As I understand it the club gagged 'our' reps until agreed minutes were to be published. We were told this would be fairly quick. And sceptics on here were derided.
I think 'our' reps should be chasing this but suspect they won't/haven't.
It has been outlined several times on this thread that the notes of meeting were be agreed before being published. This is not gagging but a process that is standard for most meetings in any organisation. Some things were checked on the sound recording of the meeting during the process. Accuracy is important.
How long does that take?
I minuted a 3 hour meeting last week and had the minutes to the chair 2 hours after the meeting and they were distributed the next morning.
If I can do it anyone can.
Was this paid employment or a hobby? Were England playing a World Cup semi final that afternoon? Would countless people on an Internet forum who weren’t there pour of the minutes the second you published them?
Apparently the club are to do the minutes so your point is moot.
We were told on 11 July by Henry Irving that the club would do the minutes. They haven't as yet. The club just can't resist playing us along. The new face of the club in the meeting being the same as the old.
Without wishing to out Henry for the possible misuse of the word "minutes", are you really saying that you are dissatisfied with the club's report of said meeting?
If you care, or bother, to take a look at the piece on the OS, put up at 6.46am on 12th July, you'll read a summary of what was covered the previous evening.
I am no apologist for what's happening at our club but in this instance, I'd expect 99.9% of interested fans to be satisfied with this outcome.
Clearly you are the 0.1 %.
Just grow up !
Minutes were published.
Ain't gonna be no more.
Iain and Seth need to get a room and pin conspiracy theories on the wall.
As I understand it the club gagged 'our' reps until agreed minutes were to be published. We were told this would be fairly quick. And sceptics on here were derided.
I think 'our' reps should be chasing this but suspect they won't/haven't.
It has been outlined several times on this thread that the notes of meeting were be agreed before being published. This is not gagging but a process that is standard for most meetings in any organisation. Some things were checked on the sound recording of the meeting during the process. Accuracy is important.
How long does that take?
I minuted a 3 hour meeting last week and had the minutes to the chair 2 hours after the meeting and they were distributed the next morning.
If I can do it anyone can.
Was this paid employment or a hobby? Were England playing a World Cup semi final that afternoon? Would countless people on an Internet forum who weren’t there pour of the minutes the second you published them?
Apparently the club are to do the minutes so your point is moot.
We were told on 11 July by Henry Irving that the club would do the minutes. They haven't as yet. The club just can't resist playing us along. The new face of the club in the meeting being the same as the old.
Without wishing to out Henry for the possible misuse of the word "minutes", are you really saying that you are dissatisfied with the club's report of said meeting?
If you care, or bother, to take a look at the piece on the OS, put up at 6.46am on 12th July, you'll read a summary of what was covered the previous evening.
I am no apologist for what's happening at our club but in this instance, I'd expect 99.9% of interested fans to be satisfied with this outcome.
As I understand it the club gagged 'our' reps until agreed minutes were to be published. We were told this would be fairly quick. And sceptics on here were derided.
I think 'our' reps should be chasing this but suspect they won't/haven't.
It has been outlined several times on this thread that the notes of meeting were be agreed before being published. This is not gagging but a process that is standard for most meetings in any organisation. Some things were checked on the sound recording of the meeting during the process. Accuracy is important.
How long does that take?
I minuted a 3 hour meeting last week and had the minutes to the chair 2 hours after the meeting and they were distributed the next morning.
If I can do it anyone can.
Was this paid employment or a hobby? Were England playing a World Cup semi final that afternoon? Would countless people on an Internet forum who weren’t there pour of the minutes the second you published them?
Apparently the club are to do the minutes so your point is moot.
We were told on 11 July by Henry Irving that the club would do the minutes. They haven't as yet. The club just can't resist playing us along. The new face of the club in the meeting being the same as the old.
Without wishing to out Henry for the possible misuse of the word "minutes", are you really saying that you are dissatisfied with the club's report of said meeting?
If you care, or bother, to take a look at the piece on the OS, put up at 6.46am on 12th July, you'll read a summary of what was covered the previous evening.
I am no apologist for what's happening at our club but in this instance, I'd expect 99.9% of interested fans to be satisfied with this outcome.
Clearly you are the 0.1 %.
Just grow up !
Minutes were published.
Ain't gonna be no more.
Iain and Seth need to get a room and pin conspiracy theories on the wall.
As I understand it the club gagged 'our' reps until agreed minutes were to be published. We were told this would be fairly quick. And sceptics on here were derided.
I think 'our' reps should be chasing this but suspect they won't/haven't.
It has been outlined several times on this thread that the notes of meeting were be agreed before being published. This is not gagging but a process that is standard for most meetings in any organisation. Some things were checked on the sound recording of the meeting during the process. Accuracy is important.
How long does that take?
I minuted a 3 hour meeting last week and had the minutes to the chair 2 hours after the meeting and they were distributed the next morning.
If I can do it anyone can.
