Varney taking Legal Action - Mail article
Comments
-
While her comments were very odd, I can't see what is actionable about them.
This may all be dancing in relation to an actual sale, I hope it is.
But the comment doesn't seem defamatory, just inept and incorrect. Which is Katrien's default state.
2 -
I don't think she is lying, in the sense of knowingly telling an untruth. I think she believed what she said, but it's another example of her mouth running ahead of her brain. She doesn't know it to be true and she certainly can't prove it, she just threw it in anyway because she could. It's lack of experience and poor judgement. And that's why she's unfit to be chief executive.Henry Irving said:
Ok, let's play "what if?"ShortyWilson999 said:Only sensible if she is lying. But what for one second she ain't? Varney will have egg on his face. Perhaps keeping quiet is best way not to add fuel to the fire.
KM is telling the truth because she seen and discussed PVs detailed takeover proposal.
She definatly knows that the plan is to leave the Valley but how?
She has repeatedly said the club isn't for sale and she won't even meet with Varney.
So either she's lying about the club not being for sale or she's lying about knowing the PV wants to move the club away from the Valley.
Or, imho, she's lying about both.13 -
Either way she's in the wrong.Airman Brown said:
I don't think she is lying, in the sense of knowingly telling an untruth. I think she believed what she said, but it's another example of her mouth running ahead of her brain. She doesn't know it to be true and she certainly can't prove it, she just threw it in anyway because she could. It's lack of experience and poor judgement. And that's why she's unfit to be chief executive.Henry Irving said:
Ok, let's play "what if?"ShortyWilson999 said:Only sensible if she is lying. But what for one second she ain't? Varney will have egg on his face. Perhaps keeping quiet is best way not to add fuel to the fire.
KM is telling the truth because she seen and discussed PVs detailed takeover proposal.
She definatly knows that the plan is to leave the Valley but how?
She has repeatedly said the club isn't for sale and she won't even meet with Varney.
So either she's lying about the club not being for sale or she's lying about knowing the PV wants to move the club away from the Valley.
Or, imho, she's lying about both.
A simple "I didn't mean to imply that Varney was planning to move the club and I apologise for any confusion" and this would have been over but her pride, inability to admit she's wrong and unwillingness to be shown up in front of uncle Roland means she lets it fester.2 -
On the upside we now know there was some more meaningful dialogue between PV / RD / KM after the initial reticence to engage i.e. The threat to reveal more (recent) emails.Airman Brown said:
I don't think she is lying, in the sense of knowingly telling an untruth. I think she believed what she said, but it's another example of her mouth running ahead of her brain. She doesn't know it to be true and she certainly can't prove it, she just threw it in anyway because she could. It's lack of experience and poor judgement. And that's why she's unfit to be chief executive.Henry Irving said:
Ok, let's play "what if?"ShortyWilson999 said:Only sensible if she is lying. But what for one second she ain't? Varney will have egg on his face. Perhaps keeping quiet is best way not to add fuel to the fire.
KM is telling the truth because she seen and discussed PVs detailed takeover proposal.
She definatly knows that the plan is to leave the Valley but how?
She has repeatedly said the club isn't for sale and she won't even meet with Varney.
So either she's lying about the club not being for sale or she's lying about knowing the PV wants to move the club away from the Valley.
Or, imho, she's lying about both.
What I don't think you or others have shared however is what those conversations resulted in if anything. I'm curious what more PV may have gleaned that could be brought in to the public domain however limited that may be.
Even if perhaps it was simply an apology / acknowledgement that PV didn't get treated well in the original engagement that would be of some interest / context.
0 -
Airman Brown said:
I don't think she is lying, in the sense of knowingly telling an untruth. I think she believed what she said, but it's another example of her mouth running ahead of her brain. She doesn't know it to be true and she certainly can't prove it, she just threw it in anyway because she could. It's lack of experience and poor judgement. And that's why she's unfit to be chief executive.Henry Irving said:
Ok, let's play "what if?"ShortyWilson999 said:Only sensible if she is lying. But what for one second she ain't? Varney will have egg on his face. Perhaps keeping quiet is best way not to add fuel to the fire.
KM is telling the truth because she seen and discussed PVs detailed takeover proposal.
