It's true that PLT didn't know that he was the not606 rep until he arrived and wasn't invited specifically as a not606 rep, which was not ideal. It would be better if those invited to represent specific groups were invited accordingly, at the moment it's rather vague.
See post above. Though in fact, all boards are represented and none of them voted on who represented them.
The other boards are fanzine's, so to some extent the editors have been selected to represent them. This board's different. I've no problem with PLT representing this board, but I do feel it should be the boards choice rather than anyone else's.
Others seem to believe differently, especially Ryan Kerr who announced himself as our rep, just as "Angie Smith, âexiled until this regime clears offâ" did. He did, or PLT did, as I was posting. Where have the club approved them? There are transparency issues that concern me, just as there are supposed roles that seem to crossover all too easily. I have concerns that this board is purported to be represented, when I have no recollection of a nomination or appointment. It is also a concern that the rep has really quite radical and outspoken views.
I'm happy for PLT to do it, or for the board to vote on it, though there was little interest the last time this subject was broached.
I would say it is all very vague, not to mention misleading. Are you now saying that people are invited as individuals and not as representatives? Does that, for the sake of clarity, include you and PLT; we're you invited as Rob and Ryan, or CTWD rep and NOT 606 rep?
The original plan for the meetings was for it to be individuals rather than representative groups. Clearly that's changed to some degree, which is fair enough, but how representative some of the groups are is debatable. But if it's groups, then the rep should be chosen by the group, not the meeting. That been said, if PLT's okay to take it on, I'd be more than happy with him representing this board, but it'd be good to hear other views.
I'm not deliberately having a go at you, however, you won't change anything regarding the fans, Allam has made it clear he cares not a jot for the fans, he has told us to die, moved E1-3 without any consultation, put up passes 30% when he said football should be like the air we breathe, free. Allam wants out, he now hates us because of the name change, don't appease him by sitting in his house eating his pies and drinking his beer, you're like Chamberlain waving a piece of paper just because he let you think you might get something like a mirror in the bogs. Footballs a massive business with millions of potential profit and no owner is going to let plebs like you or me tell him we want cheap beer or cheap tickets, he's just humouring you by having these meetings, you won't change a ****ing thing because he's a ****. He will be gone soon and we can then get back to complaining about how crap the team is instead of all the bollocks he's caused.
I find that very disappointing that groups have moved in and stopped independent fans going. I would much rather the club used their email list of season pass holders and asked different ones every time to these meetings. Why should a fan who doesnt go anymore sit on this meeting or a fan who has given up his season pass? Think we learnt with the seat move how groups just do things for their own benefit and **** everyone else.
I think the original plan was for something similar to that, but I was among those critical that it lacked a sense of continuity. I don't think it being groups is a bad thing, unless the views and wishes of a small group is being weighted above others, and individuals can still attend. My issue is more about the representation of this board, which is one of the biggest individual groups, with no agenda of it's own. As I've said, I've o problem with that rep being PLT, but it needs the backing of this board imho.
I am not trying to be difficult, I simply wish to understand what is going on so I can make an informed decision. So if, as you say, PLT was not invited as a NOT606 rep and, again as you say, he was not aware he was the rep, who told him he had to be the rep and why declare he was on the intros? I understood the same as you, but clearly there are conversations and approvals of minutes not available to all. I will be interested in a wider NOT606 discussion.
I'm not sure why you're asking me that, it's not my meeting, I played no part in deciding who was or wasn't invited, I didn't decide if people were invited as individuals or as group representatives, you might as well ask me why someone was incuded in the new years honours list, I had just as much imput in that.
PLT had the not606 rep title dumped on him, rather than announcing it himself. Conversations and approvals not available to all? Andy Dalton took notes on what was discussed, he wrote them up, sent them to James Mooney and asked him to confirm that they were an accurate record of the meeting. He did, they were then posted on AN, on here, on CI, Twitter and Facebook. Though half way through the meeting we did shoot JFK and fake a moon landing.
I have no problem with PLT representing the board. I think its important we decide who our representative is rather than whoever announced it at the meeting, presumably the club.
We ended up with so any questions, that we only ended up going with the main one's raised by many people, but I've arranged to send James a list of other things that we didn't cover at the meeting and yours will be included. I'll get back to you with a response.
I'll ignore your rudeness. Who dumped it on him and did he introduce himself as the rep, as you explained the minutes were recorded in this way when explaining the position of Angie Smith. Surely all he had to do was say his name, as three others did? (Perhaps PLT will answer that) Was someone pulling strings? Do you not find it strange that the club do not take ownership of the minutes and refer them to the attendees? Was Andy asked by the club to record minutes, was anyone?
