Saturday, Jan 2nd, 5pm sit-in protest at The Valley.
Comments
-
Meet the new thread, same as the old thread.
Everyone seems to be an expert on how you takeover a club by email.
This thread however is about the protest on Saturday.2 -
Please can you give Meire, dog's abuse throughout ?lancashire lad said:Right that's it, I'm leaving the Lass and the dog at home and I'll be there, trains booked and a seat in the lower west as near to the directors box as possible, all I need now is a B&W scarf.
I'm sure it will entertain her customers and that's what she wants.0 -
So basically Richard Murray cannot speak to Duchatelet without Meire's knowledge.PragueAddick said:
We've several times asked him if we can get to speak directly to RD. His reply was always that RD has appointed KM as CEO, and that he wouldn't welcome anybody going round her about anything. Which unfortunately is a perfectly normal attitude in the corporate world. He claimed he doesn't himself have the remit to talk to RD about anything without KM's knowledge. Whether you think that's reasonable of him to be apparently so acquiescent, is up to you (all) but that's his position.Covered End said:
Very good point. That was my suggestion. Nothing apparently came of it, or did The Trust even pursue this ?soapboxsam said:The consensus at the Woolwich meeting(seems a long time ago now) was Katrien should be bypassed and Richard Murray should be the conduit to Duchatelet.
We also got the Belgian journalist to explore whether RD is willing to explain himself more to fans, but the answer was a flat no.
We may have thought of another route to open up dialogue with him ( or at last, some kind of discussion with him) but we will keep that under wraps, not least because it might not work.
So Murray cannot be of any assistance in saving Charlton.
He won't see his money back with them in charge and he's not getting paid.
He really can only be there, to enjoy the prestiege and hob nobbing in the director's areas.
I've always been (generally) a big supporter of Mr Murray, but unless someone can explain what he adds to this club, I'm afraid, he too would now appear to be part of the problem not the solution.7 -
I think he has to decide whether he wants to stay on the side he currently is. I really hope he walks away - for his sake as he currently has picked the wrong side. It is sad to say this, but had he walked away at the same time as Curbs, he would probably have gone down in history as our greatest ever chairman/owner. It isn't money - he has lost a lot of money to the club since then, it is about legacy. When we die, we take none of our money with us. Murray could now be remembered entirely negatively. What a shame that would be.2
-
Yes, it would be ... let's hope the existing situation changes.MuttleyCAFC said:I think he has to decide whether he wants to say on the side he currently is. I really hope he walks away - for his sake as he currently has picked the wrong side. It is sad to say this, but had he walked away at the same time as Curbs, he would probably have gone down in history as our greatest ever chairman/owner. It isn't money - he has lost a lot of money to the club since then, it is about legacy. When we die, we take none of our money with us. Murray could now be remembered entirely negatively. What a shame that would be.
0 -
Someone has already said it, but we really do need to get as many flags, banners, scarves etc as possible. This needs to be both a vocal protest and a visual protest - may even be necessary to be an ANGRY protest if we're capable of it...0
-
I'd like to make it clear that in no way will I be party to abuse of ANYONE'S dog, even KM's.Covered End said:
Please can you give Meire, dog's abuse throughout ?lancashire lad said:Right that's it, I'm leaving the Lass and the dog at home and I'll be there, trains booked and a seat in the lower west as near to the directors box as possible, all I need now is a B&W scarf.
I'm sure it will entertain her customers and that's what she wants.
9 -
Like you I suspect that there probably was a meeting but whether that took place before or after emails were exchanged who can say except those privy to any such transaction .I also suspect that the person at the club in charge of cost cutting initiated the first contact not the other way round .seth plum said:
Do you think the NHS call centre happened without any meetings? Personally I don't.ashley said:Airman Brown said:
Is not the whole point of the communication for them to hear what was proposed from the horse's mouth without filtering it through third parties, Google and ancient feuds? All she had to do was attend a meeting that she offered herself.Red_in_SE8 said:
The emails don't indicate that a takeover is being proposed. If no other communication has taken place at what point in the last 3 months do you think RD, KM or RM were made aware that this is a takeover proposal? And, how was this fact communicated to them? On here?Airman Brown said:
It's a takeover offer and, in response to other posts, there have been no additional telephone conversations that involved PV.DA9 said:Do we actually know for sure, that there was a takeover plan behind PV's approach, or, simply, investment and marketing advantages from the upcoming Patamount Park?
Regardless, however, very poor and rude responses from KM & RD
Even if she had seriously imagined that PV was proposing to buy an advert in the programme and had approached the club's owner to organise it, on what planet could this ridiculous person be justified in behaving as she did?
