New owners
- Thread starter CafcFactsStats
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
That's the problem with the word "lie".
It's a very loaded word.
Boris Johnson is a liar.
Katrien Meire is a liar - or at least she lied a lot during her time as CEO at Charlton.
When Rick Everitt labels Thomas Sandgaard a liar, Everitt gives the impression that TS is no more trustworthy in his character than Katrien Meire.
He may not mean to do that (or then again he might intend exactly that) - but that's how it feels to me.
Everitt does exactly what the protagonists on ITTV do. He makes out that TS is as untrustworthy as Duchatelet and his cronies.
Makes him out to be a man that Charlton fans should turn against.
Thomas Sandgaard is inaccurate. He is regrettably loose with his words - and granted, not for the first time.
Charlton Athletic has been mismanaged - but not for two decades. For about 16 years.
16 years isn't far off two decades. But it's far enough - and those four years before the 16 were some of the best in our Club's history. So TS would have been well advised not to just casually say "two decades" as if those four years from 2002 to 2006 are of no consequence.
Sandgaard has used a choice of phrase that is too vague and easy to say.
But for pity's sake, that mistake doesn't make him a liar worthy only of contempt and mistrust.
It doesn't make him an enemy of the Club.
It just makes that part of the content of his interview carelessly inaccurate.
If TS had taken the trouble to say the Club has been mismanaged for 16 years rather than two decades, he would be bang on.
I'm as sure as I can be that TS did not mean to disrespect or dismiss what Alan Curbishley did at Charlton Athletic between 2002 and 2006.
And there's no way I would build his loose terminology into a trumped up reason to question the man's honesty.
I'm sad to see Rick Everitt do that.
RE has stood up for Charlton in the past. I have great historical respect for him.
But the man goes down in my estimation for what he is saying about TS now, effectively assassinating his character one snipe at a time.
It's a very loaded word.
Boris Johnson is a liar.
Katrien Meire is a liar - or at least she lied a lot during her time as CEO at Charlton.
When Rick Everitt labels Thomas Sandgaard a liar, Everitt gives the impression that TS is no more trustworthy in his character than Katrien Meire.
He may not mean to do that (or then again he might intend exactly that) - but that's how it feels to me.
Everitt does exactly what the protagonists on ITTV do. He makes out that TS is as untrustworthy as Duchatelet and his cronies.
Makes him out to be a man that Charlton fans should turn against.
Thomas Sandgaard is inaccurate. He is regrettably loose with his words - and granted, not for the first time.
Charlton Athletic has been mismanaged - but not for two decades. For about 16 years.
16 years isn't far off two decades. But it's far enough - and those four years before the 16 were some of the best in our Club's history. So TS would have been well advised not to just casually say "two decades" as if those four years from 2002 to 2006 are of no consequence.
Sandgaard has used a choice of phrase that is too vague and easy to say.
But for pity's sake, that mistake doesn't make him a liar worthy only of contempt and mistrust.
It doesn't make him an enemy of the Club.
It just makes that part of the content of his interview carelessly inaccurate.
If TS had taken the trouble to say the Club has been mismanaged for 16 years rather than two decades, he would be bang on.
I'm as sure as I can be that TS did not mean to disrespect or dismiss what Alan Curbishley did at Charlton Athletic between 2002 and 2006.
And there's no way I would build his loose terminology into a trumped up reason to question the man's honesty.
I'm sad to see Rick Everitt do that.
RE has stood up for Charlton in the past. I have great historical respect for him.
But the man goes down in my estimation for what he is saying about TS now, effectively assassinating his character one snipe at a time.
Last edited:
You must log in or register to see images
You must log in or register to see images
I read that Charlton Athletic have a new sponsor;
https://www.charltonafc.com/news/charlton-announce-partnership-generous-robots
A crypto service provider.
Bad news in my opinion.
Worse than online casinos or payday lenders.
https://www.charltonafc.com/news/charlton-announce-partnership-generous-robots
A crypto service provider.
Bad news in my opinion.
Worse than online casinos or payday lenders.
For pity's sake...
Sorry this is only a screencap - I don't do twatter. This was capped from Dick's forum.
This is bad news.
More crooks and spivs getting involved with CAFC
This guy makes Matt Southall look respectable.
You must log in or register to see images
Sorry this is only a screencap - I don't do twatter. This was capped from Dick's forum.
This is bad news.
More crooks and spivs getting involved with CAFC
This guy makes Matt Southall look respectable.
I can't believe that CAFC has got itself involved with a sponsor that behaves like this.
Where are the family values and inclusivity when taking money from somebody who hides heir face like a street thug?
If a fan turned up at the Valley looking like that they wouldn't be let in.
I know the Club has said it's all about opening up new markets and attracting new interest.
But these guys want to project an image that is frankly disturbing and intimidating.
Even if it's nothing more than some trendy marketing thing designed to impress gullible young people who admire 'gangsta' culture.
It sends all the wrong signals.
Where are the family values and inclusivity when taking money from somebody who hides heir face like a street thug?
If a fan turned up at the Valley looking like that they wouldn't be let in.
I know the Club has said it's all about opening up new markets and attracting new interest.
