The notes of the FWG meetings are comprehensive, have been published on Amber Nectar, on here and on the OSC. A working party from the group ( if I recall correctly) was suggested that had the aim of improving the atmosphere at the KC. All of this was subject to debate on this forum and I know that the reps reported back. Every section of the support is involved. At least 4 regular posters on here attend. The FWG does not pander to the club in any shape or form as far as I can see. Complaints regarding the breakdown of the ASI have been made. Accused you of what exactly, I have no idea of what you are on about.
Dutch asked me a question about being led up a garden path and I answered it. If I was on the FWG I would ask what the timeline was because if the Allams spent the ASI throughout the season on away supporters at the KC there is no reason why that information couldn't have been provided. I'm not on the FWG and think £200,000 is not eough money for the Premier League to do anything about. Despite what Ehab says Hull City Tigers Limited had a choice in how to spend the money and decided against giving any of it to Hull City supporters.
Where is any club acknowledgment of the topics discussed, as mutually agreed minutes are the accepted method of recording meeting content. Where have I said the FWG pandered to the club?? What I have said is that the relationship and collaboration, that was honestly and reasonably offered, has been abused and should now be withdrawn. This is exactly the mis-quoting and distortion of my posts that I have accused you of, further proof is not required.
If anyone can decipher this could you please let me know how it answers my question. Fez, I suggest that you read all of the meeting notes
I fully understood your response and agree entirely about the need to establish time-lines , as it is all too easy for expenses/invoices to be attributed retrospectively, as long as they are seen to cover the requirements of their explanation - if they are more than the value required they can claim generosity of both purse and spirit. Properly conducted, minuted meetings, provide a mechanism of truth for all concerned - unless truth is not an end goal. I would think that Mooney will have had instruction to avoid formal recording of the meetings. OLM - As a matter of interest, are the SAG meetings minuted in the accepted way?
I have re-read it and it is quite clear. Just as they (the owners) have done with HCC, all of the notes you speak of are either deniable, capable of being ignored, or accused of being inaccurate. A meeting of invited individuals/groups, groups who knew the nature of the beast they were dealing with, really should have insisted on minutes being recorded and agreed as being accurate. They might of saved themselves the trouble of being led up the garden path. It is now more important to bear this in mind for any future meetings.
Amber Nectar's meeting notes are the most accurate and are agreed with the club as an accurate record before they are published. As a consequence, nobody is going to claim they're not an accurate record and they are comprehensive record of what was discussed at each meeting. They are posted on here, AN, CI, Twitter and the main Facebook fan sites, the OSC prefer to use their own notes. As it is a club arranged meeting, normally they would be responsible for minuting it, but they don't. Frankly, I think Andy Dalton does an excellent job of it and probably gets more included than if the club were doing their own, so I'm personally very happy with the arrangement. The SAG meetings are formally minuted and those minutes are a matter of public record. They have always been available via a FOI request, but are not normally published. As I attended the last one, I received a copy of the minutes and I posted them on here, on CI, on the HCST website, on various social media sites and I also sent copies to AN and the OSC for them to publish.
Change of subject, as I posted in the Arsenal thread, it hasn't cost 200k, but whatever it cost, it is a lovely gesture.
