We knew if we published redacted minutes, some would accuse us of hiding things, making their publication a waste of time, as I've always said, half the minutes were no use to anyone.
Name change discussion
- Thread starter RicardoHCAFC
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
We knew if we published redacted minutes, some would accuse us of hiding things, making their publication a waste of time, as I've always said, half the minutes were no use to anyone.
I think you are missing the point Obi, OLM was representing this board at the meeting, not CTWD, it was agreed that he would not be held to any NDA. CTWD decided not to release the minutes and OLM has stuck to that stating that it would not be in the best interests of the club. How is that any different to what the OSC has said about its meeting with the FA. There is a presumption being made by OLM and others that the OSC will not release the details of their submission to the FA. How is that any different to the minutes of the meeting not being released?
Its pot calling kettle black.
I'm confused.
As I understand it, the meeting went ahead with no NDA. The items withheld are done voluntarily by the committee after discussion with the club, for reasons they say are in the best interests of the Club.
That's different to the OSC's meeting with the FA. I can't see that they'd be commercially sensitive or controversial matters discussed.
It was more a point aimed at those trying to imply some elements being private suggests that there's something untoward. If rather than redacting, those bits were simply missed out, nobody would ever have known.
If there was any mileage in the suggestions, I'd expect the club to have used it. As they haven't, it seems to point to the CTWD version being accurate.
Has the OSC said it will not publish its submission? If it said it couldn't because to do so may not be in the best interests of its members, wouldnt that be the same?
So its ok for "the Committee" not to fully publish minutes, but not ok for the OSC not to hold back its submission. Bollocks
So its ok for "the Committee" not to fully publish minutes, but not ok for the OSC not to hold back its submission. Bollocks
I'm not missing the point. There has been a suggestion that we were offered a place on the board to keep certain things out of the minutes. The one person independent of CTWD was the OSC representative. I just suggested that you seek clarification from the OSC about what we were offered. The answer will be we were offered nothing other than what's in the public domain.
The FA have told us that they have no problem with us publishing our submission. I presume that also applies to the OSC. There is a difference between publishing a submission (which was written and approved by the OSC) and publishing a set of minutes that the club asked us to alter. I don't see OLM's comments as pot and kettle.
To be honest whether the OSC publish their submission is up to them.
Do any the members of the CTWD committee, who weren't at the meeting, know all of the things discussed at the meeting then? Including the bits you won't/can't publish in the public domain?
We've issued several statements about what was said at the meeting, we've published the paperwork we took to the meeting to state our case, the only thing we haven't published are details of the financial situation and the involvement of the Allam family as a whole and some really abusive stuff aimed at the council.
We've been as transparent as we could be, without potentially causing problems for the club and quite frankly, the financial arrangements between Allam family members is their business.
I have no idea if the OSC will release anything, that's why I asked the question.
Erm no it doesn't. Our "rep" has stated there's bits they won't/can't publish. So we do know. Telling us there is stuff they can't tell us is hardly being accurate. We've had elements of the truth, we haven't had the whole truth.
Oh we also don't know who outside of that meeting also knows what the people at the meeting know too.
Did you really write this? How am I supposed to know? If you have a proper think about what you've written I'll give you a proper answer.
Well obviously as you are an honest and simple supporter of the club, with no hidden agenda, I wouldn't expect you to respond to that. I would assume that only the people from the CTWD who were at the meeting would know which bits they've told you that you are privy to that we aren't.
Unless, did anyone at any of your meeting say *hey we can't discuss this bit in public, but for you info, here's some stuff we can't discuss publicly*? That would be a bit of a clue.
Who suggested that?
Who was the OSC rep at the meeting?
OLM was invited by the club to represent this forum, not as part of CTWD, he was bound by the agreement made on here, not bound by his links to CTWD. We dont need to ask any one other than OUR representative. Its for us to decide if what was said was in the best interest of the club, not CTWD, this is NOT606 Hull City.
The OSC has published its poll results and has given a broad outline of what it will submit. It is being attacked before it has a chance to report back to its own board. Come on you lot are just **** stirring.
Chris Ashton was the OSC rep at the meeting, you've asked me that before.
Everyone who attended the meeting was a CTWD supporter, except AA obviously.
My apologies I got your comment confused with Happy Tiger's. You're right Happy Tiger didn't mention the board, just some unknown benefit we are receiving by not publishing the minutes.
If you are being pedantic, OLM did not write any minutes, someone else did. So your representative couldn't publish anything other than a report of the meeting, which he did. Just as OLM was bound by this board, so he was bound by the decisions of that group that kept the minutes. But that isn't the point is it? You can re-open the question of whether it was right or wrong not to publish the minutes as much as you like. The decision was taken and they weren't published.
OLM just asked a question. To me it seemed reasonable. This is a message board and given the stick both OLM and myself have had over the past few months I thought it very mild. I wouldn't have asked it as I think its their business and when this is over there may be a need for some re-building.
Hang on a sec. First of all its "I wasn't at the meeting, I have no knowledge of what was said at that meeting, I'm in the dark as much as all of you fellow fans" (at least that is the impression you were trying to give) to "...just some unknown benefit we are receiving by not publishing the minutes."
How could "we" publish the minutes if you haven't seen them and have no knowledge of everything that was discussed at the meeting?
Which is it? Yes I am being pedantic. I'm not falling for the "simple fan" routine, I'm genuinely concerned the CTWD committee has designs on being near the board in a fan takeover and as a key player in CTWD, you are taken on face value what you type. If you don't like having your words analysed, unlucky, seems its ok to do that to Dr Allam's words.
OLM reported back what he did, minus the bits he was told he couldn't. The minutes or a report, same thing, the minutes would be partially complete, as it is was with the "report" we got. As to whether the folks at that meeting got offered something or not, I suspect we'll find out in the fullness of time, then we'll be told "we didn't say owt for the benefit of the club".
Please stop trying to paint you and OLM as victims too, if anyone's gotten any stick over the last few months, its those of us who are distrustful of CTWD.
Rarely has so much tedious drivel been written by so few, it is hardly surprising that an increasing majority of proper supporters are now utterly bored by the whole sorry business.
In my view, the tedium is a consequence of a few people so desperate to be contrary, they don't care how desperate they look as they twist and turn hoping for a contraversy that doesn't exist.
I asked you what you wanted and you came back with some smart remark. You asked if I knew all of what was discussed and I asked you to reconsider your question.
I am confident that everything of substance was in the minutes, but that is based on trust as I wasn't there.
We were not offered anything and so there will be no "we didn't say owt for the benefit of the club" (meaning ourselves?) in the fullness of time.
Compared to the comments OLM has received I think "will OSC members get to see their submission" is quite tame. Its even tamer compared to some of the stick you've received.