we can just rely on the Peterborough secretary to look after Charlton’s interests. How did that work out yesterday, do you think?

You have clarified that’s why I asked. I’m not defending anyone. 

Your original post left me wondering if most club secretaries attend away games or if that was as much because CP was a fan too. 

I hadn’t really considered previously if Ron (?) was doing much differently. I agree we have replaced with someone with less experience and it smacks of cost cutting but also I guess it’s a relatively small pool to fish in to get someone with comparable experience  

It’s still plausible that he may have been in contact with Peterborough without Holdens request on Friday afternoon. I didn’t infer (as you seem to have) that his comment meant the new secretary didn’t proactively make and maintain contact. But you may know differently. That conversation wouldn’t need experience however so much as common sense wouldn’t it? 

I don’t think it’s fair to blame the current secretary, but it’s really a very strange state of affairs that a game which was always going to be off - by the sound of it - isn’t even flagged as doubtful until it’s called off silly late. That’s more difficult when there are longstanding relationships between officials at different clubs, because you cannot tell me that there weren’t Peterborough officials who knew that it was in doubt from the time they turned up, if not the previous day. If the groundsman didn’t know he cannot be competent.

You can get the odd fussy referee who makes a controversial decision but nobody is claiming this was playable. That’s what is so unusual.

Well quite it’s a poor scenario. 

Is the Peterborough secretary and colleagues new as well then?

You would expect Peterborough to be proactive even if they don’t yet know our new secretary very well. 

I’m not clear if you are  suggesting some blame lies on our side for not responding to feedback / messages or not? As I say it’s common sense to think about the possibility of a postponement that does not require extensive hands on experience. 

It’s a circular discussion. I think it’s odd that Holden said he asked the secretary to find out the position. I’d expect the secretary to be finding out and telling him without asking.

Football is a small world and club secretaries will all know each other and socialise at EFL events. It will assist open and honest communication. I suspect we’ve gone from having one of the best known secretaries to having one of the least. It won’t help.

i don’t think Peterborough have been open and honest here and I wonder why. But they have a commercial interest in concealing any doubt over the game and Charlton don’t.

Whereas I just read / took that as Holden ingratiating himself with the fans - nothing wrong in that by the way. 

As to the commercial interest - surely they lose overall by having to rearrange to a mid week and inevitably refunding a number of tickets plus incurring costs twice. 

Just smacks to me of incompetence on their part. 

Yes - the gamble there is that they can get the game on. No point in concealing the problem otherwise. The aim is to hold up the Saturday revenue. The postponement is bad news however they approach it - they just managed to make themselves look worse by the way they handled it.

As an aside, who is speaking for Charlton on this? The manager, of course, as he’s on the spot, but the club itself has no voice, as usual. It’s not just a football management issue. Maybe the new chief operating officer will clear his throat and find one?

LargeAddick said:

I always thought Chris attended away games because a) he was a fan and b) because he was on many many occasions the only official there representing the Club. Is the Secretary attending away games the norm and part of the job requirement?

Chris attended games when we had directors who travelled too. Sometimes they even gave up  hospitality places to accommodate Sue…

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

I was a bit puzzled that Dean Holden had asked the secretary to contact Peterborough on Friday afternoon. I’d have thought the secretary should have been all over that without having to be asked, but then again he may not have the relationships the previous one did. Chris would also have been at the ground on the day.

Just trying to understand if you are suggesting something more here. 

Are you saying our new secretary isn’t doing what you would expect and that is a further example of the behind the scenes challenges we have? 

Do you also imply that the secretary does not regularly attend our away fixtures as CP did and you consider this  unusual compared to other clubs also?

To play devils advocate Holden comments may be taken too literally. It could also be that the secretary had been in previous contact but DH wanted the latest / most up to date position on Friday afternoon? It isn’t necessarily wrong to trust the secretary at Peterborough to be competent and keep the away team fully informed?

