Katrien sacked?
Comments
-
What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.cafcfan1990 said:
Even to start my argument, how do we know there was no intent to cause loss?cafcfan said:
No it wouldn't. I’ve explained this. There was no gain (or intent to gain or cause loss). Fraud of any description doesn't apply. That leaves forgery and/or the Companies Act offence. The CPS have two tests when considering prosecution: Evidential Sufficiency and Public Interest. In a nutshell, once over the evidence hurdle they would have to consider the levels of loss or harm suffered as a result of the offence having been committed. As there wasn't any loss or any harm, it would not be in the public interest to proceed.cafcfan1990 said:
It would still come under Fraud by Misrepresentation.Airman Brown said:
It's not fraud though, is it? Fraud is "criminal deception; the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage". There's no advantage to whoever sent this is in. It's hardly going to be in the public interest to waste police or any other public resources on a prank, and that's what they would tell the club if asked.kings hill addick said:
I would have thought that anyone else that can reliably confirm that this was not done by the club would be best served keeping it to themselves.Nicholas said:http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house
Charlton Athletic have expressed concern after the resignation of their chief executive Katrien Meire was falsely posted on Companies House.
The club put out a statement saying: “The club is aware of a document that has appeared on Companies House. “This document is false and the club is investigating the matter as it is something we take seriously.”
Louis Mendez, whose Twitter feed identifies him as a presenter on Charltonlive, said: “This is hilarious. I have been reliably informed that it was in fact a #cafc fan who has resigned Katrien Meire’s directorship on her behalf.”
He added: “For the record, I do not know who did this. But I do know it is a forged signature and Katrien has not resigned as director.”
The incident is the latest to strike the troubled club who in January appointed their third manager this season, José Riga, who had managed the club previously.
Also in January, at the home game against Blackburn, thousands of fans protested against the ownership of Roland Duchâtelet, the Belgian businessman and founder of Belgium’s Vivant political party who bought the club in January 2014.
Meire, a 30-year-old lawyer who was brought on board by Duchâtelet, had attracted fans’ ire by referring to them as “customers”. At present Charlton sit bottom of the Championship, three points short of safety.
I don't want to sound like a killjoy but I suspect that submitting false documents to Companies House is fraud and the fewer of us that admit to having any knowledge of it the better for all those concerned. On something that is in the public domain like this an investigation will need to be considered or it might send out the message that fraud is ok if it makes people laugh.
It is, indeed, hilarious but I fear that the Police might be quite insistent that the identity of the person that reliably informed a journalist that it was a CAFC fan is disclosed.
The police would be well aware of this and consequently wouldn't even bother investigating if they have their thinking heads on.3 -
It was you wasn't it......Airman Brown said:
What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.cafcfan1990 said:
Even to start my argument, how do we know there was no intent to cause loss?cafcfan said:
No it wouldn't. I’ve explained this. There was no gain (or intent to gain or cause loss). Fraud of any description doesn't apply. That leaves forgery and/or the Companies Act offence. The CPS have two tests when considering prosecution: Evidential Sufficiency and Public Interest. In a nutshell, once over the evidence hurdle they would have to consider the levels of loss or harm suffered as a result of the offence having been committed. As there wasn't any loss or any harm, it would not be in the public interest to proceed.cafcfan1990 said:
It would still come under Fraud by Misrepresentation.Airman Brown said:
It's not fraud though, is it? Fraud is "criminal deception; the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage". There's no advantage to whoever sent this is in. It's hardly going to be in the public interest to waste police or any other public resources on a prank, and that's what they would tell the club if asked.kings hill addick said:
I would have thought that anyone else that can reliably confirm that this was not done by the club would be best served keeping it to themselves.Nicholas said:http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house
Charlton Athletic have expressed concern after the resignation of their chief executive Katrien Meire was falsely posted on Companies House.
The club put out a statement saying: “The club is aware of a document that has appeared on Companies House. “This document is false and the club is investigating the matter as it is something we take seriously.”
Louis Mendez, whose Twitter feed identifies him as a presenter on Charltonlive, said: “This is hilarious. I have been reliably informed that it was in fact a #cafc fan who has resigned Katrien Meire’s directorship on her behalf.”
He added: “For the record, I do not know who did this. But I do know it is a forged signature and Katrien has not resigned as director.”
The incident is the latest to strike the troubled club who in January appointed their third manager this season, José Riga, who had managed the club previously.
