I agree, hopefully they'll do the same with their FA submission and the minutes for their meetings, neither of which they're willing to make public.
There are some other clubs that haven't produced promised minutes too. Dwelling on such things is hardly a mature and positive approach to getting people pulling together. It just pushes people further away from joining in.
Then representatives of the OSC probably shouldn't direct me towards their private minutes while accusing others of being liars.
Was that when he replied to comments you made but can't support with facts? It needs unity, not feeble pissing contests that highlight potential weaknesses that nobody seems willing to address.
****ing hell Lambo. Let it go. In fact take your own ****ing advice when you were being called on exactly the same ****ing thing. It's always someone elses fault aint it? If you want to see their stuff, pay up and join them. And lose the holier than thou, entitled to everything stance, it's embarrassing.
It's interesting that you see the OSC listening to fans and acting on suggestions as 'criticism' or 'pissing'. The main point is you shouldn't be trying to score petty points on a forum you should be looking at ways City fans can work together to improve the matchday experience, or doing something to put on the trust's CV. What you're doing is unlikely to make the trust look good.
That's not what I said, it's you accusing people of pissing, not I. If I see the OSC acting on suggestions, then I'll commend them for doing so.
Aye, me too. Let's hope groups listening and acting on comments raised becomes contagious and others take it on. That'd get more people smiling at a united move forward. Edit, just checked back. Has Hattie's post been deleted, as on my screen, your post today #296, follows on from one by proud tiger from 2012, which would mean you searched and bumped it up.
Hat quoted this thread in another one, I think. Whether that counts as resurrecting it or not, it's not for me to say.
Ah, cheers. I haven't seen the other one. I'd say posting on here resurrects it as it could have just carried on being discussed on the other thread, rather than being bumped up on its own, but I'm sure others would think well I would say that.
I wouldn't call 5 -1 against Ipswich failing, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the price of fish.
Here's a good quote to show things change "There will either be no NDA, or there will be no meeting, we can't attend a meeting on behalf of various groups and then not be able to report back to those groups." Things change and it is what it is and its probably best not to know as we arent intelligent enough to deal with it. That committee vote was never minuted either
Your reply to OLM had suggested you'd misinterpreted "criticism of" as "criticism by/from". He was talking about HCST and the OSC as targets of criticism, not as the critics.
The reply is associated with earlier comments, not just that one. This thread was resurrected as a part of that needless pissing contest.
