Watershed? Don't believe it for one minute. Even if Varney publishes, she's not going anywhere. If RD wanted to get rid he would have done so when we got relegated and she has shown that she has not an ounce of pride anyway so won't walk. This for me is nothing more than a bit of banter, although I hope I'm wrong.
Meire's confidence at keeping her job in spite of relegation, alongside the way her "no" was said suggests she has 100% job security no matter what she does. Why else would she be swanning off to Dubai on a ten day holiday in the middle of a relegation scrap? Sadly I don't see this changing with the latest clanger she has dropped.
It's unique weird that someone who is in such an untenable position continues to be untouchable to her boss. It's scary really - she has so little need to do a good job in order to maintain her position. Where will her ambition to succeed and pride in her work be? Having watched the press conference, Slade speaks the way a man who has both those things - it is unlikely to be matched by the person above him.
I think she will be here as long as Roland is - it's becoming increasingly odd how she seems to come higher in his list of priorities than the actual club - and I can't see any success on or off the pitch while she is around stinking the place up.
I think it demonstrates, rather beautifully in its way, that Meire has learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Nothing in that awkward press conference looked like an upped performance from last season. More of the empty spouting we have heard before. I think the emails might prove revealing and I urge Peter Varney to make them public. Katrien cannot keep getting away with this level of incompetency, without it being well displayed in the media, even if she has got Roly's continued endorsement.
I have to say it would be monumentally strange for her to say what she did if there is no proof.
Surely she is aware that the slightest contentious statement she makes is dissected and even twisted so she should know to be more guarded. But to say what she has said she MUST have some evidence or she has made a colossal error in judgement and that is highly likely to be the final straw.
As has already been said - I think this really is a watershed moment.
If it would be "monumentally strange" for her to speak out without any evidence to support her claims, then I'm not sure how you would describe Varney's subsequent response - calling her out and offering to place all of his correspondence in the public domain.
It's quite clear who feels more confident in this particular poker game, and it's the one I think we're all more inclined to trust. Varney's response is not the response of a man who has been called out on a questionable offer; on the contrary, he's offering complete transparency with a long and proven track record of making sound footballing decisions - in contrast to Katrien's short, but proven, track record of failure and dishonesty.
I agree that she's well aware that every word she says is dissected and analysed, hence being advised not to speak to the media. Regardless of this advice though, whenever she's had the chance to speak to the media (The Telegraph conference for instance, and yesterday as a second example.) she's still shown a disregard for the consequences, combined with a complete lack of self-awareness. I would not rule out confirmed job security and persistent naivety as an excuse for her strange decision making with regards to her media outbursts.
She thinks she's untouchable. She has nothing to lose as the fans despise her as it is. What's more, she has a boss who is completely and utterly deluded in his (seemingly unwavering) support for her. She has no concept of "consequences".
I have to say it would be monumentally strange for her to say what she did if there is no proof.
Surely she is aware that the slightest contentious statement she makes is dissected and even twisted so she should know to be more guarded. But to say what she has said she MUST have some evidence or she has made a colossal error in judgement and that is highly likely to be the final straw.
As has already been said - I think this really is a watershed moment.
It's quite clear who feels more confident in this particular poker game, and it's the one I think we're all more inclined to trust. Varney's response is not the response of a man who has been called out on a questionable offer; on the contrary, he's offering complete transparency with a long and proven track record of making sound footballing decisions - in contrast to Katrien's short, but proven, track record of failure and dishonesty.
Probably got this quote editing totally Pete Tong but couldn't let @LuckyReds ' words go unchallenged.
" ...it's the one I think we're all more inclined to trust"
I've kept my ( Max Factor) powder dry until now as I was catching up last night on yesterday's momentous events and needed to sleep on my comment.
For me, it's a no brainer. " Inclined to trust" , I'm afraid isn't good enough.
Peter Varney is up there with Curbs, SCP, Lennie and ALL our heroes but I'm not going to review his immense contributions to the stability, growth & indeed the outstanding reputation our club enjoyed in those golden years. Those attributes should be engraved on the hearts & minds of all Addicks fortunate enough to be an integral part of our club during his tenure. He is EVERYTHING that "woman" isn't, if that makes any sense.
A proud, dignified, incredibly hard working man who was always happy to respond to emails or even to speak with me when I was Chair of NWKA and who attended several Q & A meetings in our area. Nothing was too much trouble for Peter & the respect that he commanded was well deserved.
