Hasnt actually done it yet though has he. States that he wants to pursue it. Listen I'm sure she was implying that Peters offer included a move away but she didn't actually say that. Not trying to be technical and as you said I'm sure his advisors are aware of that.
I know Parliament is a bit busy at the moment with this Euro in/out thingy BUT is it too late to get the reintroduction of the Stocks and Widows Bridal back on the statute book in time for Varney successfully prosecuting Latrien?
Now, I would buy a season ticket to see that Belgian dope in the stocks or ducked in Charlton Lido!
Much as I cannot stand her and would love to see her either apologise or end up in court, I think her comment is vague enough for her to claim that she was not referring to Varney in particular. She might then have to provide evidence of someone who approached the club who did suggest a move from The Valley, but suspect this will just quietly disappear, much as her allegations of criminal activity against her have.
Much as I cannot stand her and would love to see her either apologise or end up in court, I think her comment is vague enough for her to claim that she was not referring to Varney in particular. She might then have to provide evidence of someone who approached the club who did suggest a move from The Valley, but suspect this will just quietly disappear, much as her allegations of criminal activity against her have.
But why did she not come out and say that when this all erupted?
Much as I cannot stand her and would love to see her either apologise or end up in court, I think her comment is vague enough for her to claim that she was not referring to Varney in particular. She might then have to provide evidence of someone who approached the club who did suggest a move from The Valley, but suspect this will just quietly disappear, much as her allegations of criminal activity against her have.
Regardless, it's more negative crap for her to deal with, which all adds to the pressure.
What is off more immediate interest is that someone got hold of the Safety Advisory Group minutes via a freedom of information request and that they are now being quoted in the press.
Police seem to be unwilling to go along with Katrien desire to stop peaceful, legal protests or back up her claims of racism.
Yet more embarrassment for her on that and more to come when she has to apologise to Varney.
Bring it on !!!!!
The Light Side versus The Dark Side.
Wonder if Katrien will call on me as a character witness ?
I can't see why this would have popped up if Varney's lawyers didn't think there was a case to answer. Very pleased about it - if Roland wants to keep her at the head of the club, he can watch the shit storms she regularly indulges in.
So weeks have passed and basically nothing - that is a regurgitation of what was said previously - I hope PV hurries up as would like to cast any doubts about his motives to one side
So weeks have passed and basically nothing - that is a regurgitation of what was said previously - I hope PV hurries up as would like to cast any doubts about his motives to one side
Its in the hands of his legal team. For all you know, they are waiting for our CEO to reply.
So weeks have passed and basically nothing - that is a regurgitation of what was said previously - I hope PV hurries up as would like to cast any doubts about his motives to one side
As this happened a while ago and nothing has happened since I feel like this may have just been pushed forward to the media as they know that they won't take it to court as the case isn't strong enough.
This is now the 3rd time that the 'demanding an apology' thing has been brought up and I would've thought that things would've progressed more significantly by now if it was being actively pursued. Although I'm not a lawyer so I don't really have a clue. Does seem a bit like scare tactics to get her to apologise though.
So weeks have passed and basically nothing - that is a regurgitation of what was said previously - I hope PV hurries up as would like to cast any doubts about his motives to one side
So because it isn't moving to your arbitrary timetable you, or should we say Richard Murray whose beard you are on here, have doubts.
PV isn't in any rush imho. He's given, at the advice of his lawyers no doubt, KM ample time to withdraw. He isn't going to let her claim she didn't know or have enough time to respond imho.
She has chosen her usual ignore it and pretend it didn't happen approach.
So weeks have passed and basically nothing - that is a regurgitation of what was said previously - I hope PV hurries up as would like to cast any doubts about his motives to one side
Its in the hands of his legal team. For all you know, they are waiting for our CEO to reply.
IT's only a fortnight ago and he's been on holiday. The legal wheels move very slowly so imagine if he is doing anything then it starts with a shot across her bows asking for retraction / apology and giving her X days to respond.
But what is she apologising for? We only have his word that his bid didn't contain moving from the Valley. Perhaps he can't prove that because at the end of the day whether she implied it or not she never actually said his bid did. The comment is surely to vague to take legal action on. If he is right I'm sure he wouldn't keep threating and just sue her.
