I agree we should stay away from anyone that Peter Varney introduces
Curious to hear more on that. It seems most here really like PV.
@I-SAW-POUSO-PLAY can answer for himself but I suspect the point he is making is that Varney allegedly introduced the Spivs to Charlton and the good Doctor to Ebbsfleet both of which ended or are ending badly.
If it was Varney who introduced Jimenez, Slater and the "third man" Cash then surely that was successful on the field when we ended with 100+ points when Powell and Dyer were allowed to bring in their own players in part with the selling of Jenkinson. Only when the aptly named Cash, started to have cash flow problems because of getting involved with nefarious eastern European folk was the plug pulled on Cafc ambitions as we reached the Championship.
As for the owner at Ebbsfleet, his ambition was to build a Disneyland around that area so he appeared to be well healed. Plus I thought Peter said it wasn't him ? I assumed it might be an associate of the Ebbsfleet owner.
Varney was CEO when we reached 4th in the premier, numerous staff from that time have told me he was a great boss.
Except we know from court cases that Jimenez was a proven liar and was planning to sell Charlton by lying to potential buyers.
There is little logic in him. His statement is vindictive. He is clearly unhappy, so why not sell and sell quickly. a useful answer would be what does he want. He has no real positives in his statement.
It’s not his Coms team that’s a RM statement if ever I have read one kentred2 said:
Lol and his comms team are supporting him with orchestrated support on Twitter.
So two things clear:
1 He wants to make his profit through the land value and, 2 attendances matter (eg the incentive rumoured in Bowyer’s contract offer) and therefore boycotting does hurt him.
Covered End, I'm curious as to why they all need to be treated the same, if one director is happy to accept a penny in the pound, knowing the others were receiving full payment surely only the person in question can decide?
Covered End---- read my middle paragraph "that's if anything in his statement is true" ----- I don't believe a word that comes out of the deluded twonks mouth
Why do you believe ALL the director have to be treated the same ? It's THEIR call if they all want 100% of their loans paid back then that's it.however one of two or more may take 50% /70% of their loan being paid NOW rather than the full amount at some stage in the far away land of the Prem---their call as individuals.
An easy way forward would be for Roland to pay them all today their full amount
Once again, we get the chance to thrill as Roland completely misses the open goal created by the excitement and optimism of promotion.
What a dickhead.
Haven't you realised yet, he doesn't care. He's just laughing at the supporters. He will do what he wants. Hate him with a vengeance.
It’s not so much that he doesn’t care- it’s that he genuinely believes he is right and everyone else is wrong. He cannot see what is wrong with anything he does.
The bit I don’t understand is he says he’s in the process of selling then talks about a spendthrift plan for next season, like he’s planning to stick around.
Did anyone else think that or is it just knackered me?
He always contradicts himself, because he doesn't know what he's doing. The spendthrift plan is no different than his approach since day one.
Covered End, I'm curious as to why they all need to be treated the same, if one director is happy to accept a penny in the pound, knowing the others were receiving full payment surely only the person in question can decide?
Maybe I'm losing the plot, but I believe Airman Brown said so somewhere and if so I was taking it at face value.
I understand the price has been agreed for ages but I don’t totally understand why this issue of the directors loans keeps coming up - it appears that some of the directors - presumably the ones mentioned in Rolands ramble have agreed to a haircut on their loans - I heard 50% plus but the others not mentioned won’t agree to a haircut and you can’t treat different loan holders differently hence the impasse. I guess that not unreasonably the Aussies ( that’s who it still is ) want clear title on the whole club bearing in mind they are having to pay a ridiculously high price in the first place. You really would have thought that given that Roland stands to continue to lose £5-7m a year he’d just cough up a compromise to get the deal over the line - but he’s not a mean billionaire for nothing
All sales in the real World are negotiations,so IF the Rats statement that the price is agreed and IF his statement that 3/4 ex directors have agreed the price to sell the loans then the Rat could pay the other director loans himself (reported as £2.5 million-ish) a fraction of what the few owners would be paying him.