I wonder what you think the secretary’s role is? It’s absolutely to be the point of liaison between the club and its opponents, as well as the football authorities. It’s often relationship based and it’s a fact that Chris Parkes would have been there.

Sandgaard’s apparent priority has been to cut the cost of the role (although I’m not aware that Chris was particularly expensive). When Chris was retired it appears TS didn’t even advertise for a replacement before his retirement date, so he stayed on, just as Mick Everett is still acting as safety officer eight months after he retired AFAIK because the club hasn’t replaced him (one person who was appointed quickly left).

To facilitate the saving on the secretary role the club appointed someone from the eighth tier of the pyramid, presumably with contacts and experience to match. I doubt if the secretary is paid to go to away games now, whether that’s needed or not.

Of course we can just rely on the Peterborough secretary to look after Charlton’s interests. How did that work out yesterday, do you think?

You have clarified that’s why I asked. I’m not defending anyone. 

Your original post left me wondering if most club secretaries attend away games or if that was as much because CP was a fan too. 

I hadn’t really considered previously if Ron (?) was doing much differently. I agree we have replaced with someone with less experience and it smacks of cost cutting but also I guess it’s a relatively small pool to fish in to get someone with comparable experience  

It’s still plausible that he may have been in contact with Peterborough without Holdens request on Friday afternoon. I didn’t infer (as you seem to have) that his comment meant the new secretary didn’t proactively make and maintain contact. But you may know differently. That conversation wouldn’t need experience however so much as common sense wouldn’t it? 

I don’t think it’s fair to blame the current secretary, but it’s really a very strange state of affairs that a game which was always going to be off - by the sound of it - isn’t even flagged as doubtful until it’s called off silly late. That’s more difficult when there are longstanding relationships between officials at different clubs, because you cannot tell me that there weren’t Peterborough officials who knew that it was in doubt from the time they turned up, if not the previous day. If the groundsman didn’t know he cannot be competent.

You can get the odd fussy referee who makes a controversial decision but nobody is claiming this was playable. That’s what is so unusual.

Well quite it’s a poor scenario. 

Is the Peterborough secretary and colleagues new as well then?

You would expect Peterborough to be proactive even if they don’t yet know our new secretary very well. 

I’m not clear if you are  suggesting some blame lies on our side for not responding to feedback / messages or not? As I say it’s common sense to think about the possibility of a postponement that does not require extensive hands on experience. 

It’s a circular discussion. I think it’s odd that Holden said he asked the secretary to find out the position. I’d expect the secretary to be finding out and telling him without asking.

Football is a small world and club secretaries will all know each other and socialise at EFL events. It will assist open and honest communication. I suspect we’ve gone from having one of the best known secretaries to having one of the least. It won’t help.

i don’t think Peterborough have been open and honest here and I wonder why. But they have a commercial interest in concealing any doubt over the game and Charlton don’t.

Whereas I just read / took that as Holden ingratiating himself with the fans - nothing wrong in that by the way. 

As to the commercial interest - surely they lose overall by having to rearrange to a mid week and inevitably refunding a number of tickets plus incurring costs twice. 

Just smacks to me of incompetence on their part. 

Yes - the gamble there is that they can get the game on. No point in concealing the problem otherwise. The aim is to hold up the Saturday revenue. The postponement is bad news however they approach it - they just managed to make themselves look worse by the way they handled it.

As an aside, who is speaking for Charlton on this? The manager, of course, as he’s on the spot, but the club itself has no voice, as usual. It’s not just a football management issue. Maybe the new chief operating officer will clear his throat and find one?

So are you saying the COO isn’t acting as such and this is further evidence he is only there as part of the DD process?

I did ask before if anyone knew if he was making any changes etc or if the day to day carries on as normal. 

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

Whilst we're on the subject of games being called off late, Chelsea's women's game at home to Liverpool yesterday was called off due to a frozen pitch......six minutes into the game.

How on earth did that pass a pitch inspection?

Both managers even said they felt the pitch was unplayable from early morning when they got the ground.

