I don’t think it is reasonable to say it’s a waste of time and should be discontinued, and then moan that no one is telling you what’s going on.
A standard of behavior seems to have been agreed that nobody will discuss or report anything until the minutes have been both written and agreed. Standard practice and for good reason.
The speed that minutes can be produced can obviously vary depending on the number of amendments suggested, which then have to be agreed. It always amazed me as to how many different versions of what was said and agreed at meetings there could be, and is why it is imperative that everyone agrees before publication.
A further problem for this group is that they are not just producing minutes of decisions, but a report of the meeting. If everyone is prompt with their responses a week would seem reasonable for agreed minutes to be produced.
It’s a fans forum for a football club not MI5.
I’m sure a few comments about that was discussed wouldn’t pose much of a threat to national security if they weren’t 100% verbatim.
You don't have to be part of a group to attend. Individuals were invited to apply to attend this meeting. @golfaddick
Talking about mundane and routine matters is what it is for. The incompetent and dishonest management is the reason the takeover is discussed in a forum not designed for such a purpose but it is better than nothing.
The make up of the group badly needs reviewing but that needs to be done when we are no longer in abnormal times.
There is no rule stopping attendees commenting in general or in detail ahead of the formal minutes. I have done both on the two occasions I have attended and never been told or asked not to do so. The Trust in particular should be giving its own comments IMHO.
The cryptic comments from Razil are worse than silence IMO.
The meetings are recorded but not filmed. Meire tried that once but realised it made her look even worse.
The Fans'Forum is not the enemy nor is it the problem.
Ok but these gnomic comments are so 2014, just give us a short summary, i.e. what exactly did he say when someone, hopefully you, asked whether there are currently any serious discussions with potential buyers going on at this time; and why other known serious bidders in the summer period, such as the one I know about, failed.
Or is that not the purpose of the Fans Forum? If not, what is its purpose?
But surely the use of the word 'fans' implies representatives of all of us fans, not the fans who attend. Surely it is incumbent of somebody letting fans know what was discussed within a reasonable timeframe, however mundane it might or might not be. Otherwise fans do start to think it is a clique, especially as you rightly point out Henry, you get cryptic comments like the one we received from Razil.
But surely the use of the word 'fans' implies representatives of all of us fans, not the fans who attend. Surely it is incumbent of somebody letting fans know what was discussed within a reasonable timeframe, however mundane it might or might not be. Otherwise fans do start to think it is a clique, especially as you rightly point out Henry, you get cryptic comments like the one we received from Razil.
I agree.
It is quite possible and should be a priority to make some comments, even if they are very general.
Not everyone takes notes or has time to type them out but headlines are easily done. People work too and the club staff also have other duties. No reasonable fan should expect instant minutes but an overview could and should have been given by now.
It will be mundane but we often see long discussions in catering and ticketing on CL so they are of interest to many.
Ok but these gnomic comments are so 2014, just give us a short summary, i.e. what exactly did he say when someone, hopefully you, asked whether there are currently any serious discussions with potential buyers going on at this time; and why other known serious bidders in the summer period, such as the one I know about, failed.
Or is that not the purpose of the Fans Forum? If not, what is its purpose?
As a trust board member could you not ask the trust board member attendee to comment publicly.
I am no longer a trust board member. I stepped down around this time last year at the last AGM. I am of course still a member of CAST, and would hope that a Board member attending would find a way to give us a heads-up on the big issues that bother us most, without getting ahead of the "agreed minutes" issue, or if that seems impossible, to just not comment on CL at all until the agreed minutes are available.
Where we might not agree is that IMO the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues such as ownership, (enabling minutes to be published within 48 hours, I'd think) while the Fans Forum (inc a CAST rep) meets separately to discuss more day to day issues around going to footie. It's a moot point while this lot are in charge, but I remain convinced that this is the best model which is followed by more progressive club owners.
Ok but these gnomic comments are so 2014, just give us a short summary, i.e. what exactly did he say when someone, hopefully you, asked whether there are currently any serious discussions with potential buyers going on at this time; and why other known serious bidders in the summer period, such as the one I know about, failed.