Why would there be an essential need for a meeting to facilitate communication about investment interest ? Admittedly unusual but if PV has exhausted all obvious routes to broker investment he could simply send an email directly to RD by- passing RM and KM
.It could be entitled :"without prejudice and subject to contract" and ought to contain initial proposed heads of terms conditional also on the outcome of due diligence .RD could then either respond to it or ignore it completely for now or forever.
0 -
Where are you going to store them, as they probably won't be allowed in the stadium ?OsamaBenHamer said:Someone has already said it, but we really do need to get as many flags, banners, scarves etc as possible. This needs to be both a vocal protest and a visual protest - may even be necessary to be an ANGRY protest if we're capable of it...
2 -
I have spoken to Richard Murray today. He rang me last night and again this morning, when I was able to respond, and I give him credit for that. I'm not going to relate the conversation in detail as I don't think that would be appropriate, but suffice to say it wasn't a meeting of minds. A lot was about Peter Varney and none of that was new to me.MuttleyCAFC said:I think he has to decide whether he wants to stay on the side he currently is. I really hope he walks away - for his sake as he currently has picked the wrong side. It is sad to say this, but had he walked away at the same time as Curbs, he would probably have gone down in history as our greatest ever chairman/owner. It isn't money - he has lost a lot of money to the club since then, it is about legacy. When we die, we take none of our money with us. Murray could now be remembered entirely negatively. What a shame that would be.
However, I will say, which in fact I already knew from other sources, that he is supportive of Karel Fraeye and the RD regime in general and does not accept my contention that they are destroying the club. He compared criticism of RD/KM over Fraeye to criticism he got over appointing Curbishley. I pointed out that Curbs did not come from the Belgian third division.
RM says he is willing to talk to Varney and talk to RD about what PV says, but given what else he has to say about PV I don't personally think that is a realistic way forward.15 - Sponsored links:
-
Jesus weptAirman Brown said:
I have spoken to Richard Murray today. He rang me last night and again this morning, when I was able to respond, and I give him credit for that. I'm not going to relate the conversation in detail as I don't think that would be appropriate, but suffice to say it wasn't a meeting of minds. A lot was about Peter Varney and none of that was new to me.MuttleyCAFC said:I think he has to decide whether he wants to stay on the side he currently is. I really hope he walks away - for his sake as he currently has picked the wrong side. It is sad to say this, but had he walked away at the same time as Curbs, he would probably have gone down in history as our greatest ever chairman/owner. It isn't money - he has lost a lot of money to the club since then, it is about legacy. When we die, we take none of our money with us. Murray could now be remembered entirely negatively. What a shame that would be.
However, I will say, which in fact I already knew from other sources, that he is supportive of Karel Fraeye and the RD regime in general and does not accept my contention that they are destroying the club. He compared criticism of RD/KM over Fraeye to criticism he got over appointing Curbishley. I pointed out that Curbs did not come from the Belgian third division.
RM says he is willing to talk to Varney and talk to RD about what PV says, but given what else he has to say about PV I don't personally think that is a realistic way forward.1 -
Nice update. It shows though he is a deluded fool0
-
Finally I hope now after all these years (and so much misplaced goodwill) everyone can now see him for what he is.0
-
Then I only say that in my opinion Mr Murray you are wrong!Airman Brown said:
I have spoken to Richard Murray today. He rang me last night and again this morning, when I was able to respond, and I give him credit for that. I'm not going to relate the conversation in detail as I don't think that would be appropriate, but suffice to say it wasn't a meeting of minds. A lot was about Peter Varney and none of that was new to me.MuttleyCAFC said:I think he has to decide whether he wants to stay on the side he currently is. I really hope he walks away - for his sake as he currently has picked the wrong side. It is sad to say this, but had he walked away at the same time as Curbs, he would probably have gone down in history as our greatest ever chairman/owner. It isn't money - he has lost a lot of money to the club since then, it is about legacy. When we die, we take none of our money with us. Murray could now be remembered entirely negatively. What a shame that would be.
However, I will say, which in fact I already knew from other sources, that he is supportive of Karel Fraeye and the RD regime in general and does not accept my contention that they are destroying the club. He compared criticism of RD/KM over Fraeye to criticism he got over appointing Curbishley. I pointed out that Curbs did not come from the Belgian third division.
RM says he is willing to talk to Varney and talk to RD about what PV says, but given what else he has to say about PV I don't personally think that is a realistic way forward.
I was against Curbs being given the job over Gritty I was wrong.
You came out after you gave him the job and explained how you reached that decision. I'll sit back and wait how you came to the decision that this regime is not trashing 30+ years of Directors and supporters hard work........... and I'll wait..............
2 -
If RM does not accept that this regime is destroying the club maybe he can explain:
The results
The attendances
The waste of money on dross that leads to prize assets being fire sold.
The customer service and experience being criticised, and then rejected at every turn.