The protocol as I understand it is to write formally giving a reasonable opportunity to make amends, setting out the complaint and what would be acceptable redress, then wait for that opportunity to expire before setting the wheels in motion. As I said, Varney is acting on legal advice.
I don't see how she would be able to claim she was not talking about his bid or is miss quoted, it was very clearly implied. I am no legal expert but it seems very very clear to me.
That said, not sure what you would sue her on? It is not really deformation is it and I don't think you can sue someone for simply telling a lie but maybe I am wrong?
I don't see how she would be able to claim she was not talking about his bid or is miss quoted, it was very clearly implied. I am no legal expert but it seems very very clear to me.
That said, not sure what you would sue her on? It is not really deformation is it and I don't think you can sue someone for simply telling a lie but maybe I am wrong?
My initial view was that it may not be defamatory, but then you have to ask what was her purpose in making that comment if it was not to undermine Varney's reputation with fans? And factor in the context, which was clearly likely to give the remark the maximum possible exposure, given it was a press conference. It's fairly clear her intention was to damage Varney, because if not what was her purpose?
I don't think there's much in the argument she didn't mean Varney. She introduced his name and no other; she said a takeover "like that". If she didn't mean to implicate Varney she'd hardly have used his name in isolation.
Well we will see once he's taken the legal action. But my guess is this will all just disappear without a trace. Where's the emails he promised? I also can't see what he would be suing her about.
Well we will see once he's taken the legal action. But my guess is this will all just disappear without a trace. Where's the emails he promised? I also can't see what he would be suing her about.
If his legal people think he has a case then the emails are the case, so why release before it hits court? The only sensible action is a retraction by Katrien but when has she ever done anything sensible?
Only sensible if she is lying. But what for one second she ain't? Varney will have egg on his face. Perhaps keeping quiet is best way not to add fuel to the fire.
Well we will see once he's taken the legal action. But my guess is this will all just disappear without a trace. Where's the emails he promised? I also can't see what he would be suing her about.
Only sensible if she is lying. But what for one second she ain't? Varney will have egg on his face. Perhaps keeping quiet is best way not to add fuel to the fire.
I have no knowledge of "the emails" but one of the two antagonists has a bit of a track record of dissemination.
Only sensible if she is lying. But what for one second she ain't? Varney will have egg on his face. Perhaps keeping quiet is best way not to add fuel to the fire.
Ok, let's play "what if?"
KM is telling the truth because she seen and discussed PVs detailed takeover proposal.
She definatly knows that the plan is to leave the Valley but how?
She has repeatedly said the club isn't for sale and she won't even meet with Varney.
So either she's lying about the club not being for sale or she's lying about knowing the PV wants to move the club away from the Valley.
Comments
It does not seem to have been made through WhatDoTheyKnow.com
Now, I would buy a season ticket to see that Belgian dope in the stocks or ducked in Charlton Lido!
"well what I meant was, er, you see, I was,
er, misinterpretated, er, erm..."
The Light Side versus The Dark Side.
Wonder if Katrien will call on me as a character witness ?
This is now the 3rd time that the 'demanding an apology' thing has been brought up and I would've thought that things would've progressed more significantly by now if it was being actively pursued. Although I'm not a lawyer so I don't really have a clue. Does seem a bit like scare tactics to get her to apologise though.
PV isn't in any rush imho. He's given, at the advice of his lawyers no doubt, KM ample time to withdraw. He isn't going to let her claim she didn't know or have enough time to respond imho.
She has chosen her usual ignore it and pretend it didn't happen approach.
Only it seems it isn't working, again.
That said, not sure what you would sue her on? It is not really deformation is it and I don't think you can sue someone for simply telling a lie but maybe I am wrong?
I don't think there's much in the argument she didn't mean Varney. She introduced his name and no other; she said a takeover "like that". If she didn't mean to implicate Varney she'd hardly have used his name in isolation.
KM is telling the truth because she seen and discussed PVs detailed takeover proposal.
She definatly knows that the plan is to leave the Valley but how?
She has repeatedly said the club isn't for sale and she won't even meet with Varney.
So either she's lying about the club not being for sale or she's lying about knowing the PV wants to move the club away from the Valley.
Or, imho, she's lying about both.