Contrast that description with that of the present incumbent....indeed, where to start so I'll leave the character assassination to you, dear fellow Lifers. I'm sure we all have our favourite words to describe her and her pathetic attempt to fill the shoes of giants ( and yes, she can't even hold a candle to the much criticised Mr 24/7 ! )
But what stands out most prominently when making comparisons is that Peter would always choose his words carefully before speaking, especially when issues of a controversial nature were discussed. No foot in mouth disease here in TOTAL contrast to the insane statements that flow from KM's " bouche" unabated. You'd think she'd learn from her mistakes but, fortunately for her detractors ( 98%?) as others have already posted, she's a gift that keeps on giving.
So, my thoughts on yesterday's Whose Line is it Anyway ?
Heartened by others' comments, the majority hitting the nail squarely on its head, I'm predicting we'll see a swift resolution to the latest "doh!" moment from our CEO (spit!) and she'll be packing those eye bags of hers & hightailing it back to daddy before you can say "liar" for the last time.
This faux pas was monumental ...maybe delete the monu. And I SO hope that there's no coming back this time.
If Brussel Slade ( sorry to bring you in here, gaffer but needs must...) has any scruples, he'll resign before a ball is kicked , stating that he has to consider his future and his reputation. And football's respect for him would soar.
Finally, the piece de resistance.
With everything at his "beloved" Charlton crumbling around his CEO and not enough duct tape to fix it, and guilty by association for yesterday's gem, RD will capitulate and throw in the towel at last. Job done & thanks, Kat - you're a star but one now entering a very black hole.
So, Fanny's dream scenario in a nutshell.
If our trip to Canterbury later today sees a win for our lovely lads whilst we're in attendance, then anything can happen !
I still think that Richard Murray has had a lot of play in this particular scenario. If it was as I think possible him that persuaded Meire that Varney was all about moving from The Valley and she now finds herself justly embarrassed then it could spell the end for Uncle Dickie rather than the CEO herself.
There were comments from the Belgian 20 that they had spoken to locals in St Truiden who believed (and there is no other evidence for this so it is speculation) that Roland has known and has been friendly with Katrien's father for some time.
Might explain why she is, or at least appears, unsackable.
1) Katie retracts her statement but even though she admits lying Uncle Roland keeps her as CEO
2) Katie retracts her statement but blames in on misinformation from Uncle Dickie Murray, exposing him as a liar, and he resigns or is removed by Roly
3) Katie says nothing meaning PV releases emails of recent chats with RD and KM, exposing Katie to even more lies she has made, and she stays or goes depending on the shit storm that follows
4) Katie says nothing, PV says nothing, it all blows over
For me it's 3, then 2, then 1 with 4 the least likely
I still think that Richard Murray has had a lot of play in this particular scenario. If it was as I think possible him that persuaded Meire that Varney was all about moving from The Valley and she now finds herself justly embarrassed then it could spell the end for Uncle Dickie rather than the CEO herself.
Just idle speculation you understand.
I can definitely envisage a scenario where RD/KM spoke to RM saying they would listen to offers for the club, but wouldn't include the ground in any sale, to which RM's natural response would be that he's certain PV would sooner move the club than pay RD to play at the Valley.
Even if that hypothesis were true though, it's still a massive leap from there to KM's "Varney wants to move the club" statement yesterday.
Meire's confidence at keeping her job in spite of relegation, alongside the way her "no" was said suggests she has 100% job security no matter what she does. Why else would she be swanning off to Dubai on a ten day holiday in the middle of a relegation scrap? Sadly I don't see this changing with the latest clanger she has dropped.
It's unique weird that someone who is in such an untenable position continues to be untouchable to her boss. It's scary really - she has so little need to do a good job in order to maintain her position. Where will her ambition to succeed and pride in her work be? Having watched the press conference, Slade speaks the way a man who has both those things - it is unlikely to be matched by the person above him.
I think she will be here as long as Roland is - it's becoming increasingly odd how she seems to come higher in his list of priorities than the actual club - and I can't see any success on or off the pitch while she is around stinking the place up.
Did Varney breach any confidentiality clauses when he published the emails in VOTV?
A fair question, and it would depend upon what, if anything, was in place NDA-wise. As I posted before, I get the impression from the emails that talks hadn't even evolved to a stage where an NDA was in place, or even needed (or the British equivalent, should have noted in my previous post that there may be a different system over there, though when I've done business overseas it's been pretty standard).
