[cite]Posted By: Lewis Coaches[/cite]Thought Mr Murray said Mr Varney left Charlton due to ill health.Trust all is well now with Mr Varney.
As for his new post at Charlton not quite sure what to make of it.Given time things can only get better but as for the reason coming back to se7 only time will tell us why this appointment has now been made.
I don't think Peter has been ill - rather there was concern he would make himself ill if he continued the same level of commitment for much longer.
and a big thank you to sir maurice his investment has returned RM to the head of the club and now he steps down from the board,you get the feeling this was always the plan and that he has nailed his colours to the mast!!!!!!!!!!!
Am I the only one who, whenever Sir Maurice Hatter is mentioned, pictures a man wearing an over-sized top hat, with a ticket stuck in the brim, bearing the legend "In this style 10/6"?
Peter, saw you at Newcastle Airport...said cheer up Peter, you gave a worried smile......all the rest is history.
But now you are back I am smiling because I feel the future is brighter.
Welcome HOME Peter.
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]Am I the only one who, whenever Sir Maurice Hatter is mentioned, pictures a man wearing an over-sized top hat, with a ticket stuck in the brim, bearing the legend "In this style 10/6"?
[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite]So, he fronted more than one takeover, all of which failed.
And now he's back on the board. No conflict of interests?
Where'd you get that from??
Excuse me if I've used the wrong combination of words and hence caused the inner sanctum to rise up against me, but my understanding was that Varney was a part of various takeover-tunities,. although not financially - hence my use of the term. I'm sure I'm not as well informed as others, maybe you could spell it out for us?
Is "using the wrong combination of words " a new version of "getting it wrong" like the time you said the club was lying about ST sales and then wouldn't admit that you'd got it totally arse about tit.
No one was "rising up against you" so stop being so paranoid. You got it wrong, get over it.
Varney was working with the Board to bring in new money.
[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite]So, he fronted more than one takeover, all of which failed.
And now he's back on the board. No conflict of interests?
Where'd you get that from??
Excuse me if I've used the wrong combination of words and hence caused the inner sanctum to rise up against me, but my understanding was that Varney was a part of various takeover-tunities,. although not financially - hence my use of the term. I'm sure I'm not as well informed as others, maybe you could spell it out for us?
Since there was a non-disclosure agreement in operation (and may still be??) I don't think we'll ever know what his exact involvment in any takeover consortium is or was, (unless of course you are part of the right clique) but the suggestion was that he was acting in an advisory capacity to at least one consortium, presumably the one that allegedly involved Bill Curbishley.
If those bids are off the table and if he is no longer involved then I don't see how this is a conflict of loyalty.
Is "using the wrong combination of words " a new version of "getting it wrong" like the time you said the club was lying about ST sales and then wouldn't admit that you'd got it totally arse about tit.
No one was "rising up against you" so stop being so paranoid. You got it wrong, get over it.
Varney was working with the Board to bring in new money.
That choice of words was merely trying not to wind up people of a snipy nature who'd go into full interweb bullying mode - I find it boring and upsetting, and it's why I've not posted on here for a month, but you're right back in there within 5 minutes of my first post, with your unpleasant vitriol, Henry.Your recounting of the past is tediously revisionist , even by your standards. I can't be bothered to explain it, yet again. You're sly, not thick, so I'm sure you got it the first time, can't be bothered to explain it all again.
Anyhow - attempting to help Charlton Life be more of a site about discussing Charlton related issues rather than a platform for the chronically insecure to flex their "muscles", I remain interested in the subject matter, I thought - purely from what I've read on here - that PV was acting on behalf of potential bidders in order to introduce them to the board. Stupid point scoring efforts aside, have I got this wrong??
Why do you feel the need to go on the defensive merely because some people pointed out you had got something wrong in their opinion?
Why did you need to paint yourself the poor innocent outsider who had been set upon by the mythical "inner sanctum" that only exists in your paranoid mind as soon as someone disagreed with you?
Can you not take disagreement for what it is, a point of debate, rather than seeing it as some personal slight or sinister attack upon you.
I'm afraid I'll just be feeding into your persecution complex if I continue so I'll leave it there.
Murray and Varney back in tandem. Good news. But hang on. Didn't they used to be part of a triumvirate ? Where's that other fella - Alan-somebody wasn't it?
Comments
I don't think Peter has been ill - rather there was concern he would make himself ill if he continued the same level of commitment for much longer.
I thought his leaving in the first place was simply to have a break and not to do with ill health.
I thought you were talking about Dailly lol
this was always the plan and that he has nailed his colours to the mast!!!!!!!!!!!
It started "unravelling" when you left................
But now you are back I am smiling because I feel the future is brighter.
Welcome HOME Peter.
no you are not !!
Just incase any writs are being served again?
Good news though.
And now he's back on the board. No conflict of interests?
Did he ever say he was "fronting" a takeover?
Where'd you get that from??
Don't think anything was ever said other than personal reasons. Don't think it's right to speculate on someone's alledged illnesses in any case.
anyway that is easily controlled through medication and you can still be a pilot, or something similar, if you have regular check ups
Is "using the wrong combination of words " a new version of "getting it wrong" like the time you said the club was lying about ST sales and then wouldn't admit that you'd got it totally arse about tit.
No one was "rising up against you" so stop being so paranoid. You got it wrong, get over it.
Varney was working with the Board to bring in new money.
Since there was a non-disclosure agreement in operation (and may still be??) I don't think we'll ever know what his exact involvment in any takeover consortium is or was, (unless of course you are part of the right clique) but the suggestion was that he was acting in an advisory capacity to at least one consortium, presumably the one that allegedly involved Bill Curbishley.
If those bids are off the table and if he is no longer involved then I don't see how this is a conflict of loyalty.
That choice of words was merely trying not to wind up people of a snipy nature who'd go into full interweb bullying mode - I find it boring and upsetting, and it's why I've not posted on here for a month, but you're right back in there within 5 minutes of my first post, with your unpleasant vitriol, Henry.Your recounting of the past is tediously revisionist , even by your standards. I can't be bothered to explain it, yet again. You're sly, not thick, so I'm sure you got it the first time, can't be bothered to explain it all again.
Anyhow - attempting to help Charlton Life be more of a site about discussing Charlton related issues rather than a platform for the chronically insecure to flex their "muscles", I remain interested in the subject matter, I thought - purely from what I've read on here - that PV was acting on behalf of potential bidders in order to introduce them to the board. Stupid point scoring efforts aside, have I got this wrong??
Why do you feel the need to go on the defensive merely because some people pointed out you had got something wrong in their opinion?
Why did you need to paint yourself the poor innocent outsider who had been set upon by the mythical "inner sanctum" that only exists in your paranoid mind as soon as someone disagreed with you?
Can you not take disagreement for what it is, a point of debate, rather than seeing it as some personal slight or sinister attack upon you.
I'm afraid I'll just be feeding into your persecution complex if I continue so I'll leave it there.
Murray and Varney back in tandem. Good news. But hang on. Didn't they used to be part of a triumvirate ? Where's that other fella - Alan-somebody wasn't it?