Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Sandgaard ownership discussion 2022-3 onwards (Meeting with CAST p138)
Comments
-
I'll be there and hope people make it clear how bad this all is.cabbles said:
Be curious to see the level of unrest/frustration outside of this site if he’s at the gamebolloxbolder said:This week according to Garner.0 -
To be fair most of the youth would probably rather listen to that than Sandgaard's song.Callumcafc said:Bloke is possibly more Brent than Sandgaard.
Might even wake the east stand up!0 -
Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.0
-
Hopefully for everyone attending the evening, he does not get his Banjo outLewis Coaches said:Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.2 -
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.alburyaddick said:
PraguePragueAddick said:
FFS, Dan’s a little guy on a little salary while Raelynn is the owner’s “partner”.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 firedI’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.
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 !3 -
Shouldn't that be on the sexual innuendo thread ?shirty5 said:
Hopefully for everyone attending the evening, he does not get his Banjo outLewis Coaches said:Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.27 -
You have a very dirty mind young lady.Fanny Fanackapan said:
Shouldn't that be on the sexual innuendo thread ?shirty5 said:
Hopefully for everyone attending the evening, he does not get his Banjo outLewis Coaches said:Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.1 -
Fanny Fanackapan said:
Shouldn't that be on the sexual innuendo thread ?shirty5 said:
Hopefully for everyone attending the evening, he does not get his Banjo outLewis Coaches said:Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.
7 -
I expect there will be the usual fawning from the usual people.Lewis Coaches said:Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.10 -
Who is being alluded to?Airman Brown said:
I expect there will be the usual fawning from the usual people.Lewis Coaches said:Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Airman Brown said:
I expect there will be the usual fawning from the usual people.Lewis Coaches said:Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.
0 -
Think we can rule out a certain ex manager who'll be present.Airman Brown said:
I expect there will be the usual fawning from the usual people.Lewis Coaches said:Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.6 -
Did protests make Roland drop his price then ?NabySarr said:
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 necessaryBailey said:
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.NabySarr said:
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 himselfcarly 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!4 -
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 :-)Lewis Coaches said:Thought he was going to Back to The Valley evening, that’s why I said everyone under one roof.3 -
I’m confident if protests were directed towards TS he would sell up.Bailey said:
Did protests make Roland drop his price then ?NabySarr said:
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 necessaryBailey said:
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.NabySarr said:
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 himselfcarly 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!0 -
He hasn’t got anything to sell other than playersJ BLOCK said:
I’m confident if protests were directed towards TS he would sell up.Bailey said:
Did protests make Roland drop his price then ?NabySarr said:
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 necessaryBailey said:
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.NabySarr said:
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 himselfcarly 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!2 -
Don’t forget the Golden Share membership of the EFL mate for what it’s worth 😉.AFKABartram said:
He hasn’t got anything to sell other than playersJ BLOCK said:
I’m confident if protests were directed towards TS he would sell up.Bailey said:
Did protests make Roland drop his price then ?NabySarr said:
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 necessaryBailey said:
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.NabySarr said:
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 himselfcarly 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!1 -
Trying to get TS out makes no difference if you have no idea what we might get next. There needs to be some rhyme or reason.21
-
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 signbobmunro said:
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.thetomahawkkid said:
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.bobmunro said:
Just picking up on this thread.Redmidland said:
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.Fanny Fanackapan said:
Really ?Chunes said:
Isn't that just a standard non-compete/non-solicitation clause? Had them in most of my contracts back when I was an employee.Fanny Fanackapan said:
How can this be legal ????carly burn said:
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 !
I guess as an ex civil service long term employee there was NO "associated company" !
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.
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.
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).1 -
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 thatSporadicAddick 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!
1 -
Sponsored links:
-
Odd really, because if you’d made someone redundant you’d usually be pleased to hear they had another job so soon. Unless of course your original motives were petty and vindictive?charltonbob said:
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 thatSporadicAddick 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!34 -
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???1
-
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.0 -
Saw him in the West stand on Saturday.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???1 -
How many people who don't work for the club work at the Valley? Are we subletting offices out to sponsors or something?0
-
2 -
Confidence comes from knowledge, so what is the basis of your confidence J Block ?J BLOCK said:
I’m confident if protests were directed towards TS he would sell up.Bailey said:
Did protests make Roland drop his price then ?NabySarr said:
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 necessaryBailey said:
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.NabySarr said:
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 himselfcarly 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!1 -
Think you're forgetting the ZXT291 Deluxe Hotdog catapult.AFKABartram said:
He hasn’t got anything to sell other than playersJ BLOCK said:
I’m confident if protests were directed towards TS he would sell up.Bailey said:
Did protests make Roland drop his price then ?NabySarr said:
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 necessaryBailey said:
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.NabySarr said:
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 himselfcarly 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!8 -
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.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.17