Playing devil's advocate, you could say that it was "less-than-professional" of Varney to release his email chain. He was, after all, inquiring about the sale of a business which is apparently not up for sale. Just as I alluded to a professionalism regarding not sharing another party's information or plans before a formal NDA is in place, releasing an email thread could be seen as bad form.
That said, I think it was quite a shrewd move from a business perspective, and had the desired effect--put more pressure on the SMT. Furthermore, his complaint was a communication breakdown and flakiness/lack of courtesy on behalf of RD/KM to meet with him. If nothing else, for me that makes things about even.
I think KM viewed this claim about Varney as a shrewd business move on her part. And if you take the logic that Varney releasing information that made the regime look bad as being shrewd, then you could make the case that KM releasing damning information about Varney was shrewd too...except for the fact that you can't just say shit, it has to be true. Especially in the internet age. Especially when you're embattled in your position.
Lastly, and for what it's worth, I would be very surprised if Varney disclosed a re-location without an NDA in place. Even if you put everything else, all histories and whatnot aside, I still can't imagine him being that thorough in a plan without protection in place.
Something you would call a housing development that, for sure.
This mans intentions are tax avoidance and income from other streams, hotels and housing and such. Can offset taxes on the losses of the Club also, lower league helps him.. He needs us as fans to just be quiet and accept, so we need to do the polar opposite.
OK I am very, very confused, The above sits very comfortably with my conspiracy theory, Mr RD is a successful €.5 billion businessman so clearly he isn't daft, likewise KM is a successful corporate lawyer working in the RD regime and I seriously doubt for one second she is not fully in control of the situation she finds herself in, I don;t think for one minute she expected it to unfold the way it has and probably finds it quite unpleasant, I reckon she is the consummate professional and very tough with it, I will not lower my opinion to insults or name calling of a personal nature, she is paid to do a job and she is doing it within the parameters set by the regime.
Sadly for the club in my conspiracy theory I think RD maybe sees hotels and flats ideally located around a lower league club / championship -for occasional weekend entertainment and events - perfectly situated in an international city with readily accessible close transit system, otherwise I just do not get why this regime allowed last year to unfold the way it did. Furthermore
I think they somehow envisage a business model of football grounds providing lucrative, reasonably priced real estate in central city locations with excellent business structures to manage the overall business on a global scale and the academy as a CAT 1 feeder style academy providing a steady stream of quality youth players into the club and selling off the cream of this talent to higher div clubs, hence the obvious investment in the TG to achieve this, Last season, they did make a huge mistake as I do not think they envisaged relegation and this has undoubtedly messed up the academy plans as you cannot achieve CAT 1 status as a league 1 club hence work has ceased/ slowed up as the TG.... and herein lies the dilemma, it appears to me they have no real understanding of passion for football or in our instance Charlton as a club and while this is missing I think as a football club we will suffer.
Positively I wish Russell Slade, Steve Head the very best of luck in their new roles and will take these appointment as a positive step towards recovery from last season.
Did Varney breach any confidentiality clauses when he published the emails in VOTV?
A fair question, and it would depend upon what, if anything, was in place NDA-wise. As I posted before, I get the impression from the emails that talks hadn't even evolved to a stage where an NDA was in place, or even needed (or the British equivalent, should have noted in my previous post that there may be a different system over there, though when I've done business overseas it's been pretty standard).
Playing devil's advocate, you could say that it was "less-than-professional" of Varney to release his email chain. He was, after all, inquiring about the sale of a business which is apparently not up for sale. Just as I alluded to a professionalism regarding not sharing another party's information or plans before a formal NDA is in place, releasing an email thread could be seen as bad form.
That said, I think it was quite a shrewd move from a business perspective, and had the desired effect--put more pressure on the SMT. Furthermore, his complaint was a communication breakdown and flakiness/lack of courtesy on behalf of RD/KM to meet with him. If nothing else, for me that makes things about even.
I think KM viewed this claim about Varney as a shrewd business move on her part. And if you take the logic that Varney releasing information that made the regime look bad as being shrewd, then you could make the case that KM releasing damning information about Varney was shrewd too...except for the fact that you can't just say shit, it has to be true. Especially in the internet age. Especially when you're embattled in your position.
Lastly, and for what it's worth, I would be very surprised if Varney disclosed a re-location without an NDA in place. Even if you put everything else, all histories and whatnot aside, I still can't imagine him being that thorough in a plan without protection in place.
There has never been any non-disclosure agreement put in place between Varney and the current regime (or with any relevant third party).
which was more of a practicality more than anything else. If there's a stadium being built half a mile down the road, the club would be insane not to, at the very least, block any other football club being able to move into it either by the club being tenants themselves or any other way.