Thats if anything in his statement is actually true---- his Ego lets him negotiate----he visits planet Earth anytime soon.
Said after Wembley those moments / games only come along every decade or so with CAFC and boy do we have to put up with some shit in between those years
The ex directors haven't agreed a price for their loans. David White said he had been contacted recently and he had agreed to discuss his outstanding loan. All ex-director loans have to be treated equally so he can't pay different percentages to ex-directors. If one insists on full repayment, then they must all be fully repaid.
RD's weasel words inferred what you are saying and it was deliberately misleading. I hold my hands up and admit that he took me in, before David White's clarification.
That’s not strictly true. The ex-directors can settle their own loans on any terms they like. They are not one linked agreement, but a set of individual charges on the assets. Even if they were one loan it would be quite possible for individual parties to waive part or all of their repayment.
In practice, of course, Murray might not be willing to compromise if Chappell et al are not, but in that case it’s his choice.
It’s not his Coms team that’s a RM statement if ever I have read one kentred2 said:
Lol and his comms team are supporting him with orchestrated support on Twitter.
So two things clear:
1 He wants to make his profit through the land value and, 2 attendances matter (eg the incentive rumoured in Bowyer’s contract offer) and therefore boycotting does hurt him.
Yes, it does reek of RM, although I’d imagine he’d realise that aspects of it - the Bowyer bit, for example - are nonsensical.
Murray has been feuding with the omitted ex- directors for ten years and Varney since 2012.
Are people saying there is some merit in this latest statement? I can't see any. Can anybody winkle out any positives?
Give your son a ring.
What's that supposed to mean?
Your father asked if anybody could winkle out any positives. In an earlier post, you said that it was possibly RD's 'most reasonable' something or other. A positive I would have thought.
Odd to point it out by saying "give your son a ring" though!
Either way, most reasonable thing he's said doesn't actually mean it's reasonable. I'm in the Leuth camp here of "RD is right that football is fundamentally f*cked", which is a totally reasonable thing to say.
And he says "for now we're stuck together", which... I mean, is literally true even if it's the thinnest of veils to say "well you lot have made any movement nigh on impossible".
I also didn't know he'd turned down £45m!!!!!!! That's lunacy.
But either way, I don't actually think the statement is a positive. Smearing oneself in, say, chocolate mousse is "more reasonable" than smearing oneself in dog shit, but neither are exactly good things... (forgive me, I'm not good with analogies)
All sales in the real World are negotiations,so IF the Rats statement that the price is agreed and IF his statement that 3/4 ex directors have agreed the price to sell the loans then the Rat could pay the other director loans himself (reported as £2.5 million-ish) a fraction of what the few owners would be paying him.
Thats if anything in his statement is actually true---- his Ego lets him negotiate----he visits planet Earth anytime soon.
Said after Wembley those moments / games only come along every decade or so with CAFC and boy do we have to put up with some shit in between those years
The ex directors haven't agreed a price for their loans. David White said he had been contacted recently and he had agreed to discuss his outstanding loan. All ex-director loans have to be treated equally so he can't pay different percentages to ex-directors. If one insists on full repayment, then they must all be fully repaid.
RD's weasel words inferred what you are saying and it was deliberately misleading. I hold my hands up and admit that he took me in, before David White's clarification.
That’s not strictly true. The ex-directors can settle their own loans on any terms they like. They are not one linked agreement, but a set of individual charges on the assets. Even if they were one loan it would be quite possible for individual parties to waive part or all of their repayment.
In practice, of course, Murray might not be willing to compromise if Chappell et al are not, but in that case it’s his choice.
I agree we should stay away from anyone that Peter Varney introduces
Curious to hear more on that. It seems most here really like PV.
@I-SAW-POUSO-PLAY can answer for himself but I suspect the point he is making is that Varney allegedly introduced the Spivs to Charlton and the good Doctor to Ebbsfleet both of which ended or are ending badly.
