Leaving aside what was in the VoV article, surely the postponement of RM's attendance is entirely consistent with the recent board announcement of KM. In the light of that, it would be odd for Richard to turn up at at the Bromley meeting at this stage.
I hope there is nothing more to it than meets the eye. I have to say, though, that even if the VOTV article was 100% accurate, and I have no reason to believe that Airman would print any lies, I would not be terribly surprised if Richard was to decide to stop going to these sort of events.
Ignoring the rights or wrongs of what had gone on before, publicly slating an individual is hardly the best way to endear them to come along to fan gatherings to 'share' stories and facts about the club.
As I say I'm not, necessarily, criticising the Voice article, but if it had been written about me I would have made an on the spot decision to turn down any more invites from Supporters' Clubs. I suspect it's only Henry's continued friendship with Richard that has made this an annual event. I just hope it doesn't stop permanently as I find these sort of events hugely entertaining and informative. I don't know of any other club official that is as open as Richard can be - both in his praise and his criticism. It would be a shame if he stopped providing this kind of access.
It must be clear to anyone who has read the article that it is not about Richard Murray per se and does not "publicly slate him", but is a direct and detailed response to some derogatory things he has repeatedly said, publicly and privately, about people who have left the club, including Peter Varney and Steve Kavanagh.
I don't suppose he likes being challenged with inconvenient facts, but why should Murray expect to "publicly slate" Varney, among others, without any rebuttal? I suggest that others may have made the same point.
1. What ever it is about it reads (maybe not all of it) like a response (rebuttal) to Richard's public meetings. Specifically I'm thinking of Bromley last year which was preceded with you offering Lifers some 'helpful questions' for us to ask him - questions that I thought at the time were, shall we say, a little argumentative. I thought at the time that his outburst and open conversation with Wendy Perfect was in direct response to your posts on here. I think that, somewhat, questions if he is the only one that wants to be able to respond to public statements.
2. publicly slate him? Well it was public (I'm assuming that VOTV is, by definition, public) and you did call him out on a number of things - I'm not saying you were incorrect or that it was wrong to do it, but from my first reading, and the one I've just done again now, that is the interpretation I have of the article.
3. At the risk of sounding like a patronising teacher or parent the phrase that, immediately, comes to me is "Well he started it!"
I have no interest in prolonging the spat that you have with the club and it's Directors etc. nor do I have any desire to take sides or offer an opinion on the rights and wrongs of what happened. However, my first thought when I read that he was 'postponing' the May meeting was that it would be a shame if he was tempted to stop attending these meetings if there was going to be someone 'monitoring' what he said to rebut it in print later on.
I am encouraged by the comments, especially those of Prague Addick, that he will not stop attending these events. I couldn't be happier to be proved wrong about the impact of the article, but I certainly didn't post on here to start a row about it.
Given that RM is not going to Bromley, I'm not keen on rehearsing the issues again here. They were discussed here after the VIP meeting. Murray didn't "slate" me and I haven't "slated" him. All I would say is that there is more to this than an article in VOTV and it doesn't involve me at all.
Some people have a very different definition of 'public' to me.
Am I alone in not having read the VOTV article where Airman slates Richard, not being aware of any 'open' discussion between Wendy and Richard or know what Richard has 'repeatedly' said about Airman?
I do remember the questions Airman suggested on here for putting to Richard at the meeting although I have no idea if anyone did.
In my view I read this forum quite a bit, and probably more that the average Charlton fan, and therefore am probably better informed on Charlton 'gossip' than the average fan. I believe the average Charlton fan knows more about Charlton than the average member of the public.
And therefore I believe there are very very few members of the public who do know (or care about) this stuff and therefore question the repeated use of the word public when refering to these petty arguments.
Maybe you are being contrary or you have just forgotten but there was a very long thread about the last Murray meeting at Bromley on which you yourself commented both before and after the meeting.
I reckon its more RM knows that Duchalet aint thick and that RD has been trying to plug the holes of leaking info since he arrived
If muzza attends an event it would be hard to disprove he had said something should the person who is letting out the gossip let something out soon after the meeting
One approach to leaks is for the club to have a communications strategy involving all media including board member appearances. This year, this new board have been far more communicative than last year with monthly statements in one form or another. But there are still many gaps and questions... And speculation. at the same time I suspect that the club will experience a fair degree of change over the next three months. Let's be realistic here and understand that the club is under new ownership as well as facing a relegation fight. So for me energies should go on supporting the lads tonight and next Tuesday. It will be an entirely different matter if we are told we are returning to the 2012/13 era on a permanent basis but so far the indicators and communications suggest this is temporary.
Duc's energies are probably being utilised elsewhere, he may even consider that finishing that the solar installation he is installing himself to heat his swimming pool takes priority. I appreciate that we may take a different view of how important we are but I suspect that lil' ol' Charlton is well down his pecking order so let's not kid ourselves.
Some people have a very different definition of 'public' to me.
Am I alone in not having read the VOTV article where Airman slates Richard, not being aware of any 'open' discussion between Wendy and Richard or know what Richard has 'repeatedly' said about Airman?
I do remember the questions Airman suggested on here for putting to Richard at the meeting although I have no idea if anyone did.
In my view I read this forum quite a bit, and probably more that the average Charlton fan, and therefore am probably better informed on Charlton 'gossip' than the average fan. I believe the average Charlton fan knows more about Charlton than the average member of the public.