Did Varney breach any confidentiality clauses when he published the emails in VOTV?
A fair question, and it would depend upon what, if anything, was in place NDA-wise. As I posted before, I get the impression from the emails that talks hadn't even evolved to a stage where an NDA was in place, or even needed (or the British equivalent, should have noted in my previous post that there may be a different system over there, though when I've done business overseas it's been pretty standard).
Playing devil's advocate, you could say that it was "less-than-professional" of Varney to release his email chain. He was, after all, inquiring about the sale of a business which is apparently not up for sale. Just as I alluded to a professionalism regarding not sharing another party's information or plans before a formal NDA is in place, releasing an email thread could be seen as bad form.
That said, I think it was quite a shrewd move from a business perspective, and had the desired effect--put more pressure on the SMT. Furthermore, his complaint was a communication breakdown and flakiness/lack of courtesy on behalf of RD/KM to meet with him. If nothing else, for me that makes things about even.
I think KM viewed this claim about Varney as a shrewd business move on her part. And if you take the logic that Varney releasing information that made the regime look bad as being shrewd, then you could make the case that KM releasing damning information about Varney was shrewd too...except for the fact that you can't just say shit, it has to be true. Especially in the internet age. Especially when you're embattled in your position.
Lastly, and for what it's worth, I would be very surprised if Varney disclosed a re-location without an NDA in place. Even if you put everything else, all histories and whatnot aside, I still can't imagine him being that thorough in a plan without protection in place.
There has never been any non-disclosure agreement put in place between Varney and the current regime (or with any relevant third party).
Cheers AB. You don't have to answer this as I don't want you to give away privileged information, but would it be a somewhat fair summation to say "that's because serious talks never took place, given the breakdown seemed to happen at the 'getting the regime to sit down and talk' phase?"
Did Varney breach any confidentiality clauses when he published the emails in VOTV?
A fair question, and it would depend upon what, if anything, was in place NDA-wise. As I posted before, I get the impression from the emails that talks hadn't even evolved to a stage where an NDA was in place, or even needed (or the British equivalent, should have noted in my previous post that there may be a different system over there, though when I've done business overseas it's been pretty standard).
Playing devil's advocate, you could say that it was "less-than-professional" of Varney to release his email chain. He was, after all, inquiring about the sale of a business which is apparently not up for sale. Just as I alluded to a professionalism regarding not sharing another party's information or plans before a formal NDA is in place, releasing an email thread could be seen as bad form.
That said, I think it was quite a shrewd move from a business perspective, and had the desired effect--put more pressure on the SMT. Furthermore, his complaint was a communication breakdown and flakiness/lack of courtesy on behalf of RD/KM to meet with him. If nothing else, for me that makes things about even.
I think KM viewed this claim about Varney as a shrewd business move on her part. And if you take the logic that Varney releasing information that made the regime look bad as being shrewd, then you could make the case that KM releasing damning information about Varney was shrewd too...except for the fact that you can't just say shit, it has to be true. Especially in the internet age. Especially when you're embattled in your position.
Lastly, and for what it's worth, I would be very surprised if Varney disclosed a re-location without an NDA in place. Even if you put everything else, all histories and whatnot aside, I still can't imagine him being that thorough in a plan without protection in place.
There has never been any non-disclosure agreement put in place between Varney and the current regime (or with any relevant third party).
Cheers AB. You don't have to answer this as I don't want you to give away privileged information, but would it be a somewhat fair summation to say "that's because serious talks never took place, given the breakdown seemed to happen at the 'getting the regime to sit down and talk' phase?"
Did Varney breach any confidentiality clauses when he published the emails in VOTV?
A fair question, and it would depend upon what, if anything, was in place NDA-wise. As I posted before, I get the impression from the emails that talks hadn't even evolved to a stage where an NDA was in place, or even needed (or the British equivalent, should have noted in my previous post that there may be a different system over there, though when I've done business overseas it's been pretty standard).
Playing devil's advocate, you could say that it was "less-than-professional" of Varney to release his email chain. He was, after all, inquiring about the sale of a business which is apparently not up for sale. Just as I alluded to a professionalism regarding not sharing another party's information or plans before a formal NDA is in place, releasing an email thread could be seen as bad form.
That said, I think it was quite a shrewd move from a business perspective, and had the desired effect--put more pressure on the SMT. Furthermore, his complaint was a communication breakdown and flakiness/lack of courtesy on behalf of RD/KM to meet with him. If nothing else, for me that makes things about even.