But these guys want to project an image that is frankly disturbing and intimidating.
Even if it's nothing more than some trendy marketing thing designed to impress gullible young people who admire 'gangsta' culture.
It sends all the wrong signals.
Last edited:
The Club has released some kind of reassuring message regarding Generous Robots, including some words from Mr Sandgaard himself.
It all sounds reasonable and diplomatic, if hardly a ringing endorsement of the sponsor.
I'll have to agree to disagree with Mr Sandgaard on this matter.
I wouldn't buy anything from somebody dressed like the co-founder of Generous Robots, and I don't think his persona or his company's attitude do any credit to CAFC whatsoever.
But I'll admit I'm old and out of touch. I don't represent the future direction of support for Charlton Athletic.
It all sounds reasonable and diplomatic, if hardly a ringing endorsement of the sponsor.
I'll have to agree to disagree with Mr Sandgaard on this matter.
I wouldn't buy anything from somebody dressed like the co-founder of Generous Robots, and I don't think his persona or his company's attitude do any credit to CAFC whatsoever.
But I'll admit I'm old and out of touch. I don't represent the future direction of support for Charlton Athletic.
Yes, I saw those Robots DAO images on the new advertising screens we have around three of the stands.
All very cute. quite likely to engage the interest of kids.
In a way that other potentially harmful/addictive adult pursuits such as gambling or vaping are absolutely not allowed to employ.
Well done to the Trust for highlighting this.
All very cute. quite likely to engage the interest of kids.
In a way that other potentially harmful/addictive adult pursuits such as gambling or vaping are absolutely not allowed to employ.
Well done to the Trust for highlighting this.
Last edited:
I've been assured by people who understand their technology better than I do that this outfit is actually quite unscrupulous, and our association is quite disturbing. What with this and the ghastly Addicks to Victory blaring out every home game the Valley is becoming less like the ground that attracted me to Charlton in the first place.
I'm not overly averse to 'Addicks to Victory' though that genre of music isn't really my cup of tea.
I think it should only be played after full time when we win though.
If they are playing it before kick-off, it must be earlier than about 2:50 which is when I normally arrive.
This Generous Robots thing is just wrong though.
They are definitely leeching on our generally good reputation, as they have absolutely none of their own.
I think (and hope) the plug will be pulled on this sponsor in just a few months time.
I think it should only be played after full time when we win though.
If they are playing it before kick-off, it must be earlier than about 2:50 which is when I normally arrive.
This Generous Robots thing is just wrong though.
They are definitely leeching on our generally good reputation, as they have absolutely none of their own.
I think (and hope) the plug will be pulled on this sponsor in just a few months time.
My guess would be that Sandgaard is interested in sponsors from types of business that are seen as new and innovative, attractive to younger people maybe. Linking Charlton Athletic with new potential markets and customers.
It's a good thing in general that he wants to innovate, and promote CAFC as a forward looking progressive business.
But new markets are often wild frontiers with little or no regulation, which attract clever chancers and con men.
These Robots people may just enjoy marketing themselves as edgy and streetwise, a bit subversive.
But their evasiveness, even if just a marketing gimmick, does not serve Charlton Athletic in my view.
I don't think we should be associating with people who definitely aren't interested in family friendly values of honesty and clarity.
They put a premium on hiding their faces and acting shifty.
I agree, there must be many other sponsorship alternatives that do not risk involving the Club and some of its young fans in questionable dealings.
It's a good thing in general that he wants to innovate, and promote CAFC as a forward looking progressive business.
But new markets are often wild frontiers with little or no regulation, which attract clever chancers and con men.
These Robots people may just enjoy marketing themselves as edgy and streetwise, a bit subversive.
But their evasiveness, even if just a marketing gimmick, does not serve Charlton Athletic in my view.
I don't think we should be associating with people who definitely aren't interested in family friendly values of honesty and clarity.
They put a premium on hiding their faces and acting shifty.
I agree, there must be many other sponsorship alternatives that do not risk involving the Club and some of its young fans in questionable dealings.
I get all the discomfort over the new sponsors, however I'm for it. People who don't understand cryptocurrency shouldn't do it but it is not all a scam. I have actually cashed out over 30k profit through it .
One of the things that puts me off it is many of the stories I hear about scammers conning people into transferring money into unsafe bank accounts.
More than once I've heard that the first thing the scammers do with the money they steal is buy cryptocurrency with it.
Presumably this makes it harder for anybody to recover, as well as turning a quick and large profit as often as not.
Granted buying cryptocurrency is not itself an illegal activity, or wrong in principle for those law abiding folk who understand what they are doing.
But some of the organised criminals it seems to attract strongly suggest regulation and protection from abuse is severely lacking.
More than once I've heard that the first thing the scammers do with the money they steal is buy cryptocurrency with it.
Presumably this makes it harder for anybody to recover, as well as turning a quick and large profit as often as not.
Granted buying cryptocurrency is not itself an illegal activity, or wrong in principle for those law abiding folk who understand what they are doing.
But some of the organised criminals it seems to attract strongly suggest regulation and protection from abuse is severely lacking.