Also in January, at the home game against Blackburn, thousands of fans protested against the ownership of Roland Duchâtelet, the Belgian businessman and founder of Belgium’s Vivant political party who bought the club in January 2014.
Meire, a 30-year-old lawyer who was brought on board by Duchâtelet, had attracted fans’ ire by referring to them as “customers”. At present Charlton sit bottom of the Championship, three points short of safety.
I don't want to sound like a killjoy but I suspect that submitting false documents to Companies House is fraud and the fewer of us that admit to having any knowledge of it the better for all those concerned. On something that is in the public domain like this an investigation will need to be considered or it might send out the message that fraud is ok if it makes people laugh.
It is, indeed, hilarious but I fear that the Police might be quite insistent that the identity of the person that reliably informed a journalist that it was a CAFC fan is disclosed.
The police would be well aware of this and consequently wouldn't even bother investigating if they have their thinking heads on.5 -
Reputational damage?Airman Brown said:
What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.cafcfan1990 said:
Even to start my argument, how do we know there was no intent to cause loss?cafcfan said:
No it wouldn't. I’ve explained this. There was no gain (or intent to gain or cause loss). Fraud of any description doesn't apply. That leaves forgery and/or the Companies Act offence. The CPS have two tests when considering prosecution: Evidential Sufficiency and Public Interest. In a nutshell, once over the evidence hurdle they would have to consider the levels of loss or harm suffered as a result of the offence having been committed. As there wasn't any loss or any harm, it would not be in the public interest to proceed.cafcfan1990 said:
It would still come under Fraud by Misrepresentation.Airman Brown said:
It's not fraud though, is it? Fraud is "criminal deception; the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage". There's no advantage to whoever sent this is in. It's hardly going to be in the public interest to waste police or any other public resources on a prank, and that's what they would tell the club if asked.kings hill addick said:
I would have thought that anyone else that can reliably confirm that this was not done by the club would be best served keeping it to themselves.Nicholas said:http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house
Charlton Athletic have expressed concern after the resignation of their chief executive Katrien Meire was falsely posted on Companies House.
The club put out a statement saying: “The club is aware of a document that has appeared on Companies House. “This document is false and the club is investigating the matter as it is something we take seriously.”
Louis Mendez, whose Twitter feed identifies him as a presenter on Charltonlive, said: “This is hilarious. I have been reliably informed that it was in fact a #cafc fan who has resigned Katrien Meire’s directorship on her behalf.”
He added: “For the record, I do not know who did this. But I do know it is a forged signature and Katrien has not resigned as director.”
The incident is the latest to strike the troubled club who in January appointed their third manager this season, José Riga, who had managed the club previously.
Also in January, at the home game against Blackburn, thousands of fans protested against the ownership of Roland Duchâtelet, the Belgian businessman and founder of Belgium’s Vivant political party who bought the club in January 2014.
Meire, a 30-year-old lawyer who was brought on board by Duchâtelet, had attracted fans’ ire by referring to them as “customers”. At present Charlton sit bottom of the Championship, three points short of safety.
I don't want to sound like a killjoy but I suspect that submitting false documents to Companies House is fraud and the fewer of us that admit to having any knowledge of it the better for all those concerned. On something that is in the public domain like this an investigation will need to be considered or it might send out the message that fraud is ok if it makes people laugh.
It is, indeed, hilarious but I fear that the Police might be quite insistent that the identity of the person that reliably informed a journalist that it was a CAFC fan is disclosed.
The police would be well aware of this and consequently wouldn't even bother investigating if they have their thinking heads on.
I'll get my coat6 -
Look, I am not arguing they caused loss, but how can we talk about intention without knowing who even did it? I also agree the only costs will be admin costs, etc, nothing significant in the slightest.Airman Brown said:
What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.cafcfan1990 said:
Even to start my argument, how do we know there was no intent to cause loss?cafcfan said:
No it wouldn't. I’ve explained this. There was no gain (or intent to gain or cause loss). Fraud of any description doesn't apply. That leaves forgery and/or the Companies Act offence. The CPS have two tests when considering prosecution: Evidential Sufficiency and Public Interest. In a nutshell, once over the evidence hurdle they would have to consider the levels of loss or harm suffered as a result of the offence having been committed. As there wasn't any loss or any harm, it would not be in the public interest to proceed.cafcfan1990 said:
It would still come under Fraud by Misrepresentation.Airman Brown said:
It's not fraud though, is it? Fraud is "criminal deception; the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage". There's no advantage to whoever sent this is in. It's hardly going to be in the public interest to waste police or any other public resources on a prank, and that's what they would tell the club if asked.kings hill addick said:
I would have thought that anyone else that can reliably confirm that this was not done by the club would be best served keeping it to themselves.Nicholas said:http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house
Charlton Athletic have expressed concern after the resignation of their chief executive Katrien Meire was falsely posted on Companies House.
