That email exchange is disgusting in its rudeness and supreme arrogance. It also confirms what we all knew. Miere is utterly incompetent as is her boss. She could have said no at the outset but, as we have seen, she prefers to lie. She is not fit for purpose and I am afraid to say Murray has no exhausted his store of goodwill in my eyes and is now one of the enemy by association. I am a huge fan of Keith Peacock and so dismayed he is by her side all the time ...
All right now, for all you boppers out there in the big smoke, all you street people with an ear for the action, I've been asked to relay a request from the Belmarsh Bullies. It's a special for the Addicks, that real live bunch from Charlton, and I do mean the Addicks. Here's a hit with them in mind...
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.
Just read the email trails. Aaaarrrrggghh reminds me of so many typical gutless fob offs I get in the sales world. You want to pitch the decision maker, ie RD, he fobs you off to the biscuit. Biscuit has some glorified sense of importance/power and tries to play out how extremely busy she is. The reality is the biscuit doesn't want to engage with you because all they can do is report back. The limit to KM's power is getting a fan's sofa installed - not the ability to decide on multi million pound proposals/investments.
Biscuit takes meeting as boss has told biscuit you deal with it. Meeting becomes a hindrance in buscuit's daily agenda of doing fuck all trying to look busy. Numerous excuses then materialise why biscuit can't take meeting to till quite rightly, Varney calls them both out.
I can tell just by those emails what type of people RD and KM are, those that will nod to your face and say 'yes, sounds great'. But then wouldn't have the decency to say no, and give you a real reason.
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 cautiously cynical side of me is currently erred to the feeling 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.
Accepting what you say about Varney, the issue is more about the way this was handled and not the person who was approaching them. It just stinks of a complete lack of professionalism, which is hardly unexpected given what is happening on the playing side. Sadly, I think Murray is now too closely linked to the grinning idiot of a CEO and her boss to be left out of the protests.
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 cautiously cynical side of me is currently erred to the feeling 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.
I must admit, I don't completely trust Varney, either, and would prefer a clean break with the past with brand new owners in an ideal world.
But if it's a choice between him and Duchatelet/Meire/Murray, it's still a no-brainer for me.
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 cautiously cynical side of me is currently erred to the feeling 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.
Accepting what you say about Varney, the issue is more about the way this was handled and not the person who was approaching them. It just stinks of a complete lack of professionalism, which is hardly unexpected given what is happening on the playing side. Sadly, I think Murray is now too closely linked to the grinning idiot of a CEO and her boss to be left out of the protests.
As said @mogodon will be interested to see if my opinion changes once I've read the stuff etc
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 cautiously cynical side of me is currently erred to the feeling 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.
I guess it boils down to whether you think Duchatalet & Meire are the better option for the future of cafc.
I know you can never be sure but at this moment I'd trust Varney over that lot every time.
You want the Belgians out but as has already been said,we needed an alternative before we demand their departure otherwise we look a bit silly. Varney is that alternative imo .
All right now, for all you boppers out there in the big smoke, all you street people with an ear for the action, I've been asked to relay a request from the Belmarsh Bullies. It's a special for the Addicks, that real live bunch from Charlton, and I do mean the Addicks. Here's a hit with them in mind...
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 cautiously cynical side of me is currently erred to the feeling 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.
Accepting what you say about Varney, the issue is more about the way this was handled and not the person who was approaching them. It just stinks of a complete lack of professionalism, which is hardly unexpected given what is happening on the playing side. Sadly, I think Murray is now too closely linked to the grinning idiot of a CEO and her boss to be left out of the protests.
As said @mogodon will be interested to see if my opinion changes once I've read the stuff etc
It will be very interesting to learn of your opinion once you have managed to read the articles.
I'm sure that I speak for the majority if not all Lifers when I add that your opinion counts to us all here.
If you have specific doubts or questions when you're up to speed, perhaps AB would be prepared to message you privately to clarify points which he may not be able to share publically at this time.
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 cautiously cynical side of me is currently erred to the feeling 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.
