Those that attended represented groups opposed to the name change (even the OSC voted against it), which was the main item on the agenda. It was decided that the publication of the minutes wouldn't help the campaign to stop us becoming Hull Tigers. Given what subsequently happened I'd say we didn't do a bad job of representing the supporters. Whether the minutes should be published now as an historical document is a different matter. I have no objection to them being published. I didn't attend the meeting but believe the agreement of those supporters who did should be obtained before being published. The only place they should go, in my view, is on the No To Hull Tigers pages on the Trust's website.
Hang on a second. It might just be me, but I thought you were at the meeting? Why would you think I was including you in my "self serving individuals" comment, which I wasn't as we discussed, but if you weren't there, it wouldn't have applied to you anyhow...yes, I'm now confused! If you weren't, how come you got a copy of the notes/minutes/whatever? Who else who wasn't at the meeting received copies of them too?
It is a while ago and much has happened since. This is the best recollection I have. The minutes/notes were prepared for the CTWD Committee by somebody at the meeting. They were not official minutes, none were taken. As a curtesy we sent them to the club to ensure they were an accurate record of what was said. The CTWD Committee had given an undertaking to publish something after the meeting. As you know. As a member of the Committee I had a right to receive a report back of what happened at the meeting with Assem Allam. It just so happened the report back was in the form of meeting notes. From my work experience this isn't unusual. The minutes/notes were circulated to the CTWD Committee and a meeting held to discuss what to do with them. The club, I think, made a number of requests to delete certain issues because they didn't want that information to be made public at that time, not because the notes were inaccurate. The Committee discussed these requests and what to do with the notes. Eventually the Committee voted not to publish them. Most of the CTWD Committee attended the meeting with Assem Allam. I think a handful of Committee members did not attend and received a copy, it may have been 3 (including me) but I'm not sure without checking. I trust OLM will correct me if my memory is faulty.
It comes across that it has been forgotten who the enemy is in all of this. You know that enemy that was fought shoulder to shoulder...
I've never come across that theory before. Interesting debate here on the subject... https://rateyourmusic.com/board_message?message_id=3002704
I wouldn't touch any club with a bargepole Jen. If I was that rich I could think of a vast array of deserving causes to spend my money on.
Much of that sounds wafer thin ideas from Americans. The only thing I agree with and which I'd already thought was that most places have said 'brass band' in the past. Someone's argument there that everyone says rock band I find ridiculous, I've always said rock group or pop group. Even boy band is likely a more modern term. Girl group is a more long running one which was definitely used in the 60s. US TV programs have used the word 'band' no doubt, not sure it happened here though. Language often changes gradually and people sometimes don't become so aware of the change as a result. I am thinking for myself on this rather than taking it from someone else, but that can be a good idea.
I call bullshit. AFC is common, lousy and irrelevant. A man of Assems calibre would never include such a thing.