The club put out a statement saying: “The club is aware of a document that has appeared on Companies House. “This document is false and the club is investigating the matter as it is something we take seriously.”
Louis Mendez, whose Twitter feed identifies him as a presenter on Charltonlive, said: “This is hilarious. I have been reliably informed that it was in fact a #cafc fan who has resigned Katrien Meire’s directorship on her behalf.”
He added: “For the record, I do not know who did this. But I do know it is a forged signature and Katrien has not resigned as director.”
The incident is the latest to strike the troubled club who in January appointed their third manager this season, José Riga, who had managed the club previously.
Also in January, at the home game against Blackburn, thousands of fans protested against the ownership of Roland Duchâtelet, the Belgian businessman and founder of Belgium’s Vivant political party who bought the club in January 2014.
Meire, a 30-year-old lawyer who was brought on board by Duchâtelet, had attracted fans’ ire by referring to them as “customers”. At present Charlton sit bottom of the Championship, three points short of safety.
I don't want to sound like a killjoy but I suspect that submitting false documents to Companies House is fraud and the fewer of us that admit to having any knowledge of it the better for all those concerned. On something that is in the public domain like this an investigation will need to be considered or it might send out the message that fraud is ok if it makes people laugh.
It is, indeed, hilarious but I fear that the Police might be quite insistent that the identity of the person that reliably informed a journalist that it was a CAFC fan is disclosed.
The police would be well aware of this and consequently wouldn't even bother investigating if they have their thinking heads on.0 -
I can't see why anybody is arguing at all - great effort from whoever did it. We shouldn't be debating anything other than how clever they were.9
-
First thing we did when we set up our company was to register for online filing. It's easier and prevents a Charlton supporter sending in a spoof change of director. Company secretary's job, or his wife if she's working for the regime.The Red Robin said:6 -
I'm Spartacus2
-
Can I just check, is the club carrying out a full investigation or just an interim one?35
-
It actually doesn't matter. The police won't care, the club won't even bother to investigate as it will be a waste of time, and it will be another stick to beat the current regime (and boy are they the gift that keeps giving). End of.cafcfan1990 said:
Look, I am not arguing they caused loss, but how can we talk about intention without knowing who even did it? I also agree the only costs will be admin costs, etc, nothing significant in the slightest.Airman Brown said:
What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.cafcfan1990 said:
Even to start my argument, how do we know there was no intent to cause loss?cafcfan said:
No it wouldn't. I’ve explained this. There was no gain (or intent to gain or cause loss). Fraud of any description doesn't apply. That leaves forgery and/or the Companies Act offence. The CPS have two tests when considering prosecution: Evidential Sufficiency and Public Interest. In a nutshell, once over the evidence hurdle they would have to consider the levels of loss or harm suffered as a result of the offence having been committed. As there wasn't any loss or any harm, it would not be in the public interest to proceed.cafcfan1990 said:
It would still come under Fraud by Misrepresentation.Airman Brown said:
It's not fraud though, is it? Fraud is "criminal deception; the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage". There's no advantage to whoever sent this is in. It's hardly going to be in the public interest to waste police or any other public resources on a prank, and that's what they would tell the club if asked.kings hill addick said:
I would have thought that anyone else that can reliably confirm that this was not done by the club would be best served keeping it to themselves.Nicholas said:http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house
Charlton Athletic have expressed concern after the resignation of their chief executive Katrien Meire was falsely posted on Companies House.
The club put out a statement saying: “The club is aware of a document that has appeared on Companies House. “This document is false and the club is investigating the matter as it is something we take seriously.”
Louis Mendez, whose Twitter feed identifies him as a presenter on Charltonlive, said: “This is hilarious. I have been reliably informed that it was in fact a #cafc fan who has resigned Katrien Meire’s directorship on her behalf.”
He added: “For the record, I do not know who did this. But I do know it is a forged signature and Katrien has not resigned as director.”
