Quick question @Airman Brown would you be happy to print that in the voice?
I mean the quote from Richard?
The problem I would have with it is the context. That interview is the wrong context for that point to be made and isn't supported by any argument. I think it's perfectly legitimate for someone to explore Bowyer's record and numerous national newspapers have done so.
It is wrong of RW to make a controversial comment in a public document. If he believes that Bowyer is not suitable as a manager he should resign ( RW not Bowyer) RW is either very egotistical or foolish. The club is split, slowly( quickly) fading, we do not need divisive comments from supporters officials.
That’s the serious point though - who wants to do it? I certainly don’t and the instant vilification anyone making a mistake attracts won’t help encourage people.
Come on, it was not a mistake. He didn't mistakenly say it. They are his views.
If the comment had been of a right wing nature (i.e. if RW was of a different political persuasion and had said for example that "we always wanted LB at this club because of his actions back at Leeds for which he should never need to apologise" he'd already be gone.
Not that i'm saying he should go, but you get the point.
Probably because concern about racism, however well grounded in this case, is legitimate and support for it isn't. There is no equivalence between being pro- and anti-racist.
The (made up) quote I used above that you claim is support for racism is not necessarily so. It could well be that the person saying it believes LB shouldn’t apologise as he was not ‘a racist’ and was not convicted of racist behaviour and we need someone at the club with his historical aggression.
Your response proves everything I’m trying to show. Two polar opposite potential opinions and viewpoints, both of which are legit personal views to hold but you and everyone else would have jumped all over the theoretical one, so people have a right to jump on this one.
Both could have been said mistakenly but that wouldn’t wash with the latter and therefore shouldn’t with RW’s.
Anyway this is going off piste so I apologise but what I’m (poorly) trying to say is that a more right wing opinion would have been jumped all over (just like any controversial tweet from a celeb these days) and thus this should not be any different.
That’s the serious point though - who wants to do it? I certainly don’t and the instant vilification anyone making a mistake attracts won’t help encourage people.
Come on, it was not a mistake. He didn't mistakenly say it. They are his views.
If the comment had been of a right wing nature (i.e. if RW was of a different political persuasion and had said for example that "we always wanted LB at this club because of his actions back at Leeds for which he should never need to apologise" he'd already be gone.
Not that i'm saying he should go, but you get the point.
Probably because concern about racism, however well grounded in this case, is legitimate and support for it isn't. There is no equivalence between being pro- and anti-racist.
The (made up) quote I used above that you claim is support for racism is not necessarily so. It could well be that the person saying it believes LB shouldn’t apologise as he was not ‘a racist’ and was not convicted of racist behaviour and we need someone at the club with his historical aggression.
Your response proves everything I’m trying to show. Two polar opposite potential opinions and viewpoints, both of which are legit personal views to hold but you and everyone else would have jumped all over the theoretical one, so people have a right to jump on this one.
Both could have been said mistakenly but that wouldn’t wash with the latter and therefore shouldn’t with RW’s.
Anyway this is going off piste so I apologise but what I’m (poorly) trying to say is that a more right wing opinion would have been jumped all over (just like any controversial tweet from a celeb these days) and thus this should not be any different.
Your made-up quote "we always wanted LB at this club because of his actions back at Leeds for which he should never need to apologise" would only be read as an endorsement of racism - or at best thuggery - as you well know. It cannot support the meaning you are trying to put on it, because it refers to his actions (not the absence of anything) as the basis for endorsement.
I don't see this as a left-right issue, which would imply everyone on the right is racist.
What is quite clear is that the law (reflecting society) picks a side between racism and anti-racism.
wouldn't be surprised if Sky and possibly the press aren't already planning to ask Bowyers thoughts on this tomorrow. (if of course they read the forums) which will be a shame as this could unfortunately become a complete distraction from what the real issues are with the club.
He has done Bowyer a favour, as an ex-Newcastle player, he was going to get some stick anyway, but now all the younger fans that knew nothing about his past, they have got more ammunition, and I hate to think of some of the things they will shout. Nice of you to inform them Mr Wiseman
I think we're giving ourselves WAY too much credit on this one. Obviously I could be proven wrong, but I don't think this will be the reason that Bowyer's past is brought up, if it is at all tomorrow. And that past has already been brought up in other interviews and write ups during his tenure. You're both people whose opinions I respect immensely, ditto a lot of people who have posted here, but I do think this is a case where our own insulation, for lack of a better word, perhaps feeds how important something like this is.
think you're probably right. it is a story that they (tabloids) would love (though as you say Bowyers past has been covered) but not necessarily from a club of our stature. if this type of story came out of the supporters trust chairman at Man U (see the amount of coverage that whole Martial going home to see his new baby got) i would say it would get blown way out of proportion. so its just left to us few sad sods on some forum called Charlton life to blow it out of proportion.
wouldn't be surprised if Sky and possibly the press aren't already planning to ask Bowyers thoughts on this tomorrow. (if of course they read the forums) which will be a shame as this could unfortunately become a complete distraction from what the real issues are with the club.