If it was Varney who introduced Jimenez, Slater and the "third man" Cash then surely that was successful on the field when we ended with 100+ points when Powell and Dyer were allowed to bring in their own players in part with the selling of Jenkinson. Only when the aptly named Cash, started to have cash flow problems because of getting involved with nefarious eastern European folk was the plug pulled on Cafc ambitions as we reached the Championship.
As for the owner at Ebbsfleet, his ambition was to build a Disneyland around that area so he appeared to be well healed. Plus I thought Peter said it wasn't him ? I assumed it might be an associate of the Ebbsfleet owner.
Varney was CEO when we reached 4th in the premier, numerous staff from that time have told me he was a great boss.
Except we know from court cases that Jimenez was a proven liar and was planning to sell Charlton by lying to potential buyers.
Didn't the court cases happen long after Peter Varney would've first had dealings with Jimenez? Do we have clarification it was Varney and not Murray who made the initial contact ? Varney as the CEO would have been heavily involved but as Richard Murray told us at Bromley addicts when he was the owner, I put the most money in, I make the decisions.
I agree we should stay away from anyone that Peter Varney introduces
Curious to hear more on that. It seems most here really like PV.
@I-SAW-POUSO-PLAY can answer for himself but I suspect the point he is making is that Varney allegedly introduced the Spivs to Charlton and the good Doctor to Ebbsfleet both of which ended or are ending badly.
If it was Varney who introduced Jimenez, Slater and the "third man" Cash then surely that was successful on the field when we ended with 100+ points when Powell and Dyer were allowed to bring in their own players in part with the selling of Jenkinson. Only when the aptly named Cash, started to have cash flow problems because of getting involved with nefarious eastern European folk was the plug pulled on Cafc ambitions as we reached the Championship.
As for the owner at Ebbsfleet, his ambition was to build a Disneyland around that area so he appeared to be well healed. Plus I thought Peter said it wasn't him ? I assumed it might be an associate of the Ebbsfleet owner.
Varney was CEO when we reached 4th in the premier, numerous staff from that time have told me he was a great boss.
Except we know from court cases that Jimenez was a proven liar and was planning to sell Charlton by lying to potential buyers.
Didn't the court cases happen long after Peter Varney would've first had dealings with Jimenez? Do we have clarification it was Varney and not Murray who made the initial contact ? Varney as the CEO would have been heavily involved but as Richard Murray told us at Bromley addicts when he was the owner, I put the most money in, I make the decisions.
I agree we should stay away from anyone that Peter Varney introduces
Curious to hear more on that. It seems most here really like PV.
@I-SAW-POUSO-PLAY can answer for himself but I suspect the point he is making is that Varney allegedly introduced the Spivs to Charlton and the good Doctor to Ebbsfleet both of which ended or are ending badly.
If it was Varney who introduced Jimenez, Slater and the "third man" Cash then surely that was successful on the field when we ended with 100+ points when Powell and Dyer were allowed to bring in their own players in part with the selling of Jenkinson. Only when the aptly named Cash, started to have cash flow problems because of getting involved with nefarious eastern European folk was the plug pulled on Cafc ambitions as we reached the Championship.
As for the owner at Ebbsfleet, his ambition was to build a Disneyland around that area so he appeared to be well healed. Plus I thought Peter said it wasn't him ? I assumed it might be an associate of the Ebbsfleet owner.
Varney was CEO when we reached 4th in the premier, numerous staff from that time have told me he was a great boss.
Except we know from court cases that Jimenez was a proven liar and was planning to sell Charlton by lying to potential buyers.
I am the last person to defend Jimenez but as far as most people are concerned the question would not be whether that regime was perfect but whether the club was better off as a result of that ownership in practice. Unless you blame Jimenez/Cash for Duchatelet, I think that judgement is fairly straightforward. The same would apply at Ebbsfleet, who have improved their stadium and their status under their current ownership.