Or is that not the purpose of the Fans Forum? If not, what is its purpose?
As a trust board member could you not ask the trust board member attendee to comment publicly.
I am no longer a trust board member. I stepped down around this time last year at the last AGM. I am of course still a member of CAST, and would hope that a Board member attending would find a way to give us a heads-up on the big issues that bother us most, without getting ahead of the "agreed minutes" issue, or if that seems impossible, to just not comment on CL at all until the agreed minutes are available.
Where we might not agree is that IMO the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues such as ownership, (enabling minutes to be published within 48 hours, I'd think) while the Fans Forum (inc a CAST rep) meets separately to discuss more day to day issues around going to footie. It's a moot point while this lot are in charge, but I remain convinced that this is the best model which is followed by more progressive club owners.
I wasn't aware that you'd stepped down but I understand Razil has also left the Trust board.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no agreement on not commenting before the minutes come out. I repeat, I commented in general and in detail, on both of the occasions I attended before the minutes came out.
I totally disagree the CAST should be given special status to alone discuss ownership and strategic issues with the club while excluding other groups although that a former Trust board member even thinks that is appropriate sadly doesn't surprise me.
Ok but these gnomic comments are so 2014, just give us a short summary, i.e. what exactly did he say when someone, hopefully you, asked whether there are currently any serious discussions with potential buyers going on at this time; and why other known serious bidders in the summer period, such as the one I know about, failed.
Or is that not the purpose of the Fans Forum? If not, what is its purpose?
As a trust board member could you not ask the trust board member attendee to comment publicly.
I am no longer a trust board member. I stepped down around this time last year at the last AGM. I am of course still a member of CAST, and would hope that a Board member attending would find a way to give us a heads-up on the big issues that bother us most, without getting ahead of the "agreed minutes" issue, or if that seems impossible, to just not comment on CL at all until the agreed minutes are available.
Where we might not agree is that IMO the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues such as ownership, (enabling minutes to be published within 48 hours, I'd think) while the Fans Forum (inc a CAST rep) meets separately to discuss more day to day issues around going to footie. It's a moot point while this lot are in charge, but I remain convinced that this is the best model which is followed by more progressive club owners.
I wasn't aware that you'd stepped down but I understand Razil has also left the Trust board.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no agreement on not commenting before the minutes come out. I repeat, I commented in general and in detail, on both of the occasions I attended before the minutes came out.
I totally disagree the CAST should be given special status to alone discuss ownership and strategic issues with the club while excluding other groups although that a former Trust board member even thinks that is appropriate sadly doesn't surprise me.
Why do you think it wouldn't be appropriate - or even helpful - for the club to have regular meetings with the supporters' trust?
Not sure why everyone is getting so wound up by this.
No minutes/comments are posted - people moan. Minutes/comments are posted - people moan saying it's the same old shit, LDT is a liar, it's a waste of time, etc.
Ok but these gnomic comments are so 2014, just give us a short summary, i.e. what exactly did he say when someone, hopefully you, asked whether there are currently any serious discussions with potential buyers going on at this time; and why other known serious bidders in the summer period, such as the one I know about, failed.
Or is that not the purpose of the Fans Forum? If not, what is its purpose?
As a trust board member could you not ask the trust board member attendee to comment publicly.
I am no longer a trust board member. I stepped down around this time last year at the last AGM. I am of course still a member of CAST, and would hope that a Board member attending would find a way to give us a heads-up on the big issues that bother us most, without getting ahead of the "agreed minutes" issue, or if that seems impossible, to just not comment on CL at all until the agreed minutes are available.
Where we might not agree is that IMO the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues such as ownership, (enabling minutes to be published within 48 hours, I'd think) while the Fans Forum (inc a CAST rep) meets separately to discuss more day to day issues around going to footie. It's a moot point while this lot are in charge, but I remain convinced that this is the best model which is followed by more progressive club owners.
