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.
Or, imho, she's lying about both.
I don't think she is lying, in the sense of knowingly telling an untruth. I think she believed what she said, but it's another example of her mouth running ahead of her brain. She doesn't know it to be true and she certainly can't prove it, she just threw it in anyway because she could. It's lack of experience and poor judgement. And that's why she's unfit to be chief executive.
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.
Or, imho, she's lying about both.
I don't think she is lying, in the sense of knowingly telling an untruth. I think she believed what she said, but it's another example of her mouth running ahead of her brain. She doesn't know it to be true and she certainly can't prove it, she just threw it in anyway because she could. It's lack of experience and poor judgement. And that's why she's unfit to be chief executive.
Either way she's in the wrong.
A simple "I didn't mean to imply that Varney was planning to move the club and I apologise for any confusion" and this would have been over but her pride, inability to admit she's wrong and unwillingness to be shown up in front of uncle Roland means she lets it fester.
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.
Or, imho, she's lying about both.
I don't think she is lying, in the sense of knowingly telling an untruth. I think she believed what she said, but it's another example of her mouth running ahead of her brain. She doesn't know it to be true and she certainly can't prove it, she just threw it in anyway because she could. It's lack of experience and poor judgement. And that's why she's unfit to be chief executive.
On the upside we now know there was some more meaningful dialogue between PV / RD / KM after the initial reticence to engage i.e. The threat to reveal more (recent) emails.
What I don't think you or others have shared however is what those conversations resulted in if anything. I'm curious what more PV may have gleaned that could be brought in to the public domain however limited that may be.
Even if perhaps it was simply an apology / acknowledgement that PV didn't get treated well in the original engagement that would be of some interest / context.
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.
Or, imho, she's lying about both.
I don't think she is lying, in the sense of knowingly telling an untruth. I think she believed what she said, but it's another example of her mouth running ahead of her brain. She doesn't know it to be true and she certainly can't prove it, she just threw it in anyway because she could. It's lack of experience and poor judgement. And that's why she's unfit to be chief executive.
It's quite alarming if you think about it. I'm not surprised she packed in being a lawyer. She would be shredded in seconds by any mildly competent opposition carrying on like she does. Now we're stuck with her incompetence instead.
It won't get to court as that will really show her up as the incompetent she is so I expect an apology eventually. Even that will be embarrassing for her. If only we had an owner who would then do the decent thing and sack her.
It won't get to court as that will really show her up as the incompetent she is so I expect an apology eventually. Even that will be embarrassing for her. If only we had an owner who would then do the decent thing and sack her.
It won't get to court as that will really show her up as the incompetent she is so I expect an apology eventually. Even that will be embarrassing for her. If only we had an owner who would then do the decent thing and sack her.
Unfortunately, it is an example of how poor she is at her job - Firstly, in her position, you need to be a bit careful as to what you say, Secondly, we all make mistakes even though she has previous, she could have acknowledged the error and apologised and clarified that she didn't mean it how it came out. Her pride is such that rather than do the logical and sensible, she needlessly creates a issue!
lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
A press conference with our new manager, hijacked by her and Murray for who knows a reason why.
She has brought this on herself and more bad publicity against her everytime she opens her gate. The woman speaks before her brain engages and one day she will come unstuck.
It may be soon with Varney, but if not she is an accident waiting to happen unless she thinks first or resigns asap.
lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
Just out of interest Doucher, as I've seen you post similar a few times - what makes you give the benefit of the doubt to our current CEO - who you admit has been making an arse of things - over our (highly claimed, successful and respected) former CEO?
lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
Nope, I think the fuel was the crap way the club was being run into the ground on the pitch.
lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
Just out of interest Doucher, as I've seen you post similar a few times - what makes you give the benefit of the doubt to our current CEO - who you admit has been making an arse of things - over our (highly claimed, successful and respected) former CEO?
because i dont understand where these people were when the club was desperate for a buyer and i like to keep an open mind on it - if a move away from the valley is part of varneys deal then that is not a good thing - id like to see him disprove it and id like to see a genuine better alternative to the belgiums
lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
Just out of interest Doucher, as I've seen you post similar a few times - what makes you give the benefit of the doubt to our current CEO - who you admit has been making an arse of things - over our (highly claimed, successful and respected) former CEO?
because i dont understand where these people were when the club was desperate for a buyer and i like to keep an open mind on it - if a move away from the valley is part of varneys deal then that is not a good thing - id like to see him disprove it and id like to see a genuine better alternative to the belgiums
That's fair, I can understand that to be honest.
I don't think many of us would like to see a move away from The Valley, it is our home. I'm going to guess that's why Varney is so keen on clearing the air - hopefully both of us will get a definitive answer soon enough!
lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
Nope, I think the fuel was the crap way the club was being run into the ground on the pitch.
no - that started it but varneys 'deal' ignited it into something much bigger - if all isn't as it seems then he has a lot to answer for and i think a few on here will be taking a look at themselves bur we shall see
lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
Nope, I think the fuel was the crap way the club was being run into the ground on the pitch.
no - that started it but varneys 'deal' ignited it into something much bigger - if all isn't as it seems then he has a lot to answer for and i think a few on here will be taking a look at themselves bur we shall see
Maybe that was a reason for some people, I doubt it was for all.
