But we in it shall be rememberèd— We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For they today that protest at 5pm with me Shall be my kin; be they ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle their condition; And gentlepeople who leave early Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That stood with us outside The Valley door.
Plus young Fanny and the rest of our CAFC sisters !
Indeed, and I'm not excluding anyone from the trans or ungendered communities!!!
I changed as much as I could from 'he' to 'they' but left 'brothers' and 'manhoods' as I couldn't come up with replacements that scanned well enough. I hope I've proved my PC / Guardian-reading credentials on this site often enough that Fanny et al with forgive me this one time.
sorry Airman, I confused your post with Kent Red's
But my answer to your question lies in my earlier remarks about the personalities of both parties. Whatever the rights and wrongs, neither is going to back down easily in public. You know that.
You realise that implicit in that is the recognition that Murray needs to "back down", whereas if he was entirely innocent in this episode there would be no backing down to be done. I think Richard has a choice - he can be part of a solution or he can go down with the Belgians, because it's clear they are going down and at the moment they are taking the club and him with them. When he tells people we both know well that Fraeye is the right appointment and, separately, that Meire is doing a good job, I assume that he has chosen the latter option.
I am aware, as I referenced obliquely in the Voice, that Richard has spoken to an alternative takeover interest, which may or may not be credible, but why would RD not want to hear about both? And how much has he told RD about that?
Question: If this is the total of all the email exchanges in the period do we know if there was any other contact at all e.g. Any brief phone conversations between the parties or any other intermediaries ?
I just find it strange that on both sides this dragged on for 3 months and amounted to just a few emails if the deal is mutually advantageous.
I only ask because there are many comments on here which reference emails going unanswered and I suspect the volume of perceived nuisance email could offer some explanation for any initial delay or scepticism of such an approach ( but of course only a partial excuse).
Likewise the emails reproduced don't directly state an intention for a takeover and I'm not clear if RD/KM know or knew that was intended. I know comments on here now say a takeover is possible but that isn't stated in the VOTV article.
I'd just like to know if the seriousness of the approach was appreciated as I might have imagined that an unsolicited email is not the only means of such a business transaction.
You would expect KM to appreciate that PV isn't prone to wasting everyone's time, even if he did send an e-mail out of the blue. However, it does raise the question as to why didn't PV 'phone KM or even RD? (I think we can deduce he didn't from the lack of reference to a 'phone call in the e-mails.
Be that as it may, discussing the minutae of this may put us in danger of getting sidetracked from the main matter in hand, which is to be there at 5pm, loud (but polite) and proud.
Going back to some of the earlier comments on here, and having looked carefully at what is in the Voice, I think it's important to say one thing, even if @carly burn doesn't want to hear it:-)
There is not a shred of evidence presented that Richard Murray stopped KM and RD from responding to PV's approach. Not a shred. Go back and read it for yourselves. Certainly, Peter Varney invites you to believe that in his piece. As does @Airman Brown. But that is not evidence. Furthermore, it has been argued on here for the last two years that RM has no power, is just a figurehead, etc, so to suggest he suddenly had power on this particular issue rather goes against the received CL wisdom of the last 2 years.
The reason I'm writing is is NOT to take sides, defend my "mate" etc. My point is this:
Here we have two successful businessmen who have fallen out. One of the personality traits which characterizes successful businessmen is pride, and another is strong will. These two guys, together, brought us older people the very best days of our Charlton lives. It is tragic that they have fallen out. But it happens in business, and the character traits I've described are usually at play.
In order for something good to come out of this development some of us need to somehow get these two proud guys to back down, and talk, even if that talking is through mediation.
I'm not going to tell people on here what to write about Richard Murray, and I'm not going to defend him against every Lifer who chooses to attack him. What I am saying is that if you do that without evidence, you reduce rather than increase the chances of us making something positive happen.
Murray has previously been bragging that he has stopped the Belgians talking to Varney.
On Saturday, on learning about the Voice, he told other people in the directors' box well known to many on here that he knew nothing about the Varney interest.
Then he discovered the emails showed he had been copied in by RD. He is snared in a web of his creation and it's time you woke up and smelt the coffee.
Given the fact that I've not read the email exchanges yet, nor listened to the Katrien interview, so well behind the news of the last week, thought it might be different to offer a view non-influenced by recent events.