She definatly knows that the plan is to leave the Valley but how?
She has repeatedly said the club isn't for sale and she won't even meet with Varney.
So either she's lying about the club not being for sale or she's lying about knowing the PV wants to move the club away from the Valley.
Or, imho, she's lying about both.
It's quite alarming if you think about it. I'm not surprised she packed in being a lawyer. She would be shredded in seconds by any mildly competent opposition carrying on like she does. Now we're stuck with her incompetence instead.1 -
I don't understand why Varney is threatening to sue over this. A bit pointless if you ask me.
Even if he wins, what's the Judeg going to award him?
About £15 would be my guess.
The Judiciary don't take kindly to frivolous action.1 -
It won't get to court as that will really show her up as the incompetent she is so I expect an apology eventually. Even that will be embarrassing for her. If only we had an owner who would then do the decent thing and sack her.2
-
I can think of better ways to spend £5k.LargeAddick said:It won't get to court as that will really show her up as the incompetent she is so I expect an apology eventually. Even that will be embarrassing for her. If only we had an owner who would then do the decent thing and sack her.
0 -
Can she be sacked? Is she even an employee?0
-
Stress balls, beach balls and balloons?Addickted said:
I can think of better ways to spend £5k.LargeAddick said:It won't get to court as that will really show her up as the incompetent she is so I expect an apology eventually. Even that will be embarrassing for her. If only we had an owner who would then do the decent thing and sack her.
2 - Sponsored links:
-
I rather they were taken to the Eurostar!eaststandmike said:Well done Peter, take her and the rest of them to the cleaners
3 -
A majority of shareholders have the power to remove the CEO I think?The Red Robin said:Can she be sacked? Is she even an employee?
1 -
Unfortunately, it is an example of how poor she is at her job - Firstly, in her position, you need to be a bit careful as to what you say, Secondly, we all make mistakes even though she has previous, she could have acknowledged the error and apologised and clarified that she didn't mean it how it came out. Her pride is such that rather than do the logical and sensible, she needlessly creates a issue!0
-
lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?0
-
A press conference with our new manager, hijacked by her and Murray for who knows a reason why.
She has brought this on herself and more bad publicity against her everytime she opens her gate. The woman speaks before her brain engages and one day she will come unstuck.
It may be soon with Varney, but if not she is an accident waiting to happen unless she thinks first or resigns asap.10 -
Just out of interest Doucher, as I've seen you post similar a few times - what makes you give the benefit of the doubt to our current CEO - who you admit has been making an arse of things - over our (highly claimed, successful and respected) former CEO?DOUCHER said:lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
2 -
Nope, I think the fuel was the crap way the club was being run into the ground on the pitch.DOUCHER said:lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
9 -
because i dont understand where these people were when the club was desperate for a buyer and i like to keep an open mind on it - if a move away from the valley is part of varneys deal then that is not a good thing - id like to see him disprove it and id like to see a genuine better alternative to the belgiumsLuckyReds said:
Just out of interest Doucher, as I've seen you post similar a few times - what makes you give the benefit of the doubt to our current CEO - who you admit has been making an arse of things - over our (highly claimed, successful and respected) former CEO?DOUCHER said:lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
2 -
and i haven't given the benefit of the doubt to anybody0
-
That's fair, I can understand that to be honest.DOUCHER said:
because i dont understand where these people were when the club was desperate for a buyer and i like to keep an open mind on it - if a move away from the valley is part of varneys deal then that is not a good thing - id like to see him disprove it and id like to see a genuine better alternative to the belgiumsLuckyReds said:
Just out of interest Doucher, as I've seen you post similar a few times - what makes you give the benefit of the doubt to our current CEO - who you admit has been making an arse of things - over our (highly claimed, successful and respected) former CEO?DOUCHER said:lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
I don't think many of us would like to see a move away from The Valley, it is our home. I'm going to guess that's why Varney is so keen on clearing the air - hopefully both of us will get a definitive answer soon enough!0 - Sponsored links:
-
no - that started it but varneys 'deal' ignited it into something much bigger - if all isn't as it seems then he has a lot to answer for and i think a few on here will be taking a look at themselves bur we shall seeNug said:
Nope, I think the fuel was the crap way the club was being run into the ground on the pitch.DOUCHER said:lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
1 -
I honestly don't think we will. I'd also like to see Varney disprove it but im suspicious about something and unsure why.1
-
Maybe that was a reason for some people, I doubt it was for all.DOUCHER said:
no - that started it but varneys 'deal' ignited it into something much bigger - if all isn't as it seems then he has a lot to answer for and i think a few on here will be taking a look at themselves bur we shall seeNug said:
Nope, I think the fuel was the crap way the club was being run into the ground on the pitch.DOUCHER said:lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
As AB says above, if this was not a deliberate attempt to tar PV's reputation, why mention his name at all?0 -
I can't believe a few are still willing to give Katie the benefit of the doubt whilst at the same time questioning PV. One is a proven lying incompetent who admits she has no care for the history of the Club whilst the other is a very well respected, honourable man, Charlton through and through, a season ticket holder, who was also CEO during the most successful period in the Clubs history.