If people want to call out Varney for introducing them in each case, which I understand, then the two questions are 1) what did he know at the time he did so? And 2) what were the available alternatives? A third would be how far did he collaborate with them when it became clear they were no longer going to be good for the club. The answer to that is obvious.
Then ask that same question about Richard Murray.
There’s a reason so many people (ex-directors and senior staff) are loyal to Varney and so few to Murray, and I suggest it’s about character. Only one of them is trusted by the people concerned.
Once again, we get the chance to thrill as Roland completely misses the open goal created by the excitement and optimism of promotion.
What a dickhead.
Haven't you realised yet, he doesn't care. He's just laughing at the supporters. He will do what he wants. Hate him with a vengeance.
It’s not so much that he doesn’t care- it’s that he genuinely believes he is right and everyone else is wrong. He cannot see what is wrong with anything he does.
Sorry should of said he doesn't care what other people think.
All sales in the real World are negotiations,so IF the Rats statement that the price is agreed and IF his statement that 3/4 ex directors have agreed the price to sell the loans then the Rat could pay the other director loans himself (reported as £2.5 million-ish) a fraction of what the few owners would be paying him.
Thats if anything in his statement is actually true---- his Ego lets him negotiate----he visits planet Earth anytime soon.
Said after Wembley those moments / games only come along every decade or so with CAFC and boy do we have to put up with some shit in between those years
The ex directors haven't agreed a price for their loans. David White said he had been contacted recently and he had agreed to discuss his outstanding loan. All ex-director loans have to be treated equally so he can't pay different percentages to ex-directors. If one insists on full repayment, then they must all be fully repaid.
RD's weasel words inferred what you are saying and it was deliberately misleading. I hold my hands up and admit that he took me in, before David White's clarification.
That’s not strictly true. The ex-directors can settle their own loans on any terms they like. They are not one linked agreement, but a set of individual charges on the assets. Even if they were one loan it would be quite possible for individual parties to waive part or all of their repayment.
In practice, of course, Murray might not be willing to compromise if Chappell et al are not, but in that case it’s his choice.
Thanks for clearing that up, that was my understandstanding.
This, for me, is the key question. Who is he writing to and what does he expect to achieve by it?
It starts out like he's trying to hold an olive branch out to the fans, "Our win at Wembley was fantastic and, as I mentioned, a credit to all involved". But it soon turns out more like a kick in the nuts, "I have continued to pay everything at the club, despite the way some of our staff members, their family, my friends, my family and myself have been treated by individuals who claim they act in the best interest of the club".
Perhaps then, he thinks he's using the message to attract new interest in buying: "...with the summer transfer window opening, is the right time to acquire a club". 'The right time' is a bit of hyperbole that could bite him on the bum in a couple of months time when the window closes, but I think we can probably assume that by then most people will have forgotten the details of this message. The real damage is done further down. He may be right about Championship finances, but surely when you're trying to sell making statements like this one are never going to help, "The main reason is that nearly all Championship club owners face huge yearly losses. It is unclear how long this can continue, with clubs losing tens of millions of pounds each year. It has become unaffordable for nearly anyone to own a football club in the Championship meaning it is not easy to find a suitable buyer". To use a house buying analogy, its like an estate agent showing you a property and saying, "this is a very nice property, by the way have you seen that Tom Hanks film, The Money Pit"?
Finally, what's this about contract triggers? Lee Bowyer and the team worked wonders to get us promoted and to instil a sense of harmony at the club not seen in four years. Two Shat's response to this, "There is a trigger in his contract for a contract extension, which we exercised in May, and he needs to agree to this for his contract to be extended as per the current agreement". Trigger!?!?!?!? This is a man who's done a sterling job, you should feel pleased and proud to meet him at the earliest opportunity, not do it solely out of some cold obligation written into a contract. You stupid, arrogant man.
Logical really. Logic of a business man. Buys a football club with under valued fixed assets. All he now wants is to sell those assets at their upbto date valuation. He realises can only do that by selling football club with it. So all for sale but will hold out for the proper valuation, cutting costs to reduce losses biting in to his profit.
