Varney takeover to move Charlton from The Valley (Meire's claims - Varney goes on attack)
Comments
-
@LouisMend really pulled a rabbit out of a hat getting Frank Bruno on Charlton Live to discuss #resigngateseth plum said:She will like as not brazen it out. There is a certain irony that she instructed a top London law firm regarding 'resigngate' (© Frank Bruno) which has got nowhere but her personal indignation setting was on high. Katrien will surely have empathy for a person getting publically dissed as Peter Varney has been.
Varney's law firm can rule out Frank Bruno as a suspect.
It even eclipsed @KillersBeard interviewing legends during the Upbeats walk!
2 -
This Varney geezer sounds like he is all hot air, not sure I want him owning the club.
"Varny Out"
I will post details on here tomorrow of a paypal account where you donate towards C.A.V.E.
Coalition Against Varney Enterprises.
Only joking Pete, don't sue me. 3 -
36
-
Nightmeire's words might seem like a crime to us, but how easy would it be in a court of law to prove that saying someone's proposed buyout would move a club to a different ground nearby constituted defamation or some other form of significant injury to business reputation or whatever? Would PV's potential buyers want to come to court as witnesses for him and assert that they never had any such intention?
He has a right to be offended and outraged, but I don't understand how he can do much about it.
1 -
I've come to the conclusion that we often over-state Meire's credentials by calling her a lawyer.The Red Robin said: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.
We know she has a law degree and spent a couple of years as a low-level grunt at a variety of law firms.
But, to be a lawyer you have to have a practicing certificate. We have had no indication that she has one.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 – to be qualified to act as a solicitor, you must have been admitted as a solicitor, be on the roll and have a practising certificate (section 1 of the Solicitors Act). You will be committing a criminal offence under section 21, as well as being in breach of the PFR, if you use any description which implies that you are qualified to act as a solicitor and you do not have a practising certificate.
If she's not working as a solicitor, why would she bother to pay the fee? (Do they have to keep up with their training as well, like accountants?)
Anyway, in a nutshell, I have a woodwork O level. But I'm certainly not a cabinet-maker.
Can we just call her an untrained administrator from now on?14 -
Anyway, in a nutshell, I have a woodwork O level. But I'm certainly not a cabinet-maker.
I've got one too.
A real O level from back when most kids could only dream of such heights.
Kids today wouldn't know a mortice gauge from forstner bit.5 -
Typistcafcfan said:
I've come to the conclusion that we often over-state Meire's credentials by calling her a lawyer.The Red Robin said: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.
We know she has a law degree and spent a couple of years as a low-level grunt at a variety of law firms.
But, to be a lawyer you have to have a practicing certificate. We have had no indication that she has one.
Section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974 – to be qualified to act as a solicitor, you must have been admitted as a solicitor, be on the roll and have a practising certificate (section 1 of the Solicitors Act). You will be committing a criminal offence under section 21, as well as being in breach of the PFR, if you use any description which implies that you are qualified to act as a solicitor and you do not have a practising certificate.
If she's not working as a solicitor, why would she bother to pay the fee? (Do they have to keep up with their training as well, like accountants?)
Anyway, in a nutshell, I have a woodwork O level. But I'm certainly not a cabinet-maker.
Can we just call her an untrained administrator from now on?4 -
I have a Maths O level from the days before calculators when it was all slide rules and log books. Equivalent to a double first from Cambridge these days.9
-
Varney doesn't have to prove anything in terms of his investor. In a defamation case the burden of proof is on the defendant, so she would have to show what she said is true, when it isn't, and she doesn't even know who the investor is, despite what Swisdom thinks. The rest is for the lawyers.MountsfieldPark said:Nightmeire's words might seem like a crime to us, but how easy would it be in a court of law to prove that saying someone's proposed buyout would move a club to a different ground nearby constituted defamation or some other form of significant injury to business reputation or whatever? Would PV's potential buyers want to come to court as witnesses for him and assert that they never had any such intention?
He has a right to be offended and outraged, but I don't understand how he can do much about it.10 -
Stick to the thread, please.seth plum said:I have a Maths O level from the days before calculators when it was all slide rules and log books. Equivalent to a double first from Cambridge these days.
Think you're going off on a tangent.29 -
Sponsored links:
-
Cafcfan
As far as I'm aware she has never pretended to be a solicitor. She may well be qualified as a lawyer in Belgium which entitles her to be called a liar...oops 'lawyer'.3 -
Yes, we understand that Katrien Meire has a terminal case of foot-in-mouth and in any sensibly run business she would have been binned ages ago, but is any of this actually helping Varney's investors buy the club. It seems to me relations between Varney and Charlton are only getting worse and dragging Katrien Meire's idiocy through the courts isn't going to improve matters.1
-
Well her LinkedIn profile says one of her skills is in Litigation.0
-
Personally if it's not The Valley, Floyd Road, then it's not Charlton and you wont catch me going.
No matter where we roam,
The Valley is our home.
End of.3 -
Was that graded or straight pass or fail ?seth plum said:I have a Maths O level from the days before calculators when it was all slide rules and log books. Equivalent to a double first from Cambridge these days.