Very weird.22 -
It's not pointless at all. It's very clever. PV's putting this out in the public domain and it's more bad publicity for the regime. I'm sure this will be resolved before it gets to court.Addickted said:I don't understand why Varney is threatening to sue over this. A bit pointless if you ask me.
Even if he wins, what's the Judeg going to award him?
About £15 would be my guess.
The Judiciary don't take kindly to frivolous action.0 -
Who's to say these buyers weren't about , let's face it about or not the clown who bought us prolly paid over the top to the spivs who wouldn't have given a monkeys who they sold toDOUCHER said:
because i dont understand where these people were when the club was desperate for a buyer and i like to keep an open mind on it - if a move away from the valley is part of varneys deal then that is not a good thing - id like to see him disprove it and id like to see a genuine better alternative to the belgiumsLuckyReds said:
Just out of interest Doucher, as I've seen you post similar a few times - what makes you give the benefit of the doubt to our current CEO - who you admit has been making an arse of things - over our (highly claimed, successful and respected) former CEO?DOUCHER said:lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
I'd happily take a chance with any alternative than the current idiot ownership3 -
Why does he have to "disprove" it.ShortyWilson999 said:I honestly don't think we will. I'd also like to see Varney disprove it but im suspicious about something and unsure why.
He already said in no uncertain terms that it is not true.
The onus is on Meire to either back up her statement with some evidence or withdraw the remark.
11 -
It's not up to him to disprove it, it's up to Katrien to prove what she says about him is true. If she can, case closed. But she can't.DOUCHER said:
because i dont understand where these people were when the club was desperate for a buyer and i like to keep an open mind on it - if a move away from the valley is part of varneys deal then that is not a good thing - id like to see him disprove it and id like to see a genuine better alternative to the belgiumsLuckyReds said:
Just out of interest Doucher, as I've seen you post similar a few times - what makes you give the benefit of the doubt to our current CEO - who you admit has been making an arse of things - over our (highly claimed, successful and respected) former CEO?DOUCHER said:lets not pussy foot about here eh? the fuel that added fire to the protests - regardless of how much of an arse the belgiums were making of things - was that varney had a far better alternative - well, i would like to be convinced so that is why im keen to see what he does now - reasonable enough?
As for where these people were 2.5 years ago, well I was in the market to buy a house a year ago and today I'm not. In a couple of years' time I might be again. Business contexts change frequently, you can hardly have a go at people because they weren't in the mix to keep us from this lot.
More to the point, why is Murray trying to keep this from happening when the club is being run into the ground otherwise?
11 -
Well he's the one saying it's not true so why not back his statement up. You saying your taking PV on his word but not on hers? (And yes I know she has form) but I'm just saying. At the end of the day Jimenez and Slater are being sued over this moving the club to the peninsula and Varney had links with them so why could it not be true?0
-
OK, I say you are a Millwall fan pretending to be a Charlton fan.ShortyWilson999 said:Well he's the one saying it's not true so why not back his statement up. You saying your taking PV on his word but not on hers? (And yes I know she has form) but I'm just saying. At the end of the day Jimenez and Slater are being sued over this moving the club to the peninsula and Varney had links with them so why could it not be true?
Disprove it.8