I think KM viewed this claim about Varney as a shrewd business move on her part. And if you take the logic that Varney releasing information that made the regime look bad as being shrewd, then you could make the case that KM releasing damning information about Varney was shrewd too...except for the fact that you can't just say shit, it has to be true. Especially in the internet age. Especially when you're embattled in your position.
Lastly, and for what it's worth, I would be very surprised if Varney disclosed a re-location without an NDA in place. Even if you put everything else, all histories and whatnot aside, I still can't imagine him being that thorough in a plan without protection in place.
There has never been any non-disclosure agreement put in place between Varney and the current regime (or with any relevant third party).
Cheers AB. You don't have to answer this as I don't want you to give away privileged information, but would it be a somewhat fair summation to say "that's because serious talks never took place, given the breakdown seemed to happen at the 'getting the regime to sit down and talk' phase?"
Talks about talks.
Varney's emails or attempts at a meeting were largely ignored from what I could pick up, can't even imagine they got to the NDA stage.
Also begs the question why KM pulled this statement out of her backside. If they didn''t even enter talks, how can she know what Varney's intentions were,
clairvoyance is suddenly something our CEO is now capable of it would seem
Did Varney breach any confidentiality clauses when he published the emails in VOTV?
A fair question, and it would depend upon what, if anything, was in place NDA-wise. As I posted before, I get the impression from the emails that talks hadn't even evolved to a stage where an NDA was in place, or even needed (or the British equivalent, should have noted in my previous post that there may be a different system over there, though when I've done business overseas it's been pretty standard).
Playing devil's advocate, you could say that it was "less-than-professional" of Varney to release his email chain. He was, after all, inquiring about the sale of a business which is apparently not up for sale. Just as I alluded to a professionalism regarding not sharing another party's information or plans before a formal NDA is in place, releasing an email thread could be seen as bad form.
That said, I think it was quite a shrewd move from a business perspective, and had the desired effect--put more pressure on the SMT. Furthermore, his complaint was a communication breakdown and flakiness/lack of courtesy on behalf of RD/KM to meet with him. If nothing else, for me that makes things about even.
I think KM viewed this claim about Varney as a shrewd business move on her part. And if you take the logic that Varney releasing information that made the regime look bad as being shrewd, then you could make the case that KM releasing damning information about Varney was shrewd too...except for the fact that you can't just say shit, it has to be true. Especially in the internet age. Especially when you're embattled in your position.
Lastly, and for what it's worth, I would be very surprised if Varney disclosed a re-location without an NDA in place. Even if you put everything else, all histories and whatnot aside, I still can't imagine him being that thorough in a plan without protection in place.
There has never been any non-disclosure agreement put in place between Varney and the current regime (or with any relevant third party).
Cheers AB. You don't have to answer this as I don't want you to give away privileged information, but would it be a somewhat fair summation to say "that's because serious talks never took place, given the breakdown seemed to happen at the 'getting the regime to sit down and talk' phase?"
Talks about talks.
During the talks about talks, was it ever discussed where the actual talks were to take place? Because, if PV suggested, during the talks about talks that the talks should take place somewhere other than the Valley, I can see how a dim-witted CEO might have misinterpretated it somewhat.
Did Varney breach any confidentiality clauses when he published the emails in VOTV?
A fair question, and it would depend upon what, if anything, was in place NDA-wise. As I posted before, I get the impression from the emails that talks hadn't even evolved to a stage where an NDA was in place, or even needed (or the British equivalent, should have noted in my previous post that there may be a different system over there, though when I've done business overseas it's been pretty standard).
Playing devil's advocate, you could say that it was "less-than-professional" of Varney to release his email chain. He was, after all, inquiring about the sale of a business which is apparently not up for sale. Just as I alluded to a professionalism regarding not sharing another party's information or plans before a formal NDA is in place, releasing an email thread could be seen as bad form.
That said, I think it was quite a shrewd move from a business perspective, and had the desired effect--put more pressure on the SMT. Furthermore, his complaint was a communication breakdown and flakiness/lack of courtesy on behalf of RD/KM to meet with him. If nothing else, for me that makes things about even.
I think KM viewed this claim about Varney as a shrewd business move on her part. And if you take the logic that Varney releasing information that made the regime look bad as being shrewd, then you could make the case that KM releasing damning information about Varney was shrewd too...except for the fact that you can't just say shit, it has to be true. Especially in the internet age. Especially when you're embattled in your position.