Logical really. Logic of a business man. Buys a football club with under valued fixed assets. All he now wants is to sell those assets at their upbto date valuation. He realises can only do that by selling football club with it. So all for sale but will hold out for the proper valuation, cutting costs to reduce losses biting in to his profit.
But who's valuation? His own over-inflated valuation that nobody is prepared to match after two years?
The last 5 years have taught us the only people who should be impressed with that statement are Alastair Campbell and Shane Warne as yet again we are back in the corridor of uncertainty.
Stonewall Duchatelet Boycott is difficult to get rid of.
Are people saying there is some merit in this latest statement? I can't see any. Can anybody winkle out any positives?
Give your son a ring.
What's that supposed to mean?
Your father asked if anybody could winkle out any positives. In an earlier post, you said that it was possibly RD's 'most reasonable' something or other. A positive I would have thought.
Odd to point it out by saying "give your son a ring" though!
Either way, most reasonable thing he's said doesn't actually mean it's reasonable. I'm in the Leuth camp here of "RD is right that football is fundamentally f*cked", which is a totally reasonable thing to say.
And he says "for now we're stuck together", which... I mean, is literally true even if it's the thinnest of veils to say "well you lot have made any movement nigh on impossible".
I also didn't know he'd turned down £45m!!!!!!! That's lunacy.
But either way, I don't actually think the statement is a positive. Smearing oneself in, say, chocolate mousse is "more reasonable" than smearing oneself in dog shit, but neither are exactly good things... (forgive me, I'm not good with analogies)
Is there an official accepted valuation for the training ground and Valley ?
Very much doubt there is anything 'official', but as they cannot be used for ny other reason than current usage, I imagine it can't be more than 15m for Valley and 10m for training ground.
It's worth reading fully, Exposes Duhatelet's lies and the state of just how mislead he was by Katrien Meire who I fear did far more damage than we realised at the time.
More lies by Roland as Bowyer deal put in doubt
It’s difficult to know what goes on in Addicks owner Roland Duchatelet’s head at the best of times, but even more bizarre than usual to find him referencing this writer, former Charlton chief executive Peter Varney and ex-chairman Derek Chappell over a 2015 takeover approach in an official website message headed “updates on takeover and 2919/20”. It’s useful, nonetheless, because it provides a timely reminder not to believe a word that Duchatelet says.
“It is debatable whether the first candidate for buying the club, who was pushed, with the very best intentions, by ex-CEO Peter Varney, ex-director Derek Chappell and Rick Everitt (VOV from 29 12 15), the current owner of Ebbsfleet football club, would have been the right fit for Charlton,” Duchatelet writes.
That has nothing to do with 2019, it's simply inserted in an attempt to link Varney, Chappell and me to the current troubles at Ebbsfleet, but the important thing is that it never happened. It’s a lie - and not just the clumsy implication that I am the owner of Ebbsfleet.
It's a more explicit variation of the same lie that his puppet chief executive Katrien Meire told at the press conference to welcome Russell Slade as manager in the summer of 2016, when she gratuitously inserted the claim that as part of Varney’s 2015 approach he planned to move the club out of The Valley.
By that she meant to Ebbsfleet’s Stonebridge Road, a non-league stadium which could not even accommodate Charlton’s League One season-ticket holders.
Duchatelet never found out who that approach was from because Meire first obstructed the discussions, as shown in the email chain published in VOTV124, and when that was publicised her patron refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement to enable a face-to-face meeting with the potential buyer to take place.
What hasn’t previously been revealed is that on his own initiative Chappell subsequently travelled to Brussels to meet Duchatelet in an effort to persuade the Belgian that he was being seriously misled about Varney and what had happened previously at Charlton by then chairman Richard Murray, a situation which he and others believed was damaging the club.