I wasn't aware that you'd stepped down but I understand Razil has also left the Trust board.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no agreement on not commenting before the minutes come out. I repeat, I commented in general and in detail, on both of the occasions I attended before the minutes came out.
I totally disagree the CAST should be given special status to alone discuss ownership and strategic issues with the club while excluding other groups although that a former Trust board member even thinks that is appropriate sadly doesn't surprise me.
Why do you think it wouldn't be appropriate - or even helpful - for the club to have regular meetings with the supporters' trust?
Please don't deliberately misrepresent what I said.
CAST already has regular meetings with the club and I did not suggest that they shouldn't
I don’t think it is reasonable to say it’s a waste of time and should be discontinued, and then moan that no one is telling you what’s going on.
A standard of behavior seems to have been agreed that nobody will discuss or report anything until the minutes have been both written and agreed. Standard practice and for good reason.
The speed that minutes can be produced can obviously vary depending on the number of amendments suggested, which then have to be agreed. It always amazed me as to how many different versions of what was said and agreed at meetings there could be, and is why it is imperative that everyone agrees before publication.
A further problem for this group is that they are not just producing minutes of decisions, but a report of the meeting. If everyone is prompt with their responses a week would seem reasonable for agreed minutes to be produced.
I have sympathy with this view. There has to be an orderly dissemination of information and as anyone knows who has ever had to prepare minutes of with contentious elements, items will need careful recording to capture the nuance of what was heard rather than repeat ambiguity or obfuscation. If there is any attempt to produce skewed reporting I will have faith in genuine fans at the meeting to blow the whistle.
Ok but these gnomic comments are so 2014, just give us a short summary, i.e. what exactly did he say when someone, hopefully you, asked whether there are currently any serious discussions with potential buyers going on at this time; and why other known serious bidders in the summer period, such as the one I know about, failed.
Or is that not the purpose of the Fans Forum? If not, what is its purpose?
As a trust board member could you not ask the trust board member attendee to comment publicly.
I am no longer a trust board member. I stepped down around this time last year at the last AGM. I am of course still a member of CAST, and would hope that a Board member attending would find a way to give us a heads-up on the big issues that bother us most, without getting ahead of the "agreed minutes" issue, or if that seems impossible, to just not comment on CL at all until the agreed minutes are available.
Where we might not agree is that IMO the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues such as ownership, (enabling minutes to be published within 48 hours, I'd think) while the Fans Forum (inc a CAST rep) meets separately to discuss more day to day issues around going to footie. It's a moot point while this lot are in charge, but I remain convinced that this is the best model which is followed by more progressive club owners.
I wasn't aware that you'd stepped down but I understand Razil has also left the Trust board.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no agreement on not commenting before the minutes come out. I repeat, I commented in general and in detail, on both of the occasions I attended before the minutes came out.
I totally disagree the CAST should be given special status to alone discuss ownership and strategic issues with the club while excluding other groups although that a former Trust board member even thinks that is appropriate sadly doesn't surprise me.
Why do you think it wouldn't be appropriate - or even helpful - for the club to have regular meetings with the supporters' trust?
Please don't deliberately misrepresent what I said.
CAST already has regular meetings with the club and I did not suggest that they shouldn't
I haven't deliberately tried to misrepresent what you posted, at all.
Prague has suggested "the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues". That seems to be a good idea.
You've posted that you "totally disagree". You've gone on to mention "excluding other groups", which wasn't in Prague's post.
So, can I ask why you don't think Prague's suggestion is appropriate?
Ok but these gnomic comments are so 2014, just give us a short summary, i.e. what exactly did he say when someone, hopefully you, asked whether there are currently any serious discussions with potential buyers going on at this time; and why other known serious bidders in the summer period, such as the one I know about, failed.
Or is that not the purpose of the Fans Forum? If not, what is its purpose?
As a trust board member could you not ask the trust board member attendee to comment publicly.
I am no longer a trust board member. I stepped down around this time last year at the last AGM. I am of course still a member of CAST, and would hope that a Board member attending would find a way to give us a heads-up on the big issues that bother us most, without getting ahead of the "agreed minutes" issue, or if that seems impossible, to just not comment on CL at all until the agreed minutes are available.