Lastly, and for what it's worth, I would be very surprised if Varney disclosed a re-location without an NDA in place. Even if you put everything else, all histories and whatnot aside, I still can't imagine him being that thorough in a plan without protection in place.
There has never been any non-disclosure agreement put in place between Varney and the current regime (or with any relevant third party).
Cheers AB. You don't have to answer this as I don't want you to give away privileged information, but would it be a somewhat fair summation to say "that's because serious talks never took place, given the breakdown seemed to happen at the 'getting the regime to sit down and talk' phase?"
Talks about talks.
During the talks about talks, was it ever discussed where the actual talks were to take place? Because, if PV suggested, during the talks about talks that the talks should take place somewhere other than the Valley, I can see how a dim-witted CEO might have misinterpretated it somewhat.
He offered to travel to Belgium initially as per the emails, and didn't he ask not to do it at The Valley specifically?
Surely even Katrien isn't stupid enough not to understand the need for some privacy and discretion over the location of the talks?
Watershed agreed - her, rm or varney etc will be removed from the soap opera - or it ends in stalemate, her claiming it was verbal. Has rd got it taped?
Did Varney breach any confidentiality clauses when he published the emails in VOTV?
A fair question, and it would depend upon what, if anything, was in place NDA-wise. As I posted before, I get the impression from the emails that talks hadn't even evolved to a stage where an NDA was in place, or even needed (or the British equivalent, should have noted in my previous post that there may be a different system over there, though when I've done business overseas it's been pretty standard).
Playing devil's advocate, you could say that it was "less-than-professional" of Varney to release his email chain. He was, after all, inquiring about the sale of a business which is apparently not up for sale. Just as I alluded to a professionalism regarding not sharing another party's information or plans before a formal NDA is in place, releasing an email thread could be seen as bad form.
That said, I think it was quite a shrewd move from a business perspective, and had the desired effect--put more pressure on the SMT. Furthermore, his complaint was a communication breakdown and flakiness/lack of courtesy on behalf of RD/KM to meet with him. If nothing else, for me that makes things about even.
I think KM viewed this claim about Varney as a shrewd business move on her part. And if you take the logic that Varney releasing information that made the regime look bad as being shrewd, then you could make the case that KM releasing damning information about Varney was shrewd too...except for the fact that you can't just say shit, it has to be true. Especially in the internet age. Especially when you're embattled in your position.
Lastly, and for what it's worth, I would be very surprised if Varney disclosed a re-location without an NDA in place. Even if you put everything else, all histories and whatnot aside, I still can't imagine him being that thorough in a plan without protection in place.
There has never been any non-disclosure agreement put in place between Varney and the current regime (or with any relevant third party).
Cheers AB. You don't have to answer this as I don't want you to give away privileged information, but would it be a somewhat fair summation to say "that's because serious talks never took place, given the breakdown seemed to happen at the 'getting the regime to sit down and talk' phase?"
Talks about talks.
Varney's emails or attempts at a meeting were largely ignored from what I could pick up, can't even imagine they got to the NDA stage.
Also begs the question why KM pulled this statement out of her backside. If they didn''t even enter talks, how can she know what Varney's intentions were,
clairvoyance is suddenly something our CEO is now capable of it would seem
Varney said yesterday that he's spoken to Roland.
However what remains to be seen is whether or not that was actually yesterday and as a result of Roland's CEO speaking to the press and making an untrue and incorrect assertation and, in essence, defaming him.
Something you would call a housing development that, for sure.
This mans intentions are tax avoidance and income from other streams, hotels and housing and such. Can offset taxes on the losses of the Club also, lower league helps him.. He needs us as fans to just be quiet and accept, so we need to do the polar opposite.
OK I am very, very confused, The above sits very comfortably with my conspiracy theory, Mr RD is a successful €.5 billion businessman so clearly he isn't daft, likewise KM is a successful corporate lawyer working in the RD regime and I seriously doubt for one second she is not fully in control of the situation she finds herself in, I don;t think for one minute she expected it to unfold the way it has and probably finds it quite unpleasant, I reckon she is the consummate professional and very tough with it, I will not lower my opinion to insults or name calling of a personal nature, she is paid to do a job and she is doing it within the parameters set by the regime.