Where Duchatelet got the idea that the purchaser being lined up was Ebsfleet owner Abdulla Al-Humaidi and whether that came from Murray is unknown, but neither Chappell nor I were ever aware of the interested party’s identity, so we could never have been involved in pushing for a takeover by Al-Humaidi. And Varney has always been adamant that it had nothing to do with Ebbsfleet, where he was executive vice-chairman at the time.
“The person involved wasn’t even Middle Eastern,” he told me this afternoon. “That it wasn't the Ebbsfleet owner could be proven in court, if necessary, but I didn't even tell my wife who it was."
In 2016 Varney threatened to take legal action against Meire over her claims, but was advised by his lawyer that she could not have damaged his reputation because Charlton fans did not take her seriously.
Chappell is also targeted in the latest statement as one of three loan holders blamed by omission for delaying a takeover of the club following Charlton’s victory at Wembley. The others are his fellow former directors Bob Whitehand and David Sumners. By contrast, Murray, Sir Maurice Hatter, David Hughes and David White are thanked "for their coperation in this process".
This claim was quickly undermined by White, who tweeted: “I don’t understand it. I have had one conversation recently asking if I would be happy to discuss my loan and I said yes. That is all. I haven’t discussed anything else, been offered anything or agreed anything.”
It should also be noted that the trio not named are between them are only owed a total of £2.65m, which does not carry interest and is not repayable outside the Premier League.
By contrast Voice of The Valley has learned that Duchatelet rejected an approach last season to buy the club for £45m, which would have included settling the £7m total loans at whatever figure was negotiable. It did not involve renting The Valley or the training ground, another claim now being made by the Belgian against unnamed interested parties. Indeed, Duchatelet himself proposed this a few months ago when he demanded the EFL buy the club.
Via his point man Lieven De Turck Duchatelet subsequently named the asking price as £72m. That compares with the £18.6m Duchatelet paid in 2014, based on figures published in the annual accounts, a sum still sits on the books as debt rolling up interest to the Belgian and consequently adding to the amount he is trying to recoup. It’s hard to see how the relatively minor amount owed to Chappell, Whitehand and Sumners can be a significant obstacle alongside that scale of foolishness.
Duchatelet justifies his exorbitant asking price on the basis that “the value of land and buildings is high because the stadium and the training ground are located in London”, although it seems to escape him that the previous owners were property speculators who would presumably have reflected such an inflated value in their own sale price or secured the backing to develop the land themselves.
With no planning consent for full residential development granted or likely, the practical limitations of the site being squeezed between a cliff and a railway line, as as well as the awkward alignment of Floyd Road itself, and the cost of removing the stadium, a more realistic total valuation of both sites is around £20m.
As with the Belgian's assertion that using the increased Championship revenue to reduce the operating loss instead of funding the playing squad at a higher level won't mean the club has “no chance” of winning promotion to the Premier League, he is simply engaged in more wishful thinking - at best. Clubs that spend around the current Charlton figure of £10m on salary costs in the Championship are highly likely to be relegated, as recent history shows.
Fans are more likely to be interested in his apparently contradictory explanation about manager Lee Bowyer’s immediate future: “There is a trigger in his contract for a contract extension, which we exercised in May, and he needs to agree to this for his contract to be extended as per the current agreement.”
With Bowyer having rejected out of hand an initial offer which was based on a complicated metric involving the number of youth players in the first team, attendances and league position, the Belgian now seems to want him to continue in post on League One wages with a League One budget.
While Duchatelet does go on to talk about "improving Lee's contract" in further talks next week, the Charlton boss is rumoured to be on around £100,000 a year, compared to a Championship expectation of three times that.
Few fans would blame Bowyer for taking issue with Duchatelet over finances. Indeed, it’s not in their interest that he settles for such a disrespectful approach to both himself and the club.
Neither is it true, as Duchatelet claims, that he has personally "continued to pay everything at the club", because a signfiicant proportion of revenue comes from supporters via tickets, EFL central payments and other commercial deals, as well as player sales. In 2016/17 sales were so substantial that Charlton reported a profit. Staff denied the bonuses they expected in 2018 - and which the EFL said it would support them over - will note that the owner's generosity didn't extend to them.