Maybe because it was being shown live on TV and the ref gave in against his better judgement……………..before someone (Chelsea midfielder Erin Cuthbert took a heavy fall in the fifth minute) got seriously injured and calling it off 🤷‍♂️.

The forecast for this week shows rising temperatures, after Tuesday with overnight temperatures at + 2/3degrees with daytime temperatures at + 6/8 degrees, so would expect the pitch will be covered overnight, so the Bolton game should be ok. 

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

I was a bit puzzled that Dean Holden had asked the secretary to contact Peterborough on Friday afternoon. I’d have thought the secretary should have been all over that without having to be asked, but then again he may not have the relationships the previous one did. Chris would also have been at the ground on the day.

Just trying to understand if you are suggesting something more here. 

Are you saying our new secretary isn’t doing what you would expect and that is a further example of the behind the scenes challenges we have? 

Do you also imply that the secretary does not regularly attend our away fixtures as CP did and you consider this  unusual compared to other clubs also?

To play devils advocate Holden comments may be taken too literally. It could also be that the secretary had been in previous contact but DH wanted the latest / most up to date position on Friday afternoon? It isn’t necessarily wrong to trust the secretary at Peterborough to be competent and keep the away team fully informed?

I wonder what you think the secretary’s role is? It’s absolutely to be the point of liaison between the club and its opponents, as well as the football authorities. It’s often relationship based and it’s a fact that Chris Parkes would have been there.

Sandgaard’s apparent priority has been to cut the cost of the role (although I’m not aware that Chris was particularly expensive). When Chris was retired it appears TS didn’t even advertise for a replacement before his retirement date, so he stayed on, just as Mick Everett is still acting as safety officer eight months after he retired AFAIK because the club hasn’t replaced him (one person who was appointed quickly left).

To facilitate the saving on the secretary role the club appointed someone from the eighth tier of the pyramid, presumably with contacts and experience to match. I doubt if the secretary is paid to go to away games now, whether that’s needed or not.

Of course we can just rely on the Peterborough secretary to look after Charlton’s interests. How did that work out yesterday, do you think?

You have clarified that’s why I asked. I’m not defending anyone. 

Your original post left me wondering if most club secretaries attend away games or if that was as much because CP was a fan too. 

I hadn’t really considered previously if Ron (?) was doing much differently. I agree we have replaced with someone with less experience and it smacks of cost cutting but also I guess it’s a relatively small pool to fish in to get someone with comparable experience  

It’s still plausible that he may have been in contact with Peterborough without Holdens request on Friday afternoon. I didn’t infer (as you seem to have) that his comment meant the new secretary didn’t proactively make and maintain contact. But you may know differently. That conversation wouldn’t need experience however so much as common sense wouldn’t it? 

I don’t think it’s fair to blame the current secretary, but it’s really a very strange state of affairs that a game which was always going to be off - by the sound of it - isn’t even flagged as doubtful until it’s called off silly late. That’s more difficult when there are longstanding relationships between officials at different clubs, because you cannot tell me that there weren’t Peterborough officials who knew that it was in doubt from the time they turned up, if not the previous day. If the groundsman didn’t know he cannot be competent.

You can get the odd fussy referee who makes a controversial decision but nobody is claiming this was playable. That’s what is so unusual.

Well quite it’s a poor scenario. 

Is the Peterborough secretary and colleagues new as well then?

You would expect Peterborough to be proactive even if they don’t yet know our new secretary very well. 

I’m not clear if you are  suggesting some blame lies on our side for not responding to feedback / messages or not? As I say it’s common sense to think about the possibility of a postponement that does not require extensive hands on experience. 

It’s a circular discussion. I think it’s odd that Holden said he asked the secretary to find out the position. I’d expect the secretary to be finding out and telling him without asking.