The incident is the latest to strike the troubled club who in January appointed their third manager this season, José Riga, who had managed the club previously.
Also in January, at the home game against Blackburn, thousands of fans protested against the ownership of Roland Duchâtelet, the Belgian businessman and founder of Belgium’s Vivant political party who bought the club in January 2014.
Meire, a 30-year-old lawyer who was brought on board by Duchâtelet, had attracted fans’ ire by referring to them as “customers”. At present Charlton sit bottom of the Championship, three points short of safety.
I don't want to sound like a killjoy but I suspect that submitting false documents to Companies House is fraud and the fewer of us that admit to having any knowledge of it the better for all those concerned. On something that is in the public domain like this an investigation will need to be considered or it might send out the message that fraud is ok if it makes people laugh.
It is, indeed, hilarious but I fear that the Police might be quite insistent that the identity of the person that reliably informed a journalist that it was a CAFC fan is disclosed.
The police would be well aware of this and consequently wouldn't even bother investigating if they have their thinking heads on.2 - Sponsored links:
-
The liar without make up ?soapboxsam said:
I thought they had ?MuttleyCAFC said:
Yes, somebody should write a sitcom about it allken_shabby said:
Along with a useless manager and his amusing sidekick CEO escaping from Colchester in a laundry van, to the music from 'The Great Escape'.MuttleyCAFC said:This will go down in our history.
0 -
Maybe they'll keep us all behind at the next game until whoever did it owns up?
I am Spartacus.2 -
.0
-
It is just a pathetic attempt to try scare the culprit away and show the rest of us oiks that they won't stand for any more of this rubbish. The fact that the statement is short, not well written and talks about an "investigation" without considering the repercussions suggests it was all very reactionary and not thought out at all-you can almost hear the anger in her voice as she is dictating the sentence to one of her minions. Another episode to add to the comedy series that is our ownership, particularly our out of her depth CEO.12
-
One of the top stories on news aggregation site NewsNow (box on the right hand side): newsnow.co.uk/h/
3 -
Akin to issuing a statement that "the search for a full time head coach now starts"HandG said:It is just a pathetic attempt to try scare the culprit away and show the rest of us oiks that they won't stand for any more of this rubbish. The fact that the statement is short, not well written and talks about an "investigation" without considering the repercussions suggests it was all very reactionary and not thought out at all-you can almost hear the anger in her voice as she is dictating the sentence to one of her minions. Another episode to add to the comedy series that is our ownership, particularly our out of her depth CEO.
8 -
Fixed it for myself.Wheresmeticket? said:Maybe they'll
keep us all behind atmake us attend the next game until whoever did it owns up?
I am Spartacus.
3 -
If they want to create a martyr, crack on.HandG said:It is just a pathetic attempt to try scare the culprit away and show the rest of us oiks that they won't stand for any more of this rubbish. The fact that the statement is short, not well written and talks about an "investigation" without considering the repercussions suggests it was all very reactionary and not thought out at all-you can almost hear the anger in her voice as she is dictating the sentence to one of her minions. Another episode to add to the comedy series that is our ownership, particularly our out of her depth CEO.
1 -
Damage to her pride, maybe ?seriously_red said:
Reputational damage?Airman Brown said:
What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.cafcfan1990 said:
Even to start my argument, how do we know there was no intent to cause loss?cafcfan said:
No it wouldn't. I’ve explained this. There was no gain (or intent to gain or cause loss). Fraud of any description doesn't apply. That leaves forgery and/or the Companies Act offence. The CPS have two tests when considering prosecution: Evidential Sufficiency and Public Interest. In a nutshell, once over the evidence hurdle they would have to consider the levels of loss or harm suffered as a result of the offence having been committed. As there wasn't any loss or any harm, it would not be in the public interest to proceed.cafcfan1990 said:
It would still come under Fraud by Misrepresentation.Airman Brown said:
It's not fraud though, is it? Fraud is "criminal deception; the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage". There's no advantage to whoever sent this is in. It's hardly going to be in the public interest to waste police or any other public resources on a prank, and that's what they would tell the club if asked.kings hill addick said:
I would have thought that anyone else that can reliably confirm that this was not done by the club would be best served keeping it to themselves.Nicholas said:http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house
Charlton Athletic have expressed concern after the resignation of their chief executive Katrien Meire was falsely posted on Companies House.
The club put out a statement saying: “The club is aware of a document that has appeared on Companies House. “This document is false and the club is investigating the matter as it is something we take seriously.”