This Duchatalet statement may have been polished up for him so as to be couched in more reasonable terms than usual, but the lie about 2015 gives it away.
It is about blaming other people, and no doubt if Bowyer does leave there be another one to follow which will explain why that isn’t the Belgian’s fault either. Nothing ever is.
Comments
He is clearly unhappy, so why not sell and sell quickly.
a useful answer would be what does he want.
He has no real positives in his statement.
What a dickhead.
Why do you believe ALL the director have to be treated the same ? It's THEIR call if they all want 100% of their loans paid back then that's it.however one of two or more may take 50% /70% of their loan being paid NOW rather than the full amount at some stage in the far away land of the Prem---their call as individuals.
An easy way forward would be for Roland to pay them all today their full amount
alburyaddick said:
In practice, of course, Murray might not be willing to compromise if Chappell et al are not, but in that case it’s his choice.
Murray has been feuding with the omitted ex- directors for ten years and Varney since 2012.
Either way, most reasonable thing he's said doesn't actually mean it's reasonable. I'm in the Leuth camp here of "RD is right that football is fundamentally f*cked", which is a totally reasonable thing to say.
And he says "for now we're stuck together", which... I mean, is literally true even if it's the thinnest of veils to say "well you lot have made any movement nigh on impossible".
I also didn't know he'd turned down £45m!!!!!!! That's lunacy.
But either way, I don't actually think the statement is a positive. Smearing oneself in, say, chocolate mousse is "more reasonable" than smearing oneself in dog shit, but neither are exactly good things... (forgive me, I'm not good with analogies)
Varney as the CEO would have been heavily involved but as Richard Murray told us at Bromley addicts when he was the owner,
I put the most money in, I make the decisions.
If people want to call out Varney for introducing them in each case, which I understand, then the two questions are 1) what did he know at the time he did so? And 2) what were the available alternatives?
A third would be how far did he collaborate with them when it became clear they were no longer going to be good for the club. The answer to that is obvious.
Then ask that same question about Richard Murray.
There’s a reason so many people (ex-directors and senior staff) are loyal to Varney and so few to Murray, and I suggest it’s about character. Only one of them is trusted by the people concerned.
It starts out like he's trying to hold an olive branch out to the fans, "Our win at Wembley was fantastic and, as I mentioned, a credit to all involved". But it soon turns out more like a kick in the nuts, "I have continued to pay everything at the club, despite the way some of our staff members, their family, my friends, my family and myself have been treated by individuals who claim they act in the best interest of the club".
Perhaps then, he thinks he's using the message to attract new interest in buying: "...with the summer transfer window opening, is the right time to acquire a club". 'The right time' is a bit of hyperbole that could bite him on the bum in a couple of months time when the window closes, but I think we can probably assume that by then most people will have forgotten the details of this message. The real damage is done further down. He may be right about Championship finances, but surely when you're trying to sell making statements like this one are never going to help, "The main reason is that nearly all Championship club owners face huge yearly losses. It is unclear how long this can continue, with clubs losing tens of millions of pounds each year. It has become unaffordable for nearly anyone to own a football club in the Championship meaning it is not easy to find a suitable buyer". To use a house buying analogy, its like an estate agent showing you a property and saying, "this is a very nice property, by the way have you seen that Tom Hanks film, The Money Pit"?
Finally, what's this about contract triggers? Lee Bowyer and the team worked wonders to get us promoted and to instil a sense of harmony at the club not seen in four years. Two Shat's response to this, "There is a trigger in his contract for a contract extension, which we exercised in May, and he needs to agree to this for his contract to be extended as per the current agreement". Trigger!?!?!?!? This is a man who's done a sterling job, you should feel pleased and proud to meet him at the earliest opportunity, not do it solely out of some cold obligation written into a contract. You stupid, arrogant man.
Garbled, ill thought-out ramblings as ever.
Stonewall Duchatelet Boycott is difficult to get rid of.