Football is a small world and club secretaries will all know each other and socialise at EFL events. It will assist open and honest communication. I suspect we’ve gone from having one of the best known secretaries to having one of the least. It won’t help.

i don’t think Peterborough have been open and honest here and I wonder why. But they have a commercial interest in concealing any doubt over the game and Charlton don’t.

Whereas I just read / took that as Holden ingratiating himself with the fans - nothing wrong in that by the way. 

As to the commercial interest - surely they lose overall by having to rearrange to a mid week and inevitably refunding a number of tickets plus incurring costs twice. 

Just smacks to me of incompetence on their part. 

Yes - the gamble there is that they can get the game on. No point in concealing the problem otherwise. The aim is to hold up the Saturday revenue. The postponement is bad news however they approach it - they just managed to make themselves look worse by the way they handled it.

As an aside, who is speaking for Charlton on this? The manager, of course, as he’s on the spot, but the club itself has no voice, as usual. It’s not just a football management issue. Maybe the new chief operating officer will clear his throat and find one?

So are you saying the COO isn’t acting as such and this is further evidence he is only there as part of the DD process?

I did ask before if anyone knew if he was making any changes etc or if the day to day carries on as normal. 

I now infer from you the only change is on the football side with DH. 

I’m saying that the club continues to have no voice on anything day to day other than the football manager, which is a problem because the manager’s remit is ultimately very limited.

That has been the case since 2017 - and apart from Meire since 2012.

Any comment on whether you know if the new COO is actually starting to do COO stuff?

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

I was a bit puzzled that Dean Holden had asked the secretary to contact Peterborough on Friday afternoon. I’d have thought the secretary should have been all over that without having to be asked, but then again he may not have the relationships the previous one did. Chris would also have been at the ground on the day.

Just trying to understand if you are suggesting something more here. 

Are you saying our new secretary isn’t doing what you would expect and that is a further example of the behind the scenes challenges we have? 

Do you also imply that the secretary does not regularly attend our away fixtures as CP did and you consider this  unusual compared to other clubs also?

To play devils advocate Holden comments may be taken too literally. It could also be that the secretary had been in previous contact but DH wanted the latest / most up to date position on Friday afternoon? It isn’t necessarily wrong to trust the secretary at Peterborough to be competent and keep the away team fully informed?

I wonder what you think the secretary’s role is? It’s absolutely to be the point of liaison between the club and its opponents, as well as the football authorities. It’s often relationship based and it’s a fact that Chris Parkes would have been there.

Sandgaard’s apparent priority has been to cut the cost of the role (although I’m not aware that Chris was particularly expensive). When Chris was retired it appears TS didn’t even advertise for a replacement before his retirement date, so he stayed on, just as Mick Everett is still acting as safety officer eight months after he retired AFAIK because the club hasn’t replaced him (one person who was appointed quickly left).

To facilitate the saving on the secretary role the club appointed someone from the eighth tier of the pyramid, presumably with contacts and experience to match. I doubt if the secretary is paid to go to away games now, whether that’s needed or not.

Of course we can just rely on the Peterborough secretary to look after Charlton’s interests. How did that work out yesterday, do you think?

You have clarified that’s why I asked. I’m not defending anyone. 

Your original post left me wondering if most club secretaries attend away games or if that was as much because CP was a fan too. 

I hadn’t really considered previously if Ron (?) was doing much differently. I agree we have replaced with someone with less experience and it smacks of cost cutting but also I guess it’s a relatively small pool to fish in to get someone with comparable experience  

It’s still plausible that he may have been in contact with Peterborough without Holdens request on Friday afternoon. I didn’t infer (as you seem to have) that his comment meant the new secretary didn’t proactively make and maintain contact. But you may know differently. That conversation wouldn’t need experience however so much as common sense wouldn’t it? 

I don’t think it’s fair to blame the current secretary, but it’s really a very strange state of affairs that a game which was always going to be off - by the sound of it - isn’t even flagged as doubtful until it’s called off silly late. That’s more difficult when there are longstanding relationships between officials at different clubs, because you cannot tell me that there weren’t Peterborough officials who knew that it was in doubt from the time they turned up, if not the previous day. If the groundsman didn’t know he cannot be competent.