Maybe he means that this regime are not destroying the business, but they're sure as hell destroying the club.14 -
I am, quite frankly, astonished that he is supportive of the current regime.Airman Brown said:
I have spoken to Richard Murray today. He rang me last night and again this morning, when I was able to respond, and I give him credit for that. I'm not going to relate the conversation in detail as I don't think that would be appropriate, but suffice to say it wasn't a meeting of minds. A lot was about Peter Varney and none of that was new to me.MuttleyCAFC said:I think he has to decide whether he wants to stay on the side he currently is. I really hope he walks away - for his sake as he currently has picked the wrong side. It is sad to say this, but had he walked away at the same time as Curbs, he would probably have gone down in history as our greatest ever chairman/owner. It isn't money - he has lost a lot of money to the club since then, it is about legacy. When we die, we take none of our money with us. Murray could now be remembered entirely negatively. What a shame that would be.
However, I will say, which in fact I already knew from other sources, that he is supportive of Karel Fraeye and the RD regime in general and does not accept my contention that they are destroying the club. He compared criticism of RD/KM over Fraeye to criticism he got over appointing Curbishley. I pointed out that Curbs did not come from the Belgian third division.
RM says he is willing to talk to Varney and talk to RD about what PV says, but given what else he has to say about PV I don't personally think that is a realistic way forward.
What is he seeing that we are not? It might be helpful if he could clarify.1 -
Was he aware of the emails at the time they were sent?Airman Brown said:
I have spoken to Richard Murray today. He rang me last night and again this morning, when I was able to respond, and I give him credit for that. I'm not going to relate the conversation in detail as I don't think that would be appropriate, but suffice to say it wasn't a meeting of minds. A lot was about Peter Varney and none of that was new to me.MuttleyCAFC said:I think he has to decide whether he wants to stay on the side he currently is. I really hope he walks away - for his sake as he currently has picked the wrong side. It is sad to say this, but had he walked away at the same time as Curbs, he would probably have gone down in history as our greatest ever chairman/owner. It isn't money - he has lost a lot of money to the club since then, it is about legacy. When we die, we take none of our money with us. Murray could now be remembered entirely negatively. What a shame that would be.
However, I will say, which in fact I already knew from other sources, that he is supportive of Karel Fraeye and the RD regime in general and does not accept my contention that they are destroying the club. He compared criticism of RD/KM over Fraeye to criticism he got over appointing Curbishley. I pointed out that Curbs did not come from the Belgian third division.
RM says he is willing to talk to Varney and talk to RD about what PV says, but given what else he has to say about PV I don't personally think that is a realistic way forward.0 -
Depressing read, Airman.0
-
Not sure I agree.mistrollingin said:Depressing read, Airman.
Throughout the period from the Woolwich meeting to the Q and A session at the club in November it has, I believe, been hoped that RM would be the link between the fans/Trust and the club and again hoped that he would be our advocate. It would appear not and in any battle the first thing you need to ascertain is exactly who the enemy is you are fighting. So far it's generally been accepted that the enemies were KM/RD - well just add RM to make up the trinity (holy it aint!).4 -
I was thinking of wearing a suit and bringing a print out of my own CV as clearly, they haven't managed to find the right man to take over from the interim one and the search is taking an awfully long time. Might as well try my luck.
Then I found out that I'm working Saturday... :-(2 - Sponsored links:
-
Richard Murray is losing his Marbles if he thinks Karel Fraeye is the man to get us out of this mess5
-
Thanks for sharing. I was hoping that RM changing sides was a possibility in the near future, which would have been a real game changer, but I think this phone call kills that idea.Airman Brown said:
I have spoken to Richard Murray today. He rang me last night and again this morning, when I was able to respond, and I give him credit for that. I'm not going to relate the conversation in detail as I don't think that would be appropriate, but suffice to say it wasn't a meeting of minds. A lot was about Peter Varney and none of that was new to me.MuttleyCAFC said:I think he has to decide whether he wants to stay on the side he currently is. I really hope he walks away - for his sake as he currently has picked the wrong side. It is sad to say this, but had he walked away at the same time as Curbs, he would probably have gone down in history as our greatest ever chairman/owner. It isn't money - he has lost a lot of money to the club since then, it is about legacy. When we die, we take none of our money with us. Murray could now be remembered entirely negatively. What a shame that would be.
However, I will say, which in fact I already knew from other sources, that he is supportive of Karel Fraeye and the RD regime in general and does not accept my contention that they are destroying the club. He compared criticism of RD/KM over Fraeye to criticism he got over appointing Curbishley. I pointed out that Curbs did not come from the Belgian third division.
RM says he is willing to talk to Varney and talk to RD about what PV says, but given what else he has to say about PV I don't personally think that is a realistic way forward.