As AB says above, if this was not a deliberate attempt to tar PV's reputation, why mention his name at all?
I can't believe a few are still willing to give Katie the benefit of the doubt whilst at the same time questioning PV. One is a proven lying incompetent who admits she has no care for the history of the Club whilst the other is a very well respected, honourable man, Charlton through and through, a season ticket holder, who was also CEO during the most successful period in the Clubs history.
I don't understand why Varney is threatening to sue over this. A bit pointless if you ask me.
Even if he wins, what's the Judeg going to award him?
About £15 would be my guess.
The Judiciary don't take kindly to frivolous action.
It's not pointless at all. It's very clever. PV's putting this out in the public domain and it's more bad publicity for the regime. I'm sure this will be resolved before it gets to court.
lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
Just out of interest Doucher, as I've seen you post similar a few times - what makes you give the benefit of the doubt to our current CEO - who you admit has been making an arse of things - over our (highly claimed, successful and respected) former CEO?
because i dont understand where these people were when the club was desperate for a buyer and i like to keep an open mind on it - if a move away from the valley is part of varneys deal then that is not a good thing - id like to see him disprove it and id like to see a genuine better alternative to the belgiums
Who's to say these buyers weren't about , let's face it about or not the clown who bought us prolly paid over the top to the spivs who wouldn't have given a monkeys who they sold to
I'd happily take a chance with any alternative than the current idiot ownership
lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
Just out of interest Doucher, as I've seen you post similar a few times - what makes you give the benefit of the doubt to our current CEO - who you admit has been making an arse of things - over our (highly claimed, successful and respected) former CEO?
because i dont understand where these people were when the club was desperate for a buyer and i like to keep an open mind on it - if a move away from the valley is part of varneys deal then that is not a good thing - id like to see him disprove it and id like to see a genuine better alternative to the belgiums
It's not up to him to disprove it, it's up to Katrien to prove what she says about him is true. If she can, case closed. But she can't.
As for where these people were 2.5 years ago, well I was in the market to buy a house a year ago and today I'm not. In a couple of years' time I might be again. Business contexts change frequently, you can hardly have a go at people because they weren't in the mix to keep us from this lot.
More to the point, why is Murray trying to keep this from happening when the club is being run into the ground otherwise?
Well he's the one saying it's not true so why not back his statement up. You saying your taking PV on his word but not on hers? (And yes I know she has form) but I'm just saying. At the end of the day Jimenez and Slater are being sued over this moving the club to the peninsula and Varney had links with them so why could it not be true?
Well he's the one saying it's not true so why not back his statement up. You saying your taking PV on his word but not on hers? (And yes I know she has form) but I'm just saying. At the end of the day Jimenez and Slater are being sued over this moving the club to the peninsula and Varney had links with them so why could it not be true?
OK, I say you are a Millwall fan pretending to be a Charlton fan.
Comments
This may all be dancing in relation to an actual sale, I hope it is.
But the comment doesn't seem defamatory, just inept and incorrect. Which is Katrien's default state.
A simple "I didn't mean to imply that Varney was planning to move the club and I apologise for any confusion" and this would have been over but her pride, inability to admit she's wrong and unwillingness to be shown up in front of uncle Roland means she lets it fester.
What I don't think you or others have shared however is what those conversations resulted in if anything. I'm curious what more PV may have gleaned that could be brought in to the public domain however limited that may be.
Even if perhaps it was simply an apology / acknowledgement that PV didn't get treated well in the original engagement that would be of some interest / context.
It's quite alarming if you think about it. I'm not surprised she packed in being a lawyer. She would be shredded in seconds by any mildly competent opposition carrying on like she does. Now we're stuck with her incompetence instead.
Even if he wins, what's the Judeg going to award him?
About £15 would be my guess.
The Judiciary don't take kindly to frivolous action.
She has brought this on herself and more bad publicity against her everytime she opens her gate. The woman speaks before her brain engages and one day she will come unstuck.
It may be soon with Varney, but if not she is an accident waiting to happen unless she thinks first or resigns asap.
I don't think many of us would like to see a move away from The Valley, it is our home. I'm going to guess that's why Varney is so keen on clearing the air - hopefully both of us will get a definitive answer soon enough!
As AB says above, if this was not a deliberate attempt to tar PV's reputation, why mention his name at all?
Very weird.
I'd happily take a chance with any alternative than the current idiot ownership
He already said in no uncertain terms that it is not true.
The onus is on Meire to either back up her statement with some evidence or withdraw the remark.
As for where these people were 2.5 years ago, well I was in the market to buy a house a year ago and today I'm not. In a couple of years' time I might be again. Business contexts change frequently, you can hardly have a go at people because they weren't in the mix to keep us from this lot.
More to the point, why is Murray trying to keep this from happening when the club is being run into the ground otherwise?
Disprove it.