You can get the odd fussy referee who makes a controversial decision but nobody is claiming this was playable. That’s what is so unusual.

Well quite it’s a poor scenario. 

Is the Peterborough secretary and colleagues new as well then?

You would expect Peterborough to be proactive even if they don’t yet know our new secretary very well. 

I’m not clear if you are  suggesting some blame lies on our side for not responding to feedback / messages or not? As I say it’s common sense to think about the possibility of a postponement that does not require extensive hands on experience. 

It’s a circular discussion. I think it’s odd that Holden said he asked the secretary to find out the position. I’d expect the secretary to be finding out and telling him without asking.

Football is a small world and club secretaries will all know each other and socialise at EFL events. It will assist open and honest communication. I suspect we’ve gone from having one of the best known secretaries to having one of the least. It won’t help.

i don’t think Peterborough have been open and honest here and I wonder why. But they have a commercial interest in concealing any doubt over the game and Charlton don’t.

Whereas I just read / took that as Holden ingratiating himself with the fans - nothing wrong in that by the way. 

As to the commercial interest - surely they lose overall by having to rearrange to a mid week and inevitably refunding a number of tickets plus incurring costs twice. 

Just smacks to me of incompetence on their part. 

Yes - the gamble there is that they can get the game on. No point in concealing the problem otherwise. The aim is to hold up the Saturday revenue. The postponement is bad news however they approach it - they just managed to make themselves look worse by the way they handled it.

As an aside, who is speaking for Charlton on this? The manager, of course, as he’s on the spot, but the club itself has no voice, as usual. It’s not just a football management issue. Maybe the new chief operating officer will clear his throat and find one?

So are you saying the COO isn’t acting as such and this is further evidence he is only there as part of the DD process?

I did ask before if anyone knew if he was making any changes etc or if the day to day carries on as normal. 

I now infer from you the only change is on the football side with DH. 

I’m saying that the club continues to have no voice on anything day to day other than the football manager, which is a problem because the manager’s remit is ultimately very limited.

That has been the case since 2017 - and apart from Meire since 2012.

Any comment on whether you know if the new COO is actually starting to do COO stuff?

No idea. How about you?

SporadicAddick said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

valleynick66 said:

Airman Brown said:

I was a bit puzzled that Dean Holden had asked the secretary to contact Peterborough on Friday afternoon. I’d have thought the secretary should have been all over that without having to be asked, but then again he may not have the relationships the previous one did. Chris would also have been at the ground on the day.

Just trying to understand if you are suggesting something more here. 

Are you saying our new secretary isn’t doing what you would expect and that is a further example of the behind the scenes challenges we have? 

Do you also imply that the secretary does not regularly attend our away fixtures as CP did and you consider this  unusual compared to other clubs also?

To play devils advocate Holden comments may be taken too literally. It could also be that the secretary had been in previous contact but DH wanted the latest / most up to date position on Friday afternoon? It isn’t necessarily wrong to trust the secretary at Peterborough to be competent and keep the away team fully informed?

I wonder what you think the secretary’s role is? It’s absolutely to be the point of liaison between the club and its opponents, as well as the football authorities. It’s often relationship based and it’s a fact that Chris Parkes would have been there.

Sandgaard’s apparent priority has been to cut the cost of the role (although I’m not aware that Chris was particularly expensive). When Chris was retired it appears TS didn’t even advertise for a replacement before his retirement date, so he stayed on, just as Mick Everett is still acting as safety officer eight months after he retired AFAIK because the club hasn’t replaced him (one person who was appointed quickly left).

To facilitate the saving on the secretary role the club appointed someone from the eighth tier of the pyramid, presumably with contacts and experience to match. I doubt if the secretary is paid to go to away games now, whether that’s needed or not.

Of course we can just rely on the Peterborough secretary to look after Charlton’s interests. How did that work out yesterday, do you think?

