So basically Varney's 'posting e-mails' threat was a bluff?
Not necessarily. His position was ''retraction within 48 hours or I will publish the e-mails'' not ''I will publish the e-mails in 48 hours unless there is a retraction.'' Rather an important distinction. He has never stated when he would publish, simply that he would.
Rather than releasing emails as @Airman Brown suggested he would (although don't think PV said that did he?) it seems he is going to try and make Katy say sorry.
Quite a bit more mature and level-headed than simply releasing the emails, and conveyed via a thoroughly well-worded statement.
Sadly, it just demonstrates the sheer contrast between the two individuals - one is a true professional, and one is little more than a chancer with a penchant for deceit.
A lawyer getting sued would make great reading for us, doubt she will apologise so I look forward to it - she will fancy defending herself and try to play the victim if all plays out badly for her - it's what she does.
"If this is not forthcoming, I will unfortunately have no option but to place this matter in the hands of my legal advisers to deal with more formally.“
A word of warning Daisy: Reg's legal advisers are that well-known firm, Kray, Kray and Co ...
Makes sense to me. Sue her, and let the emails come out in the evidence.
But I wouldn't give her a second chance to retract. Just get your lawyers busy now PV.
Agreed.
Initially reported in VOTV:
There was also the significant problem that Varney insists her claim about his proposal isn’t true, as he quickly and forcefully made very clear, demanding she produce evidence or publish a public retraction within 48 hours.
No inverted commas there so perhaps Rick can confirm that's exactly what Reg said.
Then today:
"Such suggestions are entirely untrue and unsubstantiated and I would ask that Ms Meire retracts the same immediately.
"If this is not forthcoming, I will unfortunately have no option but to place this matter in the hands of my legal advisers to deal with more formally.“
Inverted commas this time but in reality saying the same thing albeit 48 hrs now becomes 'immediately'.
Well, immediately would appear to have passed - if I were PV I would have the lawyer's letter on her desk now.
So what would/could she be guilty of, even if what she said is untrue ?
Possibly defamation:
Defamation of character is a wrongful act where someone makes a false statement of fact that injures the reputation of another person.
If the accusation is untrue but will not be retracted then the real defamation takes place by silence - i.e. the inference that PV is lying.
But hey I'm not a lawyer so that could just be BS.
I assume that PDV has spoken to his lawyers and they've said he has to formally ask her to withdraw in this way and that they have already mapped out the options as and when that does or does not happen.
if she is sued and proved to have lied then surely her position becomes untenable plus surely the FA or EPL could charge her with bringing the game into disrepute? Also if you have a criminal conviction doesn't that stop you being a Director or would this not be a criminal conviction!
if she is sued and proved to have lied then surely her position becomes untenable plus surely the FA or EPL could charge her with bringing the game into disrepute? Also if you have a criminal conviction doesn't that stop you being a Director or would this not be a criminal conviction!
It's not going to go that far. She hasn't committed a criminal offence as far as I can see but it would be professionally embarrassing (both as a CEO and as a lawyer) to have a judgement against her.
On the other hand she really doesn't want to ever, ever admit she's been wrong in anything she ever, ever done.
So she will, IMHO, try the misquoted/Move away from the Valley means Stay at the Valley route
Surely the ultimate embarrassment for Katrien Meire? A lawyer, being sued for yet another public lie. She's done well to beat Michael Slater as the worst lawyer to run Charlton. How is her position remotely tenable? Sack her Roland.
Surely the ultimate embarrassment for Katrien Meire? A lawyer, being sued for yet another public lie. She's done well to beat Michael Slater as the worst lawyer to run Charlton. How is her position remotely tenable? Sack her Roland.
Slater was a good lawyer, a dickhead but a good lawyer. More Meire is a dickhead and a terrible lawyer
Comments
Sigh, I can dream on a boring Friday afternoon... right?
http://www.votvonline.com/
Rather than releasing emails as @Airman Brown suggested he would (although don't think PV said that did he?) it seems he is going to try and make Katy say sorry.
@colin1961 got his wish at least.
But I wouldn't give her a second chance to retract. Just get your lawyers busy now PV.
Sadly, it just demonstrates the sheer contrast between the two individuals - one is a true professional, and one is little more than a chancer with a penchant for deceit.
A word of warning Daisy: Reg's legal advisers are that well-known firm, Kray, Kray and Co ...
Initially reported in VOTV:
There was also the significant problem that Varney insists her claim about his proposal isn’t true, as he quickly and forcefully made very clear, demanding she produce evidence or publish a public retraction within 48 hours.
No inverted commas there so perhaps Rick can confirm that's exactly what Reg said.
Then today:
"Such suggestions are entirely untrue and unsubstantiated and I would ask that Ms Meire retracts the same immediately.
"If this is not forthcoming, I will unfortunately have no option but to place this matter in the hands of my legal advisers to deal with more formally.“
Inverted commas this time but in reality saying the same thing albeit 48 hrs now becomes 'immediately'.
Well, immediately would appear to have passed - if I were PV I would have the lawyer's letter on her desk now.
Defamation of character is a wrongful act where someone makes a false statement of fact that injures the reputation of another person.
If the accusation is untrue but will not be retracted then the real defamation takes place by silence - i.e. the inference that PV is lying.
But hey I'm not a lawyer so that could just be BS.
No legal aid of course but firms like Slater Gordon would offer a conditional fee arrangement if they believed you had a good case.
If you are a twat of course
That woman can say and do anything she wants to and doesn't give a toss.
She's pure poison in my opinion.
On the other hand she really doesn't want to ever, ever admit she's been wrong in anything she ever, ever done.
So she will, IMHO, try the misquoted/Move away from the Valley means Stay at the Valley route
Varney's law firm can rule out Frank Bruno as a suspect.