Though I've been pretty critical of Richard Murray over the last few years, I refuse at this stage to see him as the evil villain and Varney as the white Knight that the impact of the latest news has generated until I know more. I may well be completely wrong, or change my tune in time (even when I've caught up with the latest), but I'm sure it is nowhere near as black and white as that.
Both are sharp, very clever players and operators, and I'm not sure I would ever fully trust either of them. As for the issue with Murray / Varney, I have memory / interpretation from what Murray said at a May 2013 Bromley Q+A that RM did which I felt gave an insight into his viewpoint, but I don't feel at liberty to share what was said other than he felt he was being unfairly viewed by supporters after what he has financially put INTO the club.
I desperately want the Belgians to go, will be protesting again on Saturday, and would probably take the risk now on any new major investor coming in.
But I'm not clever enough to work out what each of the key player's primary and secondary motives are, so with that in mind I'm staying a bit open-minded until i'm up to speed, or until more details emerge. The cynical side of me is cautiously warning at this point that Varney's primary motive in pursuing this potential investment, leaking private email exchanges etc may not be solely based on the 'best interests for the club' being the be all and end all. He is currently the chief executive of a rival, ambitious football club 20 minutes away that will most likely be just 2 divisions apart from us next season. If as Airman states in his article, he has no interest he has no ambition to return himself, I wonder what his broker fee / commission (if any) would be from a potential CAFC takeover?
Be interesting if my view changes after reading the leaked correspondence etc. My heart very much hopes the cynical side of me is being completely misplaced.
The problem is that Murray uses these meetings and off-the-record briefings to mislead people, safe in the knowledge that the subjects of his criticism are not there to answer back. He wants and gets deniability from grateful fans who think they are getting an insight. This has not always been misused, but in relation to Varney it has, and badly. He was at it again in February at the VIP meeting, but he spoke to the wrong people.
It's been made quite clear to the club a while ago that Varney will answer what he says about him in public session any time he is given the opportunity providing there is an independent chair, but that doesn't suit RM at all and of course it would be tawdry. Nevertheless people like yourself are influenced by this nonsense, which of course is what RM wants.
Let's remember, however, that RM appointed PV and employed him as chief executive for 11 years. He three times asked him to get involved again after PV quit in 2008 - at which point RM had lost the support of every single member of his board - regarding Dowie, fundraising and finding a buyer. Clearly if he then realised that PV was a malign influence it was a very late conversion.
I know what Murray did in active support of Slater's nasty pursuit of Varney and Kavanagh after they had quit in 2012. If he wants that spilled into the public domain it can be done. It won't do him any favours and I don't believe it helps anyone to do it, but as long as he perpetuates the idea that he is being hard done by the more likely it becomes that it will come out. Remember his argument with Wendy at Bromley. She challenged him because he was misleading the meeting about Kavanagh.
As I said to RM in May, I am not interested in sitting in the middle of this feud, but if I see him acting to the detriment of the club then I will challenge that and I am.
As I've said before to Prague, why not look at how much support RM has from the people who sat round the boardroom table with him, and how many even speak to him now? There's a reason for that.
'Nevertheless people like yourself are influenced by this nonsense, which of course is what RM wants.'
Not influenced Airman, the opposite. It makes me think that none of these people can be fully trusted and that there is always some form of clever, game-positioning, other motive in play. Sometimes it is obvious, sometimes it is not, so my instinct is always to question the actions of what some people say and do. And for my own reasons I put both Murray AND Varney in that camp.
'Nevertheless people like yourself are influenced by this nonsense, which of course is what RM wants.'
Not influenced Airman, the opposite. It makes me think that none of these people can be fully trusted and that there is always some form of clever, game-positioning, other motive in play. Sometimes it is obvious, sometimes it is not, so my instinct is always to question the actions of what some people say and do. And for my own reasons I put both Murray AND Varney in that camp.
My bold. Most likely the safest attitude to have, if not a bit cynical.
Not that it makes the situation any less severe, but clearly PV would have something to gain by going public with those emails. Fortunately, regardless of whatever advantage he has potentially gained from it, we've also gained an advantage ourselves: more ammunition against the current regime and a greater understanding of how incompetent they really are.
'Nevertheless people like yourself are influenced by this nonsense, which of course is what RM wants.'
Not influenced Airman, the opposite. It makes me think that none of these people can be fully trusted and that there is always some form of clever, game-positioning, other motive in play. Sometimes it is obvious, sometimes it is not, so my instinct is always to question the actions of what some people say and do. And for my own reasons I put both Murray AND Varney in that camp.