You have clarified that’s why I asked. I’m not defending anyone. 

Your original post left me wondering if most club secretaries attend away games or if that was as much because CP was a fan too. 

I hadn’t really considered previously if Ron (?) was doing much differently. I agree we have replaced with someone with less experience and it smacks of cost cutting but also I guess it’s a relatively small pool to fish in to get someone with comparable experience  

It’s still plausible that he may have been in contact with Peterborough without Holdens request on Friday afternoon. I didn’t infer (as you seem to have) that his comment meant the new secretary didn’t proactively make and maintain contact. But you may know differently. That conversation wouldn’t need experience however so much as common sense wouldn’t it? 

I don’t think it’s fair to blame the current secretary, but it’s really a very strange state of affairs that a game which was always going to be off - by the sound of it - isn’t even flagged as doubtful until it’s called off silly late. That’s more difficult when there are longstanding relationships between officials at different clubs, because you cannot tell me that there weren’t Peterborough officials who knew that it was in doubt from the time they turned up, if not the previous day. If the groundsman didn’t know he cannot be competent.

You can get the odd fussy referee who makes a controversial decision but nobody is claiming this was playable. That’s what is so unusual.

Well quite it’s a poor scenario. 

Is the Peterborough secretary and colleagues new as well then?

You would expect Peterborough to be proactive even if they don’t yet know our new secretary very well. 

I’m not clear if you are  suggesting some blame lies on our side for not responding to feedback / messages or not? As I say it’s common sense to think about the possibility of a postponement that does not require extensive hands on experience. 

It’s a circular discussion. I think it’s odd that Holden said he asked the secretary to find out the position. I’d expect the secretary to be finding out and telling him without asking.

Football is a small world and club secretaries will all know each other and socialise at EFL events. It will assist open and honest communication. I suspect we’ve gone from having one of the best known secretaries to having one of the least. It won’t help.

i don’t think Peterborough have been open and honest here and I wonder why. But they have a commercial interest in concealing any doubt over the game and Charlton don’t.

Whereas I just read / took that as Holden ingratiating himself with the fans - nothing wrong in that by the way. 

As to the commercial interest - surely they lose overall by having to rearrange to a mid week and inevitably refunding a number of tickets plus incurring costs twice. 

Just smacks to me of incompetence on their part. 

Yes - the gamble there is that they can get the game on. No point in concealing the problem otherwise. The aim is to hold up the Saturday revenue. The postponement is bad news however they approach it - they just managed to make themselves look worse by the way they handled it.

As an aside, who is speaking for Charlton on this? The manager, of course, as he’s on the spot, but the club itself has no voice, as usual. It’s not just a football management issue. Maybe the new chief operating officer will clear his throat and find one?

So are you saying the COO isn’t acting as such and this is further evidence he is only there as part of the DD process?

I did ask before if anyone knew if he was making any changes etc or if the day to day carries on as normal. 

I now infer from you the only change is on the football side with DH. 

I’m saying that the club continues to have no voice on anything day to day other than the football manager, which is a problem because the manager’s remit is ultimately very limited.

That has been the case since 2017 - and apart from Meire since 2012.

Any comment on whether you know if the new COO is actually starting to do COO stuff?

No idea. How about you?

In fairness I doubt Valley Nick holds him / her self out as a journalist with a keen investigative streak into the affairs of Charlton, and therefore it's reasonable for him to ask you a question, but perhaps less so the other way around.  

He seems very keen to attribute opinions to me. I don’t “hold myself out” as anything - I’ve written and published thousands of articles about Charlton, worked for nine years for the local paper, and edited the programme for five, as well as publishing and editing various books plus the fanzine for 34 years. You can call that what you like but it’s not accountancy.

InspectorSands said:

Back in the Premier League years, didn't we get another PL ref who was based reasonably near by (Orpington?) to take a look at the Valley pitch well in advance of a match? 

Steve Bennett?