Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Varney takeover to move Charlton from The Valley (Meire's claims - Varney goes on attack)

1…910121415…20

Comments

  • Heath Hero
    Heath Hero Posts: 1,520
    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.
  • tricky
    tricky Posts: 1,291
    edited June 2016
    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.

    Even more important that both leave ASAP.
  • 3blokes
    3blokes Posts: 4,610
    edited June 2016
    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.
  • LuckyReds
    LuckyReds Posts: 5,866
    edited June 2016
    Swisdom said:

    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".
  • Miserableoldgit
    Miserableoldgit Posts: 21,458
    Now.
    I quite like Peter Varney, but, I also quite like Kat.......

    Scrub that.
  • ShootersHillGuru
    ShootersHillGuru Posts: 50,627
    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.
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,234
    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.
  • LargeAddick
    LargeAddick Posts: 32,589
    It's like an episode of 'Would I Lie To You'.

    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
  • randy andy
    randy andy Posts: 5,457
    ShootersHillGuru said:

    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.

  • Sponsored links:



  • KBslittlesis
    KBslittlesis Posts: 8,610
    Again, Fanny hits the nail squarely on the head for me.
    Worded so much more eloquently than I ever could.
    Thank you!
  • kentred2
    kentred2 Posts: 2,338
    tricky said:

    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.

    Even more important that both leave ASAP.

    I think Roland will be here as long as SHE is.
  • SDAddick
    SDAddick Posts: 14,468
    edited June 2016
    MrOneLung said:

    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.

  • madadd
    madadd Posts: 622
    Atletico Addick said:

    sammy391 said:

    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.
  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,742
    edited June 2016
    SDAddick said:

    MrOneLung said:

    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).
  • MrOneLung
    MrOneLung Posts: 26,862
    I only asked as think grapevine mentioned confidentiality/non disclosure clauses as standard in his post.
  • Alwaysneil
    Alwaysneil Posts: 13,814
    And they are, when you get beyond a certain point.
  • stilladdicted
    stilladdicted Posts: 4,307
    edited June 2016
    It had been mooted in the past
    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.
  • kentaddick
    kentaddick Posts: 18,729
    stilladdicted said:

    It had been mooted in the past
    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.

    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.
  • stilladdicted
    stilladdicted Posts: 4,307
    Agreed, but there is a history. I wish I could remember it but a lot more was going on at that time.

  • Sponsored links:



  • SDAddick
    SDAddick Posts: 14,468
    Airman Brown said:

    SDAddick said:

    MrOneLung said:

    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?"
  • Alwaysneil
    Alwaysneil Posts: 13,814
    I my experience a non/disclosure agreement is normally signed before preliminary financial checking and talks (initial due diligence).
  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,742
    SDAddick said:

    Airman Brown said:

    SDAddick said:

    MrOneLung said:

    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.
  • cabbles
    cabbles Posts: 15,256
    Airman Brown said:

    SDAddick said:

    Airman Brown said:

    SDAddick said:

    MrOneLung said:

    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
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,341
    Airman Brown said:

    SDAddick said:

    Airman Brown said:

    SDAddick said:

    MrOneLung said:

    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.
  • LuckyReds
    LuckyReds Posts: 5,866
    Chizz said:

    Airman Brown said:

    SDAddick said:

    Airman Brown said:

    SDAddick said:

    MrOneLung said:

    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?
  • DOUCHER
    DOUCHER Posts: 7,907
    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?
  • LuckyReds
    LuckyReds Posts: 5,866
    cabbles said:

    Airman Brown said:

    SDAddick said:

    Airman Brown said:

    SDAddick said:

    MrOneLung said:

    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.

    It wasn't too clear.
  • Alwaysneil
    Alwaysneil Posts: 13,814
    It appeared to me that Roland had taken his head from out his bum long enough to speak to Varney post relegation.

    The emails presumably pertain to this.
  • cafcfan
    cafcfan Posts: 11,199
    madadd said:

    Atletico Addick said:

    sammy391 said:

    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.

Categories

“Marketplace”