He has done Bowyer a favour, as an ex-Newcastle player, he was going to get some stick anyway, but now all the younger fans that knew nothing about his past, they have got more ammunition, and I hate to think of some of the things they will shout. Nice of you to inform them Mr Wiseman
I think we're giving ourselves WAY too much credit on this one. Obviously I could be proven wrong, but I don't think this will be the reason that Bowyer's past is brought up, if it is at all tomorrow. And that past has already been brought up in other interviews and write ups during his tenure. You're both people whose opinions I respect immensely, ditto a lot of people who have posted here, but I do think this is a case where our own insulation, for lack of a better word, perhaps feeds how important something like this is.
think you're probably right. it is a story that they (tabloids) would love (though as you say Bowyers past has been covered) but not necessarily from a club of our stature. if this type of story came out of the supporters trust chairman at Man U (see the amount of coverage that whole Martial going home to see his new baby got) i would say it would get blown way out of proportion. so its just left to us few sad sods on some forum called Charlton life to blow it out of proportion.
Yeah that's the sad bit, it's not as bad when they mock you as when they ignore you.
This thread has been helpful in highlighting how much progress we still need to make as a club in terms of safety, welfare and safeguarding. Hopefully this can be the priority of both the club and the trust.
This thread has been helpful in highlighting how much progress we still need to make as a club in terms of safety, welfare and safeguarding. Hopefully this can be the priority of both the club and the trust.</blockquote
Sorry but what does this mean? Welfare, safety etc
This thread has been helpful in highlighting how much progress we still need to make as a club in terms of safety, welfare and safeguarding. Hopefully this can be the priority of both the club and the trust.
I think it's about time you apologised for throwing that hotdog at the linesman at Crewe.
I go to( or went) to Charlton as my football club. Sorry I go for football not “safety, welfare and safeguarding” Sorry I also do not care about the Community and other add ons. .
Mr Wiseman even states in his interview that Varney was CEO of the club when Powell was manager the last time we got promoted. Stupidly I thought it was Slater and Jimenez.
It is wrong of RW to make a controversial comment in a public document. If he believes that Bowyer is not suitable as a manager he should resign ( RW not Bowyer) RW is either very egotistical or foolish. The club is split, slowly( quickly) fading, we do not need divisive comments from supporters officials.
The chairman of the supporters trust should resign if he doesn’t like the Charlton manager?
It is wrong of RW to make a controversial comment in a public document. If he believes that Bowyer is not suitable as a manager he should resign ( RW not Bowyer) RW is either very egotistical or foolish. The club is split, slowly( quickly) fading, we do not need divisive comments from supporters officials.
The chairman of the supporters trust should resign if he doesn’t like the Charlton manager?
No, not quite......but possibly for publicly stating it.
It was a dumb thing to say. Ask any lawyer (well, not Meire obviously) and they will tell you never to apologise, ever, for anything. Read any insurance policy it will say never admit blame or say sorry. The reasons for this are obvious.
Any lack of an apology is meaningless and does not reflect how someone is feeling themselves.
Mr Wiseman even states in his interview that Varney was CEO of the club when Powell was manager the last time we got promoted. Stupidly I thought it was Slater and Jimenez.
He was here as Executive Vice Chairman between January 2011 and the summer of 2012. Clearly just got the job title wrong.
Mr Wiseman even states in his interview that Varney was CEO of the club when Powell was manager the last time we got promoted. Stupidly I thought it was Slater and Jimenez.
Neither Slater nor Jimenez was ever chief executive or an executive of any kind. Steve Kavanagh was chief executive until mid-2012 and then Martin Prothero was executive vice chairman, replacing Varney, and the club operated without a chief executive, but Varney (not Kavanagh) was responsible for overseeing the football side in 2011-12.
Comments
RW is either very egotistical or foolish. The club is split, slowly( quickly) fading, we do not need divisive comments from supporters officials.
Your response proves everything I’m trying to show. Two polar opposite potential opinions and viewpoints, both of which are legit personal views to hold but you and everyone else would have jumped all over the theoretical one, so people have a right to jump on this one.
Both could have been said mistakenly but that wouldn’t wash with the latter and therefore shouldn’t with RW’s.
Anyway this is going off piste so I apologise but what I’m (poorly) trying to say is that a more right wing opinion would have been jumped all over (just like any controversial tweet from a celeb these days) and thus this should not be any different.
I don't see this as a left-right issue, which would imply everyone on the right is racist.
What is quite clear is that the law (reflecting society) picks a side between racism and anti-racism.
Hopefully this can be the priority of both the club and the trust.
Sorry I also do not care about the Community and other add ons.
.
Any lack of an apology is meaningless and does not reflect how someone is feeling themselves.
https://www.petervarney.com/about-peter-varney