Where we might not agree is that IMO the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues such as ownership, (enabling minutes to be published within 48 hours, I'd think) while the Fans Forum (inc a CAST rep) meets separately to discuss more day to day issues around going to footie. It's a moot point while this lot are in charge, but I remain convinced that this is the best model which is followed by more progressive club owners.
I wasn't aware that you'd stepped down but I understand Razil has also left the Trust board.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no agreement on not commenting before the minutes come out. I repeat, I commented in general and in detail, on both of the occasions I attended before the minutes came out.
I totally disagree the CAST should be given special status to alone discuss ownership and strategic issues with the club while excluding other groups although that a former Trust board member even thinks that is appropriate sadly doesn't surprise me.
Why do you think it wouldn't be appropriate - or even helpful - for the club to have regular meetings with the supporters' trust?
Please don't deliberately misrepresent what I said.
CAST already has regular meetings with the club and I did not suggest that they shouldn't
News to me (as is news of Raz stepping down).
The issue about the structure of dialogue has nothing to do with the personalities who might or might not be involved. Anyone who has worked in the corporate environment is familiar with the problems when management meetings try to embrace, by accident or design, both strategic/long term issues and daily/short term issues. Both are important but they need to be separated, otherwise it is always the long term strategic issues which lose out, to great detriment.
Ok but these gnomic comments are so 2014, just give us a short summary, i.e. what exactly did he say when someone, hopefully you, asked whether there are currently any serious discussions with potential buyers going on at this time; and why other known serious bidders in the summer period, such as the one I know about, failed.
Or is that not the purpose of the Fans Forum? If not, what is its purpose?
As a trust board member could you not ask the trust board member attendee to comment publicly.
I am no longer a trust board member. I stepped down around this time last year at the last AGM. I am of course still a member of CAST, and would hope that a Board member attending would find a way to give us a heads-up on the big issues that bother us most, without getting ahead of the "agreed minutes" issue, or if that seems impossible, to just not comment on CL at all until the agreed minutes are available.
Where we might not agree is that IMO the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues such as ownership, (enabling minutes to be published within 48 hours, I'd think) while the Fans Forum (inc a CAST rep) meets separately to discuss more day to day issues around going to footie. It's a moot point while this lot are in charge, but I remain convinced that this is the best model which is followed by more progressive club owners.
I wasn't aware that you'd stepped down but I understand Razil has also left the Trust board.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no agreement on not commenting before the minutes come out. I repeat, I commented in general and in detail, on both of the occasions I attended before the minutes came out.
I totally disagree the CAST should be given special status to alone discuss ownership and strategic issues with the club while excluding other groups although that a former Trust board member even thinks that is appropriate sadly doesn't surprise me.
Why do you think it wouldn't be appropriate - or even helpful - for the club to have regular meetings with the supporters' trust?
Please don't deliberately misrepresent what I said.
CAST already has regular meetings with the club and I did not suggest that they shouldn't
I haven't deliberately tried to misrepresent what you posted, at all.
Prague has suggested "the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues". That seems to be a good idea.
You've posted that you "totally disagree". You've gone on to mention "excluding other groups", which wasn't in Prague's post.
So, can I ask why you don't think Prague's suggestion is appropriate?
No, I'm not playing. Carrying on sealioning with someone else.
Ok but these gnomic comments are so 2014, just give us a short summary, i.e. what exactly did he say when someone, hopefully you, asked whether there are currently any serious discussions with potential buyers going on at this time; and why other known serious bidders in the summer period, such as the one I know about, failed.
Or is that not the purpose of the Fans Forum? If not, what is its purpose?
As a trust board member could you not ask the trust board member attendee to comment publicly.
I am no longer a trust board member. I stepped down around this time last year at the last AGM. I am of course still a member of CAST, and would hope that a Board member attending would find a way to give us a heads-up on the big issues that bother us most, without getting ahead of the "agreed minutes" issue, or if that seems impossible, to just not comment on CL at all until the agreed minutes are available.