And therefore I believe there are very very few members of the public who do know (or care about) this stuff and therefore question the repeated use of the word public when refering to these petty arguments.
I don't know if I should respond to this post but just let me point out that when I say public I'm suggesting 'not private' opposed to members of the public.
Clearly I didn't mean to suggest that a significant proportion of the UK population attend the Bromley Supporters' club meetings, nor that the VOTV has a circulation approaching fifty-five million readers.
If you didn't know what I meant then you will, probably, find many of my posts confusing and I would suggest that you just, literally, pass over all my comments in future. If you were, however, making a joke then well done, ha ha. Good one!
Some people have a very different definition of 'public' to me.
Am I alone in not having read the VOTV article where Airman slates Richard, not being aware of any 'open' discussion between Wendy and Richard or know what Richard has 'repeatedly' said about Airman?
I do remember the questions Airman suggested on here for putting to Richard at the meeting although I have no idea if anyone did.
In my view I read this forum quite a bit, and probably more that the average Charlton fan, and therefore am probably better informed on Charlton 'gossip' than the average fan. I believe the average Charlton fan knows more about Charlton than the average member of the public.
And therefore I believe there are very very few members of the public who do know (or care about) this stuff and therefore question the repeated use of the word public when refering to these petty arguments.
Maybe you are being contrary or you have just forgotten but there was a very long thread about the last Murray meeting at Bromley on which you yourself commented both before and after the meeting.
However maybe you didn't notice this line: "I do remember the questions Airman suggested on here for putting to Richard at the meeting although I have no idea if anyone did"
So clearly I remember the Murray meeting discussions beforehand. I have briefly looked back over that thread (as I don't have endless free time) and I can only see stuff about personal comments being made after the meeting. However, if I should have used the words 'can't remember' rather than 'no idea' then so be it.
Some people have a very different definition of 'public' to me.
Am I alone in not having read the VOTV article where Airman slates Richard, not being aware of any 'open' discussion between Wendy and Richard or know what Richard has 'repeatedly' said about Airman?
I do remember the questions Airman suggested on here for putting to Richard at the meeting although I have no idea if anyone did.
In my view I read this forum quite a bit, and probably more that the average Charlton fan, and therefore am probably better informed on Charlton 'gossip' than the average fan. I believe the average Charlton fan knows more about Charlton than the average member of the public.
And therefore I believe there are very very few members of the public who do know (or care about) this stuff and therefore question the repeated use of the word public when refering to these petty arguments.
Maybe you are being contrary or you have just forgotten but there was a very long thread about the last Murray meeting at Bromley on which you yourself commented both before and after the meeting.
However maybe you didn't notice this line: "I do remember the questions Airman suggested on here for putting to Richard at the meeting although I have no idea if anyone did"
So clearly I remember the Murray meeting discussions beforehand. I have briefly looked back over that thread (as I don't have endless free time) and I can only see stuff about personal comments being made after the meeting. However, if I should have used the words 'can't remember' rather than 'no idea' then so be it.
Too much time? Took about 30 seconds to find your comments on the thread. Internet search engines are very good these days. And it was you who said "In my view I read this forum quite a bit, and probably more that the average Charlton fan" so you too seem to have too much time.
So your point is you that drew huge conclusions on the basis of you not reading a thread, that you had in fact read and commented on, about "public" knowledge but wont now admit you were wrong.
No need to apologise or withdraw your remarks as you can pretend you are so so busy despite having the time to post the above.
Comments
Maybe you are being contrary or you have just forgotten but there was a very long thread about the last Murray meeting at Bromley on which you yourself commented both before and after the meeting.
http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/54375/richard-murray-at-bromley-addicks-1-may/p10
If muzza attends an event it would be hard to disprove he had said something should the person who is letting out the gossip let something out soon after the meeting
Prob best that RM keeps his powder dry for now
But there are still many gaps and questions... And speculation. at the same time I suspect that the club will experience a fair degree of change over the next three months. Let's be realistic here and understand that the club is under new ownership as well as facing a relegation fight.
So for me energies should go on supporting the lads tonight and next Tuesday.
It will be an entirely different matter if we are told we are returning to the 2012/13 era on a permanent basis but so far the indicators and communications suggest this is temporary.
Clearly I didn't mean to suggest that a significant proportion of the UK population attend the Bromley Supporters' club meetings, nor that the VOTV has a circulation approaching fifty-five million readers.
If you didn't know what I meant then you will, probably, find many of my posts confusing and I would suggest that you just, literally, pass over all my comments in future. If you were, however, making a joke then well done, ha ha. Good one!
However maybe you didn't notice this line:
"I do remember the questions Airman suggested on here for putting to Richard at the meeting although I have no idea if anyone did"
So clearly I remember the Murray meeting discussions beforehand. I have briefly looked back over that thread (as I don't have endless free time) and I can only see stuff about personal comments being made after the meeting.
However, if I should have used the words 'can't remember' rather than 'no idea' then so be it.
So your point is you that drew huge conclusions on the basis of you not reading a thread, that you had in fact read and commented on, about "public" knowledge but wont now admit you were wrong.
No need to apologise or withdraw your remarks as you can pretend you are so so busy despite having the time to post the above.