Louis Mendez, whose Twitter feed identifies him as a presenter on Charltonlive, said: “This is hilarious. I have been reliably informed that it was in fact a #cafc fan who has resigned Katrien Meire’s directorship on her behalf.”
He added: “For the record, I do not know who did this. But I do know it is a forged signature and Katrien has not resigned as director.”
The incident is the latest to strike the troubled club who in January appointed their third manager this season, José Riga, who had managed the club previously.
Also in January, at the home game against Blackburn, thousands of fans protested against the ownership of Roland Duchâtelet, the Belgian businessman and founder of Belgium’s Vivant political party who bought the club in January 2014.
Meire, a 30-year-old lawyer who was brought on board by Duchâtelet, had attracted fans’ ire by referring to them as “customers”. At present Charlton sit bottom of the Championship, three points short of safety.
I don't want to sound like a killjoy but I suspect that submitting false documents to Companies House is fraud and the fewer of us that admit to having any knowledge of it the better for all those concerned. On something that is in the public domain like this an investigation will need to be considered or it might send out the message that fraud is ok if it makes people laugh.
It is, indeed, hilarious but I fear that the Police might be quite insistent that the identity of the person that reliably informed a journalist that it was a CAFC fan is disclosed.
The police would be well aware of this and consequently wouldn't even bother investigating if they have their thinking heads on.
I'll get my coat
And we all know what pride comes before......
6 -
A huge spike in the share price of KY Jelly.Fanny Fanackapan said:
Damage to her pride, maybe ?seriously_red said:
Reputational damage?Airman Brown said:
What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.cafcfan1990 said:
Even to start my argument, how do we know there was no intent to cause loss?cafcfan said:
No it wouldn't. I’ve explained this. There was no gain (or intent to gain or cause loss). Fraud of any description doesn't apply. That leaves forgery and/or the Companies Act offence. The CPS have two tests when considering prosecution: Evidential Sufficiency and Public Interest. In a nutshell, once over the evidence hurdle they would have to consider the levels of loss or harm suffered as a result of the offence having been committed. As there wasn't any loss or any harm, it would not be in the public interest to proceed.cafcfan1990 said:
It would still come under Fraud by Misrepresentation.Airman Brown said:
It's not fraud though, is it? Fraud is "criminal deception; the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage". There's no advantage to whoever sent this is in. It's hardly going to be in the public interest to waste police or any other public resources on a prank, and that's what they would tell the club if asked.kings hill addick said:
I would have thought that anyone else that can reliably confirm that this was not done by the club would be best served keeping it to themselves.Nicholas said:http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house
Charlton Athletic have expressed concern after the resignation of their chief executive Katrien Meire was falsely posted on Companies House.
The club put out a statement saying: “The club is aware of a document that has appeared on Companies House. “This document is false and the club is investigating the matter as it is something we take seriously.”
Louis Mendez, whose Twitter feed identifies him as a presenter on Charltonlive, said: “This is hilarious. I have been reliably informed that it was in fact a #cafc fan who has resigned Katrien Meire’s directorship on her behalf.”
He added: “For the record, I do not know who did this. But I do know it is a forged signature and Katrien has not resigned as director.”
The incident is the latest to strike the troubled club who in January appointed their third manager this season, José Riga, who had managed the club previously.
Also in January, at the home game against Blackburn, thousands of fans protested against the ownership of Roland Duchâtelet, the Belgian businessman and founder of Belgium’s Vivant political party who bought the club in January 2014.
Meire, a 30-year-old lawyer who was brought on board by Duchâtelet, had attracted fans’ ire by referring to them as “customers”. At present Charlton sit bottom of the Championship, three points short of safety.
I don't want to sound like a killjoy but I suspect that submitting false documents to Companies House is fraud and the fewer of us that admit to having any knowledge of it the better for all those concerned. On something that is in the public domain like this an investigation will need to be considered or it might send out the message that fraud is ok if it makes people laugh.
It is, indeed, hilarious but I fear that the Police might be quite insistent that the identity of the person that reliably informed a journalist that it was a CAFC fan is disclosed.
The police would be well aware of this and consequently wouldn't even bother investigating if they have their thinking heads on.