Where we might not agree is that IMO the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues such as ownership, (enabling minutes to be published within 48 hours, I'd think) while the Fans Forum (inc a CAST rep) meets separately to discuss more day to day issues around going to footie. It's a moot point while this lot are in charge, but I remain convinced that this is the best model which is followed by more progressive club owners.
i agree with you on that Prague in terms of approach. However, i feel it unrealistic to expect 'the club' to engage with CAST in such relationship all the while it remains a part of a protesting coalition against the club. You can't really sit on both sides of the fence in that respect.
I hope like you that things change in the next regime shift though.
Ok but these gnomic comments are so 2014, just give us a short summary, i.e. what exactly did he say when someone, hopefully you, asked whether there are currently any serious discussions with potential buyers going on at this time; and why other known serious bidders in the summer period, such as the one I know about, failed.
Or is that not the purpose of the Fans Forum? If not, what is its purpose?
As a trust board member could you not ask the trust board member attendee to comment publicly.
I am no longer a trust board member. I stepped down around this time last year at the last AGM. I am of course still a member of CAST, and would hope that a Board member attending would find a way to give us a heads-up on the big issues that bother us most, without getting ahead of the "agreed minutes" issue, or if that seems impossible, to just not comment on CL at all until the agreed minutes are available.
Where we might not agree is that IMO the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues such as ownership, (enabling minutes to be published within 48 hours, I'd think) while the Fans Forum (inc a CAST rep) meets separately to discuss more day to day issues around going to footie. It's a moot point while this lot are in charge, but I remain convinced that this is the best model which is followed by more progressive club owners.
I wasn't aware that you'd stepped down but I understand Razil has also left the Trust board.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no agreement on not commenting before the minutes come out. I repeat, I commented in general and in detail, on both of the occasions I attended before the minutes came out.
I totally disagree the CAST should be given special status to alone discuss ownership and strategic issues with the club while excluding other groups although that a former Trust board member even thinks that is appropriate sadly doesn't surprise me.
Why do you think it wouldn't be appropriate - or even helpful - for the club to have regular meetings with the supporters' trust?
Please don't deliberately misrepresent what I said.
CAST already has regular meetings with the club and I did not suggest that they shouldn't
I haven't deliberately tried to misrepresent what you posted, at all.
Prague has suggested "the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues". That seems to be a good idea.
You've posted that you "totally disagree". You've gone on to mention "excluding other groups", which wasn't in Prague's post.
So, can I ask why you don't think Prague's suggestion is appropriate?
No, I'm not playing. Carrying on sealioning with someone else.
I had a feeling you weren't going to answer. It's really disappointing. I think it's not uncommon for you to post something and assume that everyone either fully understands the background of your post or shouldn't have the impertinence to ask for an explanation. I simply wanted to know why something that I thought was a good suggestion was considered not to be appropriate.
If you're happy for your comments not to be understood, that's curious, but fine.
Ok but these gnomic comments are so 2014, just give us a short summary, i.e. what exactly did he say when someone, hopefully you, asked whether there are currently any serious discussions with potential buyers going on at this time; and why other known serious bidders in the summer period, such as the one I know about, failed.
Or is that not the purpose of the Fans Forum? If not, what is its purpose?
As a trust board member could you not ask the trust board member attendee to comment publicly.
I am no longer a trust board member. I stepped down around this time last year at the last AGM. I am of course still a member of CAST, and would hope that a Board member attending would find a way to give us a heads-up on the big issues that bother us most, without getting ahead of the "agreed minutes" issue, or if that seems impossible, to just not comment on CL at all until the agreed minutes are available.
Where we might not agree is that IMO the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues such as ownership, (enabling minutes to be published within 48 hours, I'd think) while the Fans Forum (inc a CAST rep) meets separately to discuss more day to day issues around going to footie. It's a moot point while this lot are in charge, but I remain convinced that this is the best model which is followed by more progressive club owners.
i agree with you on that Prague in terms of approach. However, i feel it unrealistic to expect 'the club' to engage with CAST in such relationship all the while it remains a part of a protesting coalition against the club. You can't really sit on both sides of the fence in that respect.