Sadly for the club in my conspiracy theory I think RD maybe sees hotels and flats ideally located around a lower league club / championship -for occasional weekend entertainment and events - perfectly situated in an international city with readily accessible close transit system, otherwise I just do not get why this regime allowed last year to unfold the way it did. Furthermore
I think they somehow envisage a business model of football grounds providing lucrative, reasonably priced real estate in central city locations with excellent business structures to manage the overall business on a global scale and the academy as a CAT 1 feeder style academy providing a steady stream of quality youth players into the club and selling off the cream of this talent to higher div clubs, hence the obvious investment in the TG to achieve this, Last season, they did make a huge mistake as I do not think they envisaged relegation and this has undoubtedly messed up the academy plans as you cannot achieve CAT 1 status as a league 1 club hence work has ceased/ slowed up as the TG.... and herein lies the dilemma, it appears to me they have no real understanding of passion for football or in our instance Charlton as a club and while this is missing I think as a football club we will suffer.
Positively I wish Russell Slade, Steve Head the very best of luck in their new roles and will take these appointment as a positive step towards recovery from last season.
The somewhat huge snag with your theory is that Meire is not, never has been and never will be a "successful corporate lawyer". Her past employment record speaks for itself. There is nothing to show that she has ever done anything which merits the use of such a description.
Comments
It's
uniqueweird that someone who is in such an untenable position continues to be untouchable to her boss. It's scary really - she has so little need to do a good job in order to maintain her position. Where will her ambition to succeed and pride in her work be? Having watched the press conference, Slade speaks the way a man who has both those things - it is unlikely to be matched by the person above him.I think she will be here as long as Roland is - it's becoming increasingly odd how she seems to come higher in his list of priorities than the actual club - and I can't see any success on or off the pitch while she is around stinking the place up.
Even more important that both leave ASAP.
Nothing in that awkward press conference looked like an upped performance from last season. More of the empty spouting we have heard before.
I think the emails might prove revealing and I urge Peter Varney to make them public. Katrien cannot keep getting away with this level of incompetency, without it being well displayed in the media, even if she has got Roly's continued endorsement.
It's quite clear who feels more confident in this particular poker game, and it's the one I think we're all more inclined to trust. Varney's response is not the response of a man who has been called out on a questionable offer; on the contrary, he's offering complete transparency with a long and proven track record of making sound footballing decisions - in contrast to Katrien's short, but proven, track record of failure and dishonesty.
I agree that she's well aware that every word she says is dissected and analysed, hence being advised not to speak to the media. Regardless of this advice though, whenever she's had the chance to speak to the media (The Telegraph conference for instance, and yesterday as a second example.) she's still shown a disregard for the consequences, combined with a complete lack of self-awareness. I would not rule out confirmed job security and persistent naivety as an excuse for her strange decision making with regards to her media outbursts.
She thinks she's untouchable. She has nothing to lose as the fans despise her as it is. What's more, she has a boss who is completely and utterly deluded in his (seemingly unwavering) support for her. She has no concept of "consequences".
I quite like Peter Varney, but, I also quite like Kat.......
Scrub that.
" ...it's the one I think we're all more inclined to trust"
I've kept my ( Max Factor) powder dry until now as I was catching up last night on yesterday's momentous events and needed to sleep on my comment.
For me, it's a no brainer. " Inclined to trust" , I'm afraid isn't good enough.
Peter Varney is up there with Curbs, SCP, Lennie and ALL our heroes but I'm not going to review his immense contributions to the stability, growth & indeed the outstanding reputation our club enjoyed in those golden years. Those attributes should be engraved on the hearts & minds of all Addicks fortunate enough to be an integral part of our club during his tenure. He is EVERYTHING that "woman" isn't, if that makes any sense.
A proud, dignified, incredibly hard working man who was always happy to respond to emails or even to speak with me when I was Chair of NWKA and who attended several Q & A meetings in our area. Nothing was too much trouble for Peter & the respect that he commanded was well deserved.
Contrast that description with that of the present incumbent....indeed, where to start so I'll leave the character assassination to you, dear fellow Lifers. I'm sure we all have our favourite words to describe her and her pathetic attempt to fill the shoes of giants ( and yes, she can't even hold a candle to the much criticised Mr 24/7 ! )
But what stands out most prominently when making comparisons is that Peter would always choose his words carefully before speaking, especially when issues of a controversial nature were discussed. No foot in mouth disease here in TOTAL contrast to the insane statements that flow from KM's " bouche" unabated. You'd think she'd learn from her mistakes but, fortunately for her detractors ( 98%?) as others have already posted, she's a gift that keeps on giving.
So, my thoughts on yesterday's Whose Line is it Anyway ?
