Don't know if I am happy to have someone, who has been proved to have lied about the racial abuse he received in Scotland as our Charman.
Not sure what you're on about but I can hand on heart say I've heard Paul getting terrible racial abuse, first hand at matches
Nobody is saying he didnt get racially abused at games, but, it has been said that he allegedly was less than honest in interviews and at after dinner events about certain incidents he said happened, he gave dates and specific details, all disproved by match stats, team line ups and TV footage etc that he was neither involved in the game or that he was not a goal scorer in a certain Old Firm game (which he stated lead to him being abused) and an alleged incident of someone throwing a banana at him, he picked it up, took a bite out of it and threw it back into the crowd, somehow, all missed by TV cameras, the referee, countless Journalists and photographers, police etc, never mentioned in any celtic circles or fanzines. If it had happened as he alleges, there is no way it would not have been front page news, certainly in Scottish papers, and probably down south. The crux being, which was all passed to Carlisle, that Elliot allegedly lied, changed his version of events a couple of times to beef up his interviews as to be able to slur Rangers fans, to enhance his anti racism profile to his own end, Carlisle was concerned about the integrity of the Kick It out Campaign and has said he will put these doubts to him, so far silence from Elliot.
Thanks, I looked into it. To be honest I doubt there's much more in it than incorrect recollection. I doubt he'd specifically fib about something so easily verifiable. The banana thing was confusion. When he related the story he said that it happened in Italy. Some rangers fans disputed that it had happened against them and that made him a liar, but he didn't actually say it. Can't find any mainstream media outlets that did, just rangers forums and bloggers. If anyone is suggesting Rangers or Celtic fans didn't racially abuse opposition players during that period, they're in cloud cuckoo land, I was at Celtic park where a bunch of a nimals dressed up as monkeys and threw bananas at Walters. I don't recall Elliott's treatment as being nearly as bad, but it was shocking by today's standards.
Thanks for clearing that up and confirming that the Rangers fans have got it wrong about Elliot
Heard a few things towards the back end of last season that Paul Elliot was in and around the directors box a lot and that he would be getting involved in some capacity. Chairman is a surprise but for me, the 'potless' to 'just about to go big time' swingometer swings towards the latter again with this.
Heard a few things towards the back end of last season that Paul Elliot was in and around the directors box a lot and that he would be getting involved in some capacity. Chairman is a surprise but for me, the 'potless' to 'just about to go big time' swingometer swings towards the latter again with this.
Do you think so ? I make it more a case that Slater is out for obvious reasons and TJ doesn't want to be the front of house. Admittedly Elliot ticks all the boxes as far as I am concerned but can't see why you would think the swingometer has moved.
Thanks Prague... Although i don't you know personally but I know all the hard work you had done in your role in helping us get back to the valley and like many on here are eternally greatful. I always find your posts very throughtful and informative and balanced. You did mention that you didn't think Elliott would be TJ's signing... maybe his connections with Chelsea may have something to do with it. Wasn' TJ a doorman/bouncer there... I maybe reading into this too much (and trying not to lose any sleep over it) but it looks like to me that TJ seems to be the the "driving force" of this great club. It does seem obvious in that he was quick to acquire an increase share of the club in order to progress something quicker behind the scenes. Has PV, Kavanagh etc have signed confidientality agreemens as part of their departure. It looks like Slater will be gone soon (with his main investor behind Slater gone whom we all know now) and if Paul accepts the role these new investors will put in their share I think if Paul accepts the job that will confirm there is something in the piepline.. why would he quit his other roles..??
Well I've now had a few words with a mate who knows Elliott personally, but he too (my mate) didnt see this coming. He says Paul has money from a property business (which of course is the same area as TJ), but doesnt believe he's anywhere near rich enough to put in a significant wedge. Nor does he think SCP had anything to do with it (which does not mean at all that SCP doesnt like it). Tend to agree with SHG's comments rather than Bexley Dan's, but I don't pretend to know for sure.
you should not have any doubts over who he supports, he used to buy himself and his son a Charlton season ticket each year. If you want a source then ok, it is me, I was in the ticket office at the time and sold them to him
Heard a few things towards the back end of last season that Paul Elliot was in and around the directors box a lot and that he would be getting involved in some capacity. Chairman is a surprise but for me, the 'potless' to 'just about to go big time' swingometer swings towards the latter again with this.
Do you think so ? I make it more a case that Slater is out for obvious reasons and TJ doesn't want to be the front of house. Admittedly Elliot ticks all the boxes as far as I am concerned but can't see why you would think the swingometer has moved.
Along the lines of what Rudders has said. It would indicate that new investment is iminent. Simply that if we were potless, why would we employ somebody new and somebody reasonably high profile in the football world at that?
Are people on here completely ignoring the fact that Slater has come out and said that Elliott hasn't been offered anything, and instead just reading into the speculation?
No, people are wondering why a national newspaper like The Mirror would bother running a story about Charlton if it had no substance or wasn't instigated by someone with a motive.
Don't know if I am happy to have someone, who has been proved to have lied about the racial abuse he received in Scotland as our Charman.