RM's comment about Fraeye is interesting, as it would appear that this is a clear acknowledgement of what we all know but the club won't admit - that the "interim" tag is pure fantasy.6 -
I suspect that Richard Murray may well be peddling the 'bitter ex-employee' line in glorious technicolour with massive capital letters to Katrien and Roland.0
-
Thanks @Airman Brown - that's astonishing from Richard Murray. Does he not even acknowledge how the club is lying to people about Fraeye's status?2
-
Airman Brown said:
I have spoken to Richard Murray today. He rang me last night and again this morning, when I was able to respond, and I give him credit for that. I'm not going to relate the conversation in detail as I don't think that would be appropriate, but suffice to say it wasn't a meeting of minds. A lot was about Peter Varney and none of that was new to me.MuttleyCAFC said:I think he has to decide whether he wants to stay on the side he currently is. I really hope he walks away - for his sake as he currently has picked the wrong side. It is sad to say this, but had he walked away at the same time as Curbs, he would probably have gone down in history as our greatest ever chairman/owner. It isn't money - he has lost a lot of money to the club since then, it is about legacy. When we die, we take none of our money with us. Murray could now be remembered entirely negatively. What a shame that would be.
However, I will say, which in fact I already knew from other sources, that he is supportive of Karel Fraeye and the RD regime in general and does not accept my contention that they are destroying the club. He compared criticism of RD/KM over Fraeye to criticism he got over appointing Curbishley. I pointed out that Curbs did not come from the Belgian third division.
RM says he is willing to talk to Varney and talk to RD about what PV says, but given what else he has to say about PV I don't personally think that is a realistic way forward.
2 -
If Murray does meet up with Varney and report details to Duchatelet then that would surely be progress.0
-
Also no chance of getting his money back with a promotion to the premiership because that ain't never going happen under Duchatelet and Meire. Doesn't make any sense, because with a potential take over, or a properly resourced club, there is a chance that he will get his money back. Why would Murray stick with Duchatlet, when Charlton are running close to relegation or being relegated every season ?_MrDick said:Richard Murray is losing his Marbles if he thinks Karel Fraeye is the man to get us out of this mess
2 -
Sounds like he's seeing pretty much the same thing Hunter S. Thompson and his lawyer were as the drove across the desert to Vegas!stonemuse said:
I am, quite frankly, astonished that he is supportive of the current regime.Airman Brown said:
I have spoken to Richard Murray today. He rang me last night and again this morning, when I was able to respond, and I give him credit for that. I'm not going to relate the conversation in detail as I don't think that would be appropriate, but suffice to say it wasn't a meeting of minds. A lot was about Peter Varney and none of that was new to me.MuttleyCAFC said:I think he has to decide whether he wants to stay on the side he currently is. I really hope he walks away - for his sake as he currently has picked the wrong side. It is sad to say this, but had he walked away at the same time as Curbs, he would probably have gone down in history as our greatest ever chairman/owner. It isn't money - he has lost a lot of money to the club since then, it is about legacy. When we die, we take none of our money with us. Murray could now be remembered entirely negatively. What a shame that would be.
However, I will say, which in fact I already knew from other sources, that he is supportive of Karel Fraeye and the RD regime in general and does not accept my contention that they are destroying the club. He compared criticism of RD/KM over Fraeye to criticism he got over appointing Curbishley. I pointed out that Curbs did not come from the Belgian third division.
RM says he is willing to talk to Varney and talk to RD about what PV says, but given what else he has to say about PV I don't personally think that is a realistic way forward.
What is he seeing that we are not? It might be helpful if he could clarify.
2 -
Did he sound as if he was dribbling?Airman Brown said:
I have spoken to Richard Murray today. He rang me last night and again this morning, when I was able to respond, and I give him credit for that. I'm not going to relate the conversation in detail as I don't think that would be appropriate, but suffice to say it wasn't a meeting of minds. A lot was about Peter Varney and none of that was new to me.MuttleyCAFC said:I think he has to decide whether he wants to stay on the side he currently is. I really hope he walks away - for his sake as he currently has picked the wrong side. It is sad to say this, but had he walked away at the same time as Curbs, he would probably have gone down in history as our greatest ever chairman/owner. It isn't money - he has lost a lot of money to the club since then, it is about legacy. When we die, we take none of our money with us. Murray could now be remembered entirely negatively. What a shame that would be.
However, I will say, which in fact I already knew from other sources, that he is supportive of Karel Fraeye and the RD regime in general and does not accept my contention that they are destroying the club. He compared criticism of RD/KM over Fraeye to criticism he got over appointing Curbishley. I pointed out that Curbs did not come from the Belgian third division.
RM says he is willing to talk to Varney and talk to RD about what PV says, but given what else he has to say about PV I don't personally think that is a realistic way forward.7