I'll get my coat
And we all know what pride comes before......4 - Sponsored links:
-
Call me old-fashioned, but I'm not entirely sure that we all knew that.....RodneyCharltonTrotta said:
A huge spike in the share price of KY Jelly.Fanny Fanackapan said:
Damage to her pride, maybe ?seriously_red said:
Reputational damage?Airman Brown said:
What loss could have been caused? This company doesn't even trade outside of the group. It is just a vehicle for holding the freehold assets away from the football business, but ultimately under the same ownership.cafcfan1990 said:
Even to start my argument, how do we know there was no intent to cause loss?cafcfan said:
No it wouldn't. I’ve explained this. There was no gain (or intent to gain or cause loss). Fraud of any description doesn't apply. That leaves forgery and/or the Companies Act offence. The CPS have two tests when considering prosecution: Evidential Sufficiency and Public Interest. In a nutshell, once over the evidence hurdle they would have to consider the levels of loss or harm suffered as a result of the offence having been committed. As there wasn't any loss or any harm, it would not be in the public interest to proceed.cafcfan1990 said:
It would still come under Fraud by Misrepresentation.Airman Brown said:
It's not fraud though, is it? Fraud is "criminal deception; the use of false representations to gain an unjust advantage". There's no advantage to whoever sent this is in. It's hardly going to be in the public interest to waste police or any other public resources on a prank, and that's what they would tell the club if asked.kings hill addick said:
I would have thought that anyone else that can reliably confirm that this was not done by the club would be best served keeping it to themselves.Nicholas said:http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/feb/09/charlton-resignation-katrien-meire-companies-house
Charlton Athletic have expressed concern after the resignation of their chief executive Katrien Meire was falsely posted on Companies House.
The club put out a statement saying: “The club is aware of a document that has appeared on Companies House. “This document is false and the club is investigating the matter as it is something we take seriously.”
Louis Mendez, whose Twitter feed identifies him as a presenter on Charltonlive, said: “This is hilarious. I have been reliably informed that it was in fact a #cafc fan who has resigned Katrien Meire’s directorship on her behalf.”
He added: “For the record, I do not know who did this. But I do know it is a forged signature and Katrien has not resigned as director.”
The incident is the latest to strike the troubled club who in January appointed their third manager this season, José Riga, who had managed the club previously.
Also in January, at the home game against Blackburn, thousands of fans protested against the ownership of Roland Duchâtelet, the Belgian businessman and founder of Belgium’s Vivant political party who bought the club in January 2014.
Meire, a 30-year-old lawyer who was brought on board by Duchâtelet, had attracted fans’ ire by referring to them as “customers”. At present Charlton sit bottom of the Championship, three points short of safety.
I don't want to sound like a killjoy but I suspect that submitting false documents to Companies House is fraud and the fewer of us that admit to having any knowledge of it the better for all those concerned. On something that is in the public domain like this an investigation will need to be considered or it might send out the message that fraud is ok if it makes people laugh.
It is, indeed, hilarious but I fear that the Police might be quite insistent that the identity of the person that reliably informed a journalist that it was a CAFC fan is disclosed.
The police would be well aware of this and consequently wouldn't even bother investigating if they have their thinking heads on.
I'll get my coat
And we all know what pride comes before......8 -
Are any of the media types on here able to get an estimate of the cash value of the media coverage generated by this latest Meire mishap? All for the price of a first class stamp!1
-
Who cares who done it.
She bit and it went all over the media like wildfire.
Hopefully she won't learn from it0 -
Doing a Christian Gross.J BLOCK said:Roland en route
2 -
He's eyeing you in a particularly predatory manner. I can see a crimewatch appeal pending.J BLOCK said:Roland en route
"Mr J Block was last seen snapping this middle aged man on a train. Police would like to speak to this man to assist with their inquiries. He is known to have a fondness for collecting obscure footballers from the backwaters of Europe and the middle east and should not be approached."13 -
Thats what happens when you hire Karel Fraeye to drive you around London.16
-
Are you sure, it doesn't even look like he's straining....guinnessaddick said:
Doing a Christian Gross.J BLOCK said:Roland en route
2 -
This is unbelievable. Look what I've just found courtesy of Reuters:
On the heels of the tremendous, international success of NPR's hit investigative podcast "Serial" and Netflix's runaway triumph with "Making a Murderer", Reuters understands that a number of top international broadcast networks are vying for the rights to the recent Company's House scandal involving the apparently "fraudulent" resignation of rising Belgian starlet Katrien Meire. Buckle your seats folks. This may prove to be the most compelling "whodunnit" yet!
20