Accepting what you say about Varney, the issue is more about the way this was handled and not the person who was approaching them. It just stinks of a complete lack of professionalism, which is hardly unexpected given what is happening on the playing side. Sadly, I think Murray is now too closely linked to the grinning idiot of a CEO and her boss to be left out of the protests.
As said @mogodon will be interested to see if my opinion changes once I've read the stuff etc
I'm sure that I speak for the majority if not all Lifers when I add that your opinion counts to us all here.
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.
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.
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 !
Quick question. Is there any organised protest taking place inside the ground on Saturday?
yep, the delaware north staff are going to deliberately sabotage the food and drinks sales by :-
Serving everyone slowly Getting the drinks orders wrong running out of food at the start of half time not having enough change running out of beer at start of half time getting the change wrong.
I like the interest and support this is gaining and it seems that there is the distinct possibility of wider recognition of our current plight. To me this protest isn't about making out point to the board. They don't and won't listen. It is about furthering the knowledge amongst our own fan base and beyond of the huge disregard and disrespect being shown to us, our history and status within English football. We are fortunate in that we are well regarded by by many in English football who consider us to be a welcoming and friendly club. If the likes of Collymore and Savage are starting to take an interest then we must build on this.
Recent revelations have disgusted me. However they have also reinvigorated me to come to the Valley and do something about this mess. Doing nothing will garner nothing.
Duchatalet, Meire and unfortunately Murray are all complicit in this and must take their share of the blame and the abuse.
Well done to all who support this.
I like the cut of your jib, sirjohn
Following my unFannylike demeanour at the Wolves game, I too am feeling far more positive since PV's article came to light and the subsequent call to arms. As I posted earlier, I'd rather be in the thick of the action as opposed to sitting on the subs' bench & hoping that others might be able to change the hearts & minds of the Despicable Duo around the table.
This is a great opportunity to show "them" that we mean serious business and at the same time, demonstrate to the football world at large that we will do whatever it takes to save our Club from the slow, painful death that comes ever closer week by week. I'm hoping for a good deal of media coverage on Saturday afternoon and partly because of this, as others have stated, we MUST not resort to chanting obscenities or damaging any property ( wing mirrors of cars in the West Stand car park ?) I'll have my trusty brolly to wrap a few knuckles if need be....
Finally, I believe that Rodney's suggestion of contacting Forest to alert them to our demonstration is a great idea. To have their fans stand up & join in the chants during the match as per Monday last, would be a bonus.
Bring it on !
....and Dan Roan and every sports section of every Daily Paper.
Comments
How hard would it be to write:
"Peter,
Thanks for getting in touch with this but it's not of interest at the current time.
Good luck with the project.
KM"
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.
Biscuit takes meeting as boss has told biscuit you deal with it. Meeting becomes a hindrance in buscuit's daily agenda of doing fuck all trying to look busy. Numerous excuses then materialise why biscuit can't take meeting to till quite rightly, Varney calls them both out.
I can tell just by those emails what type of people RD and KM are, those that will nod to your face and say 'yes, sounds great'. But then wouldn't have the decency to say no, and give you a real reason.
But if it's a choice between him and Duchatelet/Meire/Murray, it's still a no-brainer for me.
I know you can never be sure but at this moment I'd trust Varney over that lot every time.
You want the Belgians out but as has already been said,we needed an alternative before we demand their departure otherwise we look a bit silly.
Varney is that alternative imo .
Let's please have thousands participating in a sit in and then outside The Reception area.
Let's see Meire laugh and dismiss us again.
We are the 90% not the 2%.
If you love Charlton please be there.
Now is the time to stand up for ourselves. It is now or never.
I'm sure that I speak for the majority if not all Lifers when I add that your opinion counts to us all here.
If you have specific doubts or questions when you're up to speed, perhaps AB would be prepared to message you privately to clarify points which he may not be able to share publically at this time.
; - )
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.
Researching all the ins and outs won't be a convincer.
However the re signing of Roger Johnson to go along with Vaz Te will be.
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.
people on this forum respect your views, would it not have been better to keep those views to yourself until you had read the article and emails?
Serving everyone slowly
Getting the drinks orders wrong
running out of food at the start of half time
not having enough change
running out of beer at start of half time
getting the change wrong.
I believe that we have their full support.