Not sure what you're on about but I can hand on heart say I've heard Paul getting terrible racial abuse, first hand at matches
Nobody is saying he didnt get racially abused at games, but, it has been said that he allegedly was less than honest in interviews and at after dinner events about certain incidents he said happened, he gave dates and specific details, all disproved by match stats, team line ups and TV footage etc that he was neither involved in the game or that he was not a goal scorer in a certain Old Firm game (which he stated lead to him being abused) and an alleged incident of someone throwing a banana at him, he picked it up, took a bite out of it and threw it back into the crowd, somehow, all missed by TV cameras, the referee, countless Journalists and photographers, police etc, never mentioned in any celtic circles or fanzines. If it had happened as he alleges, there is no way it would not have been front page news, certainly in Scottish papers, and probably down south. The crux being, which was all passed to Carlisle, that Elliot allegedly lied, changed his version of events a couple of times to beef up his interviews as to be able to slur Rangers fans, to enhance his anti racism profile to his own end, Carlisle was concerned about the integrity of the Kick It out Campaign and has said he will put these doubts to him, so far silence from Elliot.
Thanks, I looked into it. To be honest I doubt there's much more in it than incorrect recollection. I doubt he'd specifically fib about something so easily verifiable. The banana thing was confusion. When he related the story he said that it happened in Italy. Some rangers fans disputed that it had happened against them and that made him a liar, but he didn't actually say it. Can't find any mainstream media outlets that did, just rangers forums and bloggers. If anyone is suggesting Rangers or Celtic fans didn't racially abuse opposition players during that period, they're in cloud cuckoo land, I was at Celtic park where a bunch of a nimals dressed up as monkeys and threw bananas at Walters. I don't recall Elliott's treatment as being nearly as bad, but it was shocking by today's standards.
Thanks for clearing that up and confirming that the Rangers fans have got it wrong about Elliot
Well, someones lying, it could be Rothmans or the SPL/SFA record books I suppose.
Are people on here completely ignoring the fact that Slater has come out and said that Elliott hasn't been offered anything, and instead just reading into the speculation?
Not ignoring, but....
1. It was simply too left-field a story for it to have no form of semblance of truth to it 2. If it was a complete non-story, why would the current chairman (whose job this was being referred to), then wax lyrical about him "fine credentials, much admired, wish him well".
The Mirror has well established links with campaigns such as Hope Not Hate and Kick It Out, all very PE. This makes me suspicious that the news has come from within or around the PE camp. It's just not the sort of story that the Mirror would make up. Quite why the story broke at all is really weird.
exactly Plaayer. Either someone has fed them a lie but then where did they story come from original. and it does seem odd for him to deny that Elliott was offered the job? and doesnt come out and say "i am the Chairman here and i am not leaving". He has said the in the pass that they would never respond to every rumour and speculation but this is the only one he has responded to". but also states he has got all the credentials etc... has he done their research then??
So the it is more likely that Slater is lying because he said nice things about a bloke he works with in his capacity in the community trust than it is that the Daily Mirror is lying? Slater denied it because, unlike other rumours, it is easily deniable. He said nice things about Elliott because he works with him and is not professonally threatened by him. The Daily Mirror makes stuff upp. Agents feed stories about people they want to secure work for.
And as for the last irony according to this site rumours are true because they are denied and rumours are true because they are not denied.
What not go the whole hog and just start indepth discussion amongst ourselves about stuff that we have completely made up ourselves?
Are people on here completely ignoring the fact that Slater has come out and said that Elliott hasn't been offered anything, and instead just reading into the speculation?
Not ignoring, but....
1. It was simply too left-field a story for it to have no form of semblance of truth to it 2. If it was a complete non-story, why would the current chairman (whose job this was being referred to), then wax lyrical about him "fine credentials, much admired, wish him well".
It just doesn't fully add up.
I get that side of it, but a lot of the posts on here seem to be aimed towards "Is Elliott a good a choice?", "Is he a Charlton man?" etc. When it's now extremely unlikely he's got anything to do with it based on what Slater has come out and said.
In all this there is an assumption that Slater doesn't represent a controlling interest in the club. TJ might speak for 49% but as I understand it there are 2 x 9 % share holdings where we do not know the owners, beneficial or otherwise. For all we know they could be nominees of the money-bags that Slater represents. Hence his self assured statement that he is Chairman and not leaving!
The Mirror has well established links with campaigns such as Hope Not Hate and Kick It Out, all very PE. This makes me suspicious that the news has come from within or around the PE camp. It's just not the sort of story that the Mirror would make up. Quite why the story broke at all is really weird.
do they have apparatus at the PE camp or is it just forward roles and mat work?
Comments
rumour / gossipappointment?we were potless, why would we employ somebody new and somebody reasonably high profile in the football world at that?
http://rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=879:paul-elliott-rangers-lie&catid=110:other&Itemid=618
1. It was simply too left-field a story for it to have no form of semblance of truth to it
2. If it was a complete non-story, why would the current chairman (whose job this was being referred to), then wax lyrical about him "fine credentials, much admired, wish him well".
It just doesn't fully add up.
Slater denied it because, unlike other rumours, it is easily deniable. He said nice things about Elliott because he works with him and is not professonally threatened by him.
The Daily Mirror makes stuff upp.
Agents feed stories about people they want to secure work for.
And as for the last irony according to this site rumours are true because they are denied and rumours are true because they are not denied.
What not go the whole hog and just start indepth discussion amongst ourselves about stuff that we have completely made up ourselves?