Was this paid employment or a hobby? Were England playing a World Cup semi final that afternoon? Would countless people on an Internet forum who weren’t there pour of the minutes the second you published them?
Apparently the club are to do the minutes so your point is moot.
We were told on 11 July by Henry Irving that the club would do the minutes. They haven't as yet. The club just can't resist playing us along. The new face of the club in the meeting being the same as the old.
Without wishing to out Henry for the possible misuse of the word "minutes", are you really saying that you are dissatisfied with the club's report of said meeting?
If you care, or bother, to take a look at the piece on the OS, put up at 6.46am on 12th July, you'll read a summary of what was covered the previous evening.
I am no apologist for what's happening at our club but in this instance, I'd expect 99.9% of interested fans to be satisfied with this outcome.
Clearly you are the 0.1 %.
Just grow up !
Minutes were published.
Ain't gonna be no more.
Iain and Seth need to get a room and pin conspiracy theories on the wall.
As I understand it the club gagged 'our' reps until agreed minutes were to be published. We were told this would be fairly quick. And sceptics on here were derided.
I think 'our' reps should be chasing this but suspect they won't/haven't.
It has been outlined several times on this thread that the notes of meeting were be agreed before being published. This is not gagging but a process that is standard for most meetings in any organisation. Some things were checked on the sound recording of the meeting during the process. Accuracy is important.
How long does that take?
I minuted a 3 hour meeting last week and had the minutes to the chair 2 hours after the meeting and they were distributed the next morning.
If I can do it anyone can.
Was this paid employment or a hobby? Were England playing a World Cup semi final that afternoon? Would countless people on an Internet forum who weren’t there pour of the minutes the second you published them?
Apparently the club are to do the minutes so your point is moot.
We were told on 11 July by Henry Irving that the club would do the minutes. They haven't as yet. The club just can't resist playing us along. The new face of the club in the meeting being the same as the old.
Without wishing to out Henry for the possible misuse of the word "minutes", are you really saying that you are dissatisfied with the club's report of said meeting?
If you care, or bother, to take a look at the piece on the OS, put up at 6.46am on 12th July, you'll read a summary of what was covered the previous evening.
I am no apologist for what's happening at our club but in this instance, I'd expect 99.9% of interested fans to be satisfied with this outcome.
Clearly you are the 0.1 %.
Just grow up !
Minutes were published.
Ain't gonna be no more.
Iain and Seth need to get a room and pin conspiracy theories on the wall.
As I understand it the club gagged 'our' reps until agreed minutes were to be published. We were told this would be fairly quick. And sceptics on here were derided.
I think 'our' reps should be chasing this but suspect they won't/haven't.
It has been outlined several times on this thread that the notes of meeting were be agreed before being published. This is not gagging but a process that is standard for most meetings in any organisation. Some things were checked on the sound recording of the meeting during the process. Accuracy is important.
How long does that take?
I minuted a 3 hour meeting last week and had the minutes to the chair 2 hours after the meeting and they were distributed the next morning.
If I can do it anyone can.
Was this paid employment or a hobby? Were England playing a World Cup semi final that afternoon? Would countless people on an Internet forum who weren’t there pour of the minutes the second you published them?
Apparently the club are to do the minutes so your point is moot.
We were told on 11 July by Henry Irving that the club would do the minutes. They haven't as yet. The club just can't resist playing us along. The new face of the club in the meeting being the same as the old.
Without wishing to out Henry for the possible misuse of the word "minutes", are you really saying that you are dissatisfied with the club's report of said meeting?
If you care, or bother, to take a look at the piece on the OS, put up at 6.46am on 12th July, you'll read a summary of what was covered the previous evening.
I am no apologist for what's happening at our club but in this instance, I'd expect 99.9% of interested fans to be satisfied with this outcome.
Clearly you are the 0.1 %.
Just grow up !
Minutes were published.
Ain't gonna be no more.
Iain and Seth need to get a room and pin conspiracy theories on the wall.
As I understand it the club gagged 'our' reps until agreed minutes were to be published. We were told this would be fairly quick. And sceptics on here were derided.
I think 'our' reps should be chasing this but suspect they won't/haven't.
It has been outlined several times on this thread that the notes of meeting were be agreed before being published. This is not gagging but a process that is standard for most meetings in any organisation. Some things were checked on the sound recording of the meeting during the process. Accuracy is important.
How long does that take?
I minuted a 3 hour meeting last week and had the minutes to the chair 2 hours after the meeting and they were distributed the next morning.
If I can do it anyone can.
Was this paid employment or a hobby? Were England playing a World Cup semi final that afternoon? Would countless people on an Internet forum who weren’t there pour of the minutes the second you published them?
Apparently the club are to do the minutes so your point is moot.
We were told on 11 July by Henry Irving that the club would do the minutes. They haven't as yet. The club just can't resist playing us along. The new face of the club in the meeting being the same as the old.
Without wishing to out Henry for the possible misuse of the word "minutes", are you really saying that you are dissatisfied with the club's report of said meeting?
