Thanks. I think OSC members should be pressing for details of their submission to be released, they have a right to know what was said. I've just heard who's attended, other than Bernard, they're not who I expected would go.
We haven't hidden what was said, we just haven't released the full minutes, most of what was discussed is already in the public domain.
But you made an agreement with Assem Allam not to disclose the minutes when it was made clear on here that you should not have a meeting under those conditions. You will not release the minutes to protect the opportunity of a shareholding, puts you in the same boat as Bernard Noble in my opinion.
There was no such agreement with AA, there was just a request to redact a fair bit of what was said and we decided it was not in our(or the clubs) best interests to publish them in full, or to publish them with the requested redaction's. Bernard Noble's in AA's pocket, we are most definitely not.
So if the FA or the club ask the OSC not to publish details of their meeting with the FA, you'll back them 100% and accept that?
It's not up to me, I'm not a member of the OSC, but if I was I'd expect to at least be told roughly what position was taken at the meeting. I would hope that every group that made submissions to the FA made those submissions public(the FA have said they're happy for this to be the case), but I don't expect the club to ever make public their submission and I'm not sure the OSC will either.
Oh but you will be if he offers you some shares. Place on the board up for grabs..what will you do then, turn him down. Bernard Noble is in the same position as supporters who have a place on the clubs board find themselves. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcumeds/792/79209.htm#n312 201. Other evidence, however, pointed to areas of weaknesses in the supporter trust ownership model. Lord Mawhinney, Greg Clarke and David Bernstein all highlighted the difficulties that could ensue when share-holding supporter trusts appointed a fan to sit on the Board. Lord Mawhinney suggested that the fan on the Board risked being torn between his fiduciary responsibilities and trust expectations that he would keep them informed of all that was going on.[289] Greg Clarke drew on his own experiences working with a fan on the Board at Leicester City: He was a cracking director but he got into all sorts of trouble with the trust; not nasty but they would say, 'Well, who are we going to buy then in the transfer?' and he would say, 'Well, I can't tell you'. They would say 'What good are you doing if you can't tell us what is going on?[290]
That is without a doubt the funniest thing I have ever read on here. No sense of irony whatsoever. **** me Fez is going to break the word count for this one.
Why should they? Maybe they've also been offered something by Dr Allam. something they don't wish to divulge at this stage "for the good of the club" eh? You lot at the meeting weren't offered something were you? Something you have to keep quiet and thus omitted from the minutes? "For the good of the club", not for yourselves, no, heaven forbid.
If you want to know if we were offered something that was omitted from the minutes why not ask the OSC? They also attended the meeting.
But they didn't have a representative from this board say that they would not agree to a NDA. OLM was supposed to be representing this board, not CTWD or the Premier Executive Club.
Because there are representatives of this forum who were at that meeting, as well as key members of CTWD who were also there, and also use this forum. Interesting response from you Obi. CTWD: Looking after the fans interest, we just don't want to tell you everything, for your own good.
We didn't release the minutes, but everyone knows why we were there and most of what was discussed has been made public.
AA offered us several things at the meeting, a detailed business proposal before any name change, a season ticket holder vote before any name change etc, unfortunately, it seems he changed his mind the minute we walked out of the room. I don't believe the OSC have been offered anything, threatened with things, but not offered anything.
Just so I'm clear in my mind, how do people know some parts of the meeting haven't been published? Surely, if someone was trying to hide bits, it would have been easier to publish edited minutes and claim it was the full discussion?
I don't see why you think my response is interesting. As OLM says I didn't attend the meeting. If you want to know what happened and don't trust CTWD just ask the OSC what happened.