0 -
Hasn't Varney a link with Ebsfleet and the proposed Disneyesk amusement park? Bringing my GSE grade 5 certificate into play for the first and last time, me thinks that moving the valley down to the amusement park makes sense. Good transport links, extending the catchment further into Europe, space to develop a state of the art purpose built stadium (football, concerts, athletics, business conference et seq.). I'm sure this idea would never be announced during negotiations as it would be part of a long term plan (10 years plus) which would give the Consultium time to convince the majority of fans of its benefits. I accept that many fans would seriously object to such a plan but we've seen with RDs business approach that fans (customers) mean SFA in business and I'm not talking about the Scottish Football Association.
Am I just adding fuel to the fire here or raising an alternative view? I guess both, as I'm confused as to why would this CEO say such a thing unless she achieved the same certification as me in maths?
1+1= 3 or somethink
;0)
0 -
Graded.Starinnaddick said:
Was that graded or straight pass or fail ?seth plum said:I have a Maths O level from the days before calculators when it was all slide rules and log books. Equivalent to a double first from Cambridge these days.
0 -
An interesting view! Alas, anything involving Charlton and that area would be a severe conflict of interest with his role at Ebbsfleet - a position he appears to be settled in, recently committing to a new contract.Solidgone said:Hasn't Varney a link with Ebsfleet and the proposed Disneyesk amusement park? Bringing my GSE grade 5 certificate into play for the first and last time, me thinks that moving the valley down to the amusement park makes sense. Good transport links, extending the catchment further into Europe, space to develop a state of the art purpose built stadium (football, concerts, athletics, business conference et seq.). I'm sure this idea would never be announced during negotiations as it would be part of a long term plan (10 years plus) which would give the Consultium time to convince the majority of fans of its benefits. I accept that many fans would seriously object to such a plan but we've seen with RDs business approach that fans (customers) mean SFA in business and I'm not talking about the Scottish Football Association.
Am I just adding fuel to the fire here or raising an alternative view? I guess both, as I'm confused as to why would this CEO say such a thing unless she achieved the same certification as me in maths?
1+1= 3 or somethink
;0)
1 -
That's cos his sin didn't have the apostrophe in the right placeguinnessaddick said:
Stick to the thread, please.seth plum said:I have a Maths O level from the days before calculators when it was all slide rules and log books. Equivalent to a double first from Cambridge these days.
Think you're going off on a tangent.13 -
I'm just sad that I cannot like and lol that!LenGlover said:
That's cos his sin didn't have the apostrophe in the right placeguinnessaddick said:
Stick to the thread, please.seth plum said:I have a Maths O level from the days before calculators when it was all slide rules and log books. Equivalent to a double first from Cambridge these days.
Think you're going off on a tangent.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
"The Dream"....charlton taken over by Reggies A team consortium. Give the current CEO a kick up the derrière and one way Eurostar ticket to Belgium (final destination optional). The return of SCP with a blank cheque book for players to take us back into Div2. Further cash once in Div 2 to consolidate and review. Meanwhile, CAST and other fan forums have regalvanised support and target 40k is back on track. Plans in place to increase capacity of the valley to 45k and redevelopment set into motion (Jimmy Seed stand and East stand). Trip to Wembley whether it's through play offs or cup. Followed by promotion to Prem in 5 years. Number one in SE London (Palarse relegated after 2016/17 season). The Spanners remain in Div 3 with their annual punch up at Wembley and losing.
Premiership position secured and European football beckons. i have a cheap rate for pensioners season ticket. Drink with out Directors down the pub or pop into the valley for a chat with one of them to raise any concerns. And see our team players joining the away support if not selected to play......Come on consultium please make my dream come true and consider paying over the top so that we can have our charlton back.7 -
GO (Thought bubble): 89th min of the Euro 2016 Final... Free Kick to England, this is my chance to win italiwibble said:0 -
GO: 'well I quite like having this snooker cue stuck up my arse'3
-
-
Stand like this . Very handy gadget .0
-
I'm going to stop staring at the picture now.
Well in a minute anyway.5 -
I really wonder what Keith Peacock makes of the whole shebang not just this latest tiff?
I stand to be corrected but I cannot recall any comment from him whatsoever.3 -
Must say Len I have posted twice before saying the same.2
-
Come on Pete show the emails now! 0
-
Yes, but surely there's something more to defamation (or other such legal processes) than someone just telling a fib about you? Don't you have to convince the court that it damages you in a significant way? My point was that wouldn't a court not composed of football fans say, so what?Airman Brown said:
Varney doesn't have to prove anything in terms of his investor. In a defamation case the burden of proof is on the defendant, so she would have to show what she said is true, when it isn't, and she doesn't even know who the investor is, despite what Swisdom thinks. The rest is for the lawyers.MountsfieldPark said:Nightmeire's words might seem like a crime to us, but how easy would it be in a court of law to prove that saying someone's proposed buyout would move a club to a different ground nearby constituted defamation or some other form of significant injury to business reputation or whatever? Would PV's potential buyers want to come to court as witnesses for him and assert that they never had any such intention?
He has a right to be offended and outraged, but I don't understand how he can do much about it.0