If you care, or bother, to take a look at the piece on the OS, put up at 6.46am on 12th July, you'll read a summary of what was covered the previous evening.
I am no apologist for what's happening at our club but in this instance, I'd expect 99.9% of interested fans to be satisfied with this outcome.
Clearly you are the 0.1 %.
Just grow up !
Minutes were published.
Ain't gonna be no more.
Iain and Seth need to get a room and pin conspiracy theories on the wall.
As I understand it the club gagged 'our' reps until agreed minutes were to be published. We were told this would be fairly quick. And sceptics on here were derided.
I think 'our' reps should be chasing this but suspect they won't/haven't.
It has been outlined several times on this thread that the notes of meeting were be agreed before being published. This is not gagging but a process that is standard for most meetings in any organisation. Some things were checked on the sound recording of the meeting during the process. Accuracy is important.
How long does that take?
I minuted a 3 hour meeting last week and had the minutes to the chair 2 hours after the meeting and they were distributed the next morning.
If I can do it anyone can.
If you can do typed up draft minutes for a three-hour meeting in under two hours, I'd like to suggest that the meeting itself was a complete waste of everyone's time and could have been knocked on the head in around half an hour. Either that or you are a stenographer.
As I understand it the club gagged 'our' reps until agreed minutes were to be published. We were told this would be fairly quick. And sceptics on here were derided.
I think 'our' reps should be chasing this but suspect they won't/haven't.
It has been outlined several times on this thread that the notes of meeting were be agreed before being published. This is not gagging but a process that is standard for most meetings in any organisation. Some things were checked on the sound recording of the meeting during the process. Accuracy is important.
How long does that take?
I minuted a 3 hour meeting last week and had the minutes to the chair 2 hours after the meeting and they were distributed the next morning.
If I can do it anyone can.
Was this paid employment or a hobby? Were England playing a World Cup semi final that afternoon? Would countless people on an Internet forum who weren’t there pour of the minutes the second you published them?
Apparently the club are to do the minutes so your point is moot.
We were told on 11 July by Henry Irving that the club would do the minutes. They haven't as yet. The club just can't resist playing us along. The new face of the club in the meeting being the same as the old.
Without wishing to out Henry for the possible misuse of the word "minutes", are you really saying that you are dissatisfied with the club's report of said meeting?
If you care, or bother, to take a look at the piece on the OS, put up at 6.46am on 12th July, you'll read a summary of what was covered the previous evening.
I am no apologist for what's happening at our club but in this instance, I'd expect 99.9% of interested fans to be satisfied with this outcome.
Clearly you are the 0.1 %.
Just grow up !
Minutes were published.
Ain't gonna be no more.
Iain and Seth need to get a room and pin conspiracy theories on the wall.
As I understand it the club gagged 'our' reps until agreed minutes were to be published. We were told this would be fairly quick. And sceptics on here were derided.
I think 'our' reps should be chasing this but suspect they won't/haven't.
It has been outlined several times on this thread that the notes of meeting were be agreed before being published. This is not gagging but a process that is standard for most meetings in any organisation. Some things were checked on the sound recording of the meeting during the process. Accuracy is important.
How long does that take?
I minuted a 3 hour meeting last week and had the minutes to the chair 2 hours after the meeting and they were distributed the next morning.
If I can do it anyone can.
Was this paid employment or a hobby? Were England playing a World Cup semi final that afternoon? Would countless people on an Internet forum who weren’t there pour of the minutes the second you published them?
Apparently the club are to do the minutes so your point is moot.
We were told on 11 July by Henry Irving that the club would do the minutes. They haven't as yet. The club just can't resist playing us along. The new face of the club in the meeting being the same as the old.
Without wishing to out Henry for the possible misuse of the word "minutes", are you really saying that you are dissatisfied with the club's report of said meeting?
If you care, or bother, to take a look at the piece on the OS, put up at 6.46am on 12th July, you'll read a summary of what was covered the previous evening.
I am no apologist for what's happening at our club but in this instance, I'd expect 99.9% of interested fans to be satisfied with this outcome.
Clearly you are the 0.1 %.
Just grow up !
Minutes were published.
Ain't gonna be no more.
Iain and Seth need to get a room and pin conspiracy theories on the wall.
There is no evidence because it is not true. It is a lie to say I am a conspiracy theorist, and there is nothing on this thread or elsewhere to demonstrate that I am. For some reason (and I am really not that important, and have scant influence anyway) there are a little group of posters here who don't like me, or at least what I write on here, and they invent things that are not true and can't be substantiated.
Comments
Lee Bowyer has said all players need to get minutes.
Never mentioned the supporters though.
It is a lie to say I am a conspiracy theorist, and there is nothing on this thread or elsewhere to demonstrate that I am.
For some reason (and I am really not that important, and have scant influence anyway) there are a little group of posters here who don't like me, or at least what I write on here, and they invent things that are not true and can't be substantiated.