I hope like you that things change in the next regime shift though.
Yes, good point. I'm making a general point about 'best practice' with an eye on the post-RD era. This best practice is already implemented at several London clubs.
Can someone fill in a gap in my understanding? Is CAST a "part of" CARD? Or are there merely CAST members who support CARD and its goals?
If CARD is "officially" a part of CARD, then I would agree with @AFKABartram that it's difficult to see how the club should be expected to welcome official meetings with CAST. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't still take place.
Can someone fill in a gap in my understanding? Is CAST a "part of" CARD? Or are there merely CAST members who support CARD and its goals?
If CARD is "officially" a part of CARD, then I would agree with @AFKABartram that it's difficult to see how the club should be expected to welcome official meetings with CAST. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't still take place.
Neither, they're a splinter group of the Judean People's Front
Can someone fill in a gap in my understanding? Is CAST a "part of" CARD? Or are there merely CAST members who support CARD and its goals?
If CARD is "officially" a part of CARD, then I would agree with @AFKABartram that it's difficult to see how the club should be expected to welcome official meetings with CAST. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't still take place.
I can confirm CARD is officially part of CARD, not sure why you don’t get that really @chizz
Can someone fill in a gap in my understanding? Is CAST a "part of" CARD? Or are there merely CAST members who support CARD and its goals?
If CARD is "officially" a part of CARD, then I would agree with @AFKABartram that it's difficult to see how the club should be expected to welcome official meetings with CAST. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't still take place.
Neither, they're a splinter group of the Judean People's Front
Ok but these gnomic comments are so 2014, just give us a short summary, i.e. what exactly did he say when someone, hopefully you, asked whether there are currently any serious discussions with potential buyers going on at this time; and why other known serious bidders in the summer period, such as the one I know about, failed.
Or is that not the purpose of the Fans Forum? If not, what is its purpose?
As a trust board member could you not ask the trust board member attendee to comment publicly.
I am no longer a trust board member. I stepped down around this time last year at the last AGM. I am of course still a member of CAST, and would hope that a Board member attending would find a way to give us a heads-up on the big issues that bother us most, without getting ahead of the "agreed minutes" issue, or if that seems impossible, to just not comment on CL at all until the agreed minutes are available.
Where we might not agree is that IMO the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues such as ownership, (enabling minutes to be published within 48 hours, I'd think) while the Fans Forum (inc a CAST rep) meets separately to discuss more day to day issues around going to footie. It's a moot point while this lot are in charge, but I remain convinced that this is the best model which is followed by more progressive club owners.
i agree with you on that Prague in terms of approach. However, i feel it unrealistic to expect 'the club' to engage with CAST in such relationship all the while it remains a part of a protesting coalition against the club. You can't really sit on both sides of the fence in that respect.
I hope like you that things change in the next regime shift though.
Yes, good point. I'm making a general point about 'best practice' with an eye on the post-RD era. This best practice is already implemented at several London clubs.
But why just CAST discussing strategic issues and the other groups left with the operational issues which is what I inferred from your suggestion.
I agree that CAST should meet and, as I pointed out, already do meet with the club to discuss both takeover and operational issues alongside the various groups.
How CAST reconcile that with their membership of CARD (no idea if that is current membership but they certainly were part of the CARD organising group at the height of the protests) is down to them and I'm not a CAST member.
Why should the other groups, many of which existed before the Trust and represent valid "contingencies" of fans, be excluded either now or under new ownership from discussing strategic issues?
Can someone fill in a gap in my understanding? Is CAST a "part of" CARD? Or are there merely CAST members who support CARD and its goals?
If CARD is "officially" a part of CARD, then I would agree with @AFKABartram that it's difficult to see how the club should be expected to welcome official meetings with CAST. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't still take place.
I can confirm CARD is officially part of CARD, not sure why you don’t get that really @chizz
Because he is a sealion :-)