Heartened by others' comments, the majority hitting the nail squarely on its head, I'm predicting we'll see a swift resolution to the latest "doh!" moment from our CEO (spit!) and she'll be packing those eye bags of hers & hightailing it back to daddy before you can say "liar" for the last time.
This faux pas was monumental ...maybe delete the monu. And I SO hope that there's no coming back this time.
If Brussel Slade ( sorry to bring you in here, gaffer but needs must...) has any scruples, he'll resign before a ball is kicked , stating that he has to consider his future and his reputation. And football's respect for him would soar.
Finally, the piece de resistance.
With everything at his "beloved" Charlton crumbling around his CEO and not enough duct tape to fix it, and guilty by association for yesterday's gem, RD will capitulate and throw in the towel at last. Job done & thanks, Kat - you're a star but one now entering a very black hole.
So, Fanny's dream scenario in a nutshell.
If our trip to Canterbury later today sees a win for our lovely lads whilst we're in attendance, then anything can happen !
Keep the faith !
Just idle speculation you understand.
Might explain why she is, or at least appears, unsackable.
I'm intrigued as to how this will pan out
1) Katie retracts her statement but even though she admits lying Uncle Roland keeps her as CEO
2) Katie retracts her statement but blames in on misinformation from Uncle Dickie Murray, exposing him as a liar, and he resigns or is removed by Roly
3) Katie says nothing meaning PV releases emails of recent chats with RD and KM, exposing Katie to even more lies she has made, and she stays or goes depending on the shit storm that follows
4) Katie says nothing, PV says nothing, it all blows over
For me it's 3, then 2, then 1 with 4 the least likely
Even if that hypothesis were true though, it's still a massive leap from there to KM's "Varney wants to move the club" statement yesterday.
Worded so much more eloquently than I ever could.
Thank you!
Playing devil's advocate, you could say that it was "less-than-professional" of Varney to release his email chain. He was, after all, inquiring about the sale of a business which is apparently not up for sale. Just as I alluded to a professionalism regarding not sharing another party's information or plans before a formal NDA is in place, releasing an email thread could be seen as bad form.
That said, I think it was quite a shrewd move from a business perspective, and had the desired effect--put more pressure on the SMT. Furthermore, his complaint was a communication breakdown and flakiness/lack of courtesy on behalf of RD/KM to meet with him. If nothing else, for me that makes things about even.
I think KM viewed this claim about Varney as a shrewd business move on her part. And if you take the logic that Varney releasing information that made the regime look bad as being shrewd, then you could make the case that KM releasing damning information about Varney was shrewd too...except for the fact that you can't just say shit, it has to be true. Especially in the internet age. Especially when you're embattled in your position.
Lastly, and for what it's worth, I would be very surprised if Varney disclosed a re-location without an NDA in place. Even if you put everything else, all histories and whatnot aside, I still can't imagine him being that thorough in a plan without protection in place.
Sadly for the club in my conspiracy theory I think RD maybe sees hotels and flats ideally located around a lower league club / championship -for occasional weekend entertainment and events - perfectly situated in an international city with readily accessible close transit system, otherwise I just do not get why this regime allowed last year to unfold the way it did. Furthermore
I think they somehow envisage a business model of football grounds providing lucrative, reasonably priced real estate in central city locations with excellent business structures to manage the overall business on a global scale and the academy as a CAT 1 feeder style academy providing a steady stream of quality youth players into the club and selling off the cream of this talent to higher div clubs, hence the obvious investment in the TG to achieve this, Last season, they did make a huge mistake as I do not think they envisaged relegation and this has undoubtedly messed up the academy plans as you cannot achieve CAT 1 status as a league 1 club hence work has ceased/ slowed up as the TG.... and herein lies the dilemma, it appears to me they have no real understanding of passion for football or in our instance Charlton as a club and while this is missing I think as a football club we will suffer.
Positively I wish Russell Slade, Steve Head the very best of luck in their new roles and will take these appointment as a positive step towards recovery from last season.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-charlton-consider-home-at-the-dome-1085921.html
This feels like RM's words and KM duly parrots.
Also begs the question why KM pulled this statement out of her backside. If they didn''t even enter talks, how can she know what Varney's intentions were,
clairvoyance is suddenly something our CEO is now capable of it would seem
Surely even Katrien isn't stupid enough not to understand the need for some privacy and discretion over the location of the talks?
However what remains to be seen is whether or not that was actually yesterday and as a result of Roland's CEO speaking to the press and making an untrue and incorrect assertation and, in essence, defaming him.
It wasn't too clear.
The emails presumably pertain to this.