Someone is getting used in all this. No matter which side (or none) anyone takes.
sorry Airman, I confused your post with Kent Red's
But my answer to your question lies in my earlier remarks about the personalities of both parties. Whatever the rights and wrongs, neither is going to back down easily in public. You know that.
You realise that implicit in that is the recognition that Murray needs to "back down", whereas if he was entirely innocent in this episode there would be no backing down to be done. I think Richard has a choice - he can be part of a solution or he can go down with the Belgians, because it's clear they are going down and at the moment they are taking the club and him with them. When he tells people we both know well that Fraeye is the right appointment and, separately, that Meire is doing a good job, I assume that he has chosen the latter option.
I am aware, as I referenced obliquely in the Voice, that Richard has spoken to an alternative takeover interest, which may or may not be credible, but why would RD not want to hear about both? And how much has he told RD about that?
Question: If this is the total of all the email exchanges in the period do we know if there was any other contact at all e.g. Any brief phone conversations between the parties or any other intermediaries ?
I just find it strange that on both sides this dragged on for 3 months and amounted to just a few emails if the deal is mutually advantageous.
I only ask because there are many comments on here which reference emails going unanswered and I suspect the volume of perceived nuisance email could offer some explanation for any initial delay or scepticism of such an approach ( but of course only a partial excuse).
Likewise the emails reproduced don't directly state an intention for a takeover and I'm not clear if RD/KM know or knew that was intended. I know comments on here now say a takeover is possible but that isn't stated in the VOTV article.
I'd just like to know if the seriousness of the approach was appreciated as I might have imagined that an unsolicited email is not the only means of such a business transaction.
I think Reg went to America for a couple of weeks or so.
'Nevertheless people like yourself are influenced by this nonsense, which of course is what RM wants.'
Not influenced Airman, the opposite. It makes me think that none of these people can be fully trusted and that there is always some form of clever, game-positioning, other motive in play. Sometimes it is obvious, sometimes it is not, so my instinct is always to question the actions of what some people say and do. And for my own reasons I put both Murray AND Varney in that camp.
Do we actually know for sure, that there was a takeover plan behind PV's approach, or, simply, investment and marketing advantages from the upcoming Patamount Park? Regardless, however, very poor and rude responses from KM & RD
quite. Some of the period can be accounted for. Question remains do we know if there was any other contact over the 3 months ?
Seems to me we are all learning more of a dispute between PV and RM which I was previously unaware of and seems to be the significant sub text here.
I am still unsure why no other contact would be made by PV if it's to his advantage and by-pass KM in order to do that.
This drip feed of information is interesting but makes it hard to make sense of the bigger picture. The sooner all is shared that can be then the better informed we all are.
Having read the email exchanges, Katrien is simply out of her depth. Rude, ignorant and with no business skills at all. A perfect CEO for the current regime!
The consensus at the Woolwich meeting(seems a long time ago now) was Katrien should be bypassed and Richard Murray should be the conduit to Duchatelet. Now That Murray is persona non grata, would it not be possible For Peter Varney to get a message with bullet points of interest straight to Roland Greta Garbo Duchatelet at his Bunker in Brussels even if he has to pay an ex SAS man to deliver it in person ? This impasse is so sad.
I have given Katrien 2 years to get her act together, but now after deleting the picture of the 2 of us, which i had as the wallpaper on my phone, i have decided there's plenty more Fiiiiiiish in the sea and she is history.
Go straight to Brussels PV's SAS man and don't pass go.
Do we actually know for sure, that there was a takeover plan behind PV's approach, or, simply, investment and marketing advantages from the upcoming Patamount Park? Regardless, however, very poor and rude responses from KM & RD
It's a takeover offer and, in response to other posts, there have been no additional telephone conversations that involved PV.
So that suggests only now would RD/KM appreciate a takeover is a possibility that might be in attractive terms to them given the published emails did not state that.
Not great it's taken until now to get to where we are but what happens next between PV / RD / KM is surely the most interesting thing.
However, the no "conversations that involved PV" intrigues me. Is this implying other conversations with other parties who are involved was had and perhaps puts the emails in a different context?
Whatever happens both sides would find benefit with the supporters in disclosing a little more even if it's to say a conversation will be held.
So that suggests only now would RD/KM appreciate a takeover is a possibility that might be in attractive terms to them given the published emails did not state that.
Not great it's taken until now to get to where we are but what happens next between PV / RD / KM is surely the most interesting thing.
However, the no "conversations that involved PV" intrigues me. Is this implying other conversations with other parties who are involved was had and perhaps puts the emails in a different context?
Whatever happens both sides would find benefit with the supporters in disclosing a little more even if it's to say a conversation will be held.
All it means is that I obviously have no idea whether the three members of the board spoke to each other on the phone about it or indeed if there are emails between them that exclude Varney, since I've made no secret of the fact that he provided the email chain. He could only provide what he had.
The point surly is that the club is dying by a thousand cuts. We've been led to believe that Duchatelet is the only game in town, It's his way or the highway, and more and more were choosing the later. If the email exchange gives fresh impious of us trying to rid us of the current regimen then all well and good as far as I'm concerned. It's all we've got sadly.
Can someone please confirm is the protest after the game behind the West Stand or is it a sit in in all areas of the home support stands. Getting different messages from different forums. Also can't make up a sign like 'Murray Judas' or Duchatelet Meire Out but happy to buy them of the trust to help the fighting fund.
So that suggests only now would RD/KM appreciate a takeover is a possibility that might be in attractive terms to them given the published emails did not state that.
Not great it's taken until now to get to where we are but what happens next between PV / RD / KM is surely the most interesting thing.
However, the no "conversations that involved PV" intrigues me. Is this implying other conversations with other parties who are involved was had and perhaps puts the emails in a different context?
Whatever happens both sides would find benefit with the supporters in disclosing a little more even if it's to say a conversation will be held.
All it means is that I obviously have no idea whether the three members of the board spoke to each other on the phone about it or indeed if there are emails between them that exclude Varney, since I've made no secret of the fact that he provided the email chain. He could only provide what he had.
Thank you; no issue with that. I'm still not sure why PV and his backers would not have tried to make contact in this period beyond these relatively few emails if they wanted to takeover at mutually beneficial terms.
Seems to me this might be a ploy to get this in the public domain now when the selling price might be lower. If so again I have no issue.
Who moves next if at all is what we care about.
My guess is that we get an announcement on the manager and or signings early in January and little else. And that will not be enough.
The apologistshave but one defence. That is without the owner we wouldn't have a club. That is patently rubbish and this revelation pulls that rug so firmly away, that certain people have done double somersaults since it was announced. Airman, you are a real asset to this club. Thank you.
We could sit in the stadium all night - I suggested that before to some members of the Trust. It would involve bringing in supplies to survive but would catch the attention of Sky News etc if several thousand fans just didn't go home, and the stewards had no idea what to do. Just stay there, have a sit-in or sing in or whatever. It might sound mad but that's what it takes to get national attention these days.
In the end I am coming down to the Valley on Saturday to join the protest at 5.00. I'm not sure yet if I will go to the game. I don't know what the various agendas might be of any of the key players in all this, and who is driving what but I believe that Charlton Athletic Football Club is in trouble - there are clear signs both on the pitch and in the background running of the club that something is seriously amiss. I go down the Valley principally to watch Charlton play football and see people that I know who also go. I want the team to do well, and I want that to be the main aim of the owners as well, not to offer diversions that make terrible unambitious football somehow more palatable. I know we don't always win, that's a given, but I do want to see the owner's ambition evident on the pitch, not in pacifying little sound bites, that sound like dismissive,economically truthful spin. I want Charlton to still be here for years to come for all of us, and for all those who have worked for and supported this club. I think there is a danger that the current administration lack a sufficiently credible plan to ensure Charlton remains within the Championship. I think there is subterfuge and muddled thinking about the overall vision. I am protesting on Saturday because I think we simply have no choice but to make our discontent known.
I'll be there. I don't go to games at The Valley any more, but I'm happy to make the trip to add my voice to the ranks.
That is seriously impressive commitment, and if we do get some media down there, you are one of the people they should talk to (assuming you are happy to do that sort of thing, not everyone is)
Comments
I changed as much as I could from 'he' to 'they' but left 'brothers' and 'manhoods' as I couldn't come up with replacements that scanned well enough. I hope I've proved my PC / Guardian-reading credentials on this site often enough that Fanny et al with forgive me this one time.
Be that as it may, discussing the minutae of this may put us in danger of getting sidetracked from the main matter in hand, which is to be there at 5pm, loud (but polite) and proud.
It's been made quite clear to the club a while ago that Varney will answer what he says about him in public session any time he is given the opportunity providing there is an independent chair, but that doesn't suit RM at all and of course it would be tawdry. Nevertheless people like yourself are influenced by this nonsense, which of course is what RM wants.
Let's remember, however, that RM appointed PV and employed him as chief executive for 11 years. He three times asked him to get involved again after PV quit in 2008 - at which point RM had lost the support of every single member of his board - regarding Dowie, fundraising and finding a buyer. Clearly if he then realised that PV was a malign influence it was a very late conversion.
I know what Murray did in active support of Slater's nasty pursuit of Varney and Kavanagh after they had quit in 2012. If he wants that spilled into the public domain it can be done. It won't do him any favours and I don't believe it helps anyone to do it, but as long as he perpetuates the idea that he is being hard done by the more likely it becomes that it will come out. Remember his argument with Wendy at Bromley. She challenged him because he was misleading the meeting about Kavanagh.
As I said to RM in May, I am not interested in sitting in the middle of this feud, but if I see him acting to the detriment of the club then I will challenge that and I am.
As I've said before to Prague, why not look at how much support RM has from the people who sat round the boardroom table with him, and how many even speak to him now? There's a reason for that.
Not influenced Airman, the opposite. It makes me think that none of these people can be fully trusted and that there is always some form of clever, game-positioning, other motive in play. Sometimes it is obvious, sometimes it is not, so my instinct is always to question the actions of what some people say and do. And for my own reasons I put both Murray AND Varney in that camp.
Not that it makes the situation any less severe, but clearly PV would have something to gain by going public with those emails. Fortunately, regardless of whatever advantage he has potentially gained from it, we've also gained an advantage ourselves: more ammunition against the current regime and a greater understanding of how incompetent they really are.
Regardless, however, very poor and rude responses from KM & RD
Seems to me we are all learning more of a dispute between PV and RM which I was previously unaware of and seems to be the significant sub text here.
I am still unsure why no other contact would be made by PV if it's to his advantage and by-pass KM in order to do that.
This drip feed of information is interesting but makes it hard to make sense of the bigger picture. The sooner all is shared that can be then the better informed we all are.
Now That Murray is persona non grata, would it not be possible For Peter Varney to get a message with bullet points of interest straight to Roland Greta Garbo Duchatelet at his Bunker in Brussels even if he has to pay an ex SAS man to deliver it in person ? This impasse is so sad.
I have given Katrien 2 years to get her act together, but now after deleting the
picture of the 2 of us, which i had as the wallpaper on my phone, i have decided there's plenty more Fiiiiiiish in the sea and she is history.
Go straight to Brussels PV's SAS man and don't pass go.
Not great it's taken until now to get to where we are but what happens next between PV / RD / KM is surely the most interesting thing.
However, the no "conversations that involved PV" intrigues me. Is this implying other conversations with other parties who are involved was had and perhaps puts the emails in a different context?
Whatever happens both sides would find benefit with the supporters in disclosing a little more even if it's to say a conversation will be held.
Seems to me this might be a ploy to get this in the public domain now when the selling price might be lower. If so again I have no issue.
Who moves next if at all is what we care about.
My guess is that we get an announcement on the manager and or signings early in January and little else. And that will not be enough.
Possible answer: Because they wanted to delay PV talking to other parties while they pursued other interest.
Pure conjecture on my part but a possibility?
I don't know what the various agendas might be of any of the key players in all this, and who is driving what but I believe that Charlton Athletic Football Club is in trouble - there are clear signs both on the pitch and in the background running of the club that something is seriously amiss.
I go down the Valley principally to watch Charlton play football and see people that I know who also go. I want the team to do well, and I want that to be the main aim of the owners as well, not to offer diversions that make terrible unambitious football somehow more palatable. I know we don't always win, that's a given, but I do want to see the owner's ambition evident on the pitch, not in pacifying little sound bites, that sound like dismissive,economically truthful spin.
I want Charlton to still be here for years to come for all of us, and for all those who have worked for and supported this club.
I think there is a danger that the current administration lack a sufficiently credible plan to ensure Charlton remains within the Championship. I think there is subterfuge and muddled thinking about the overall vision.
I am protesting on Saturday because I think we simply have no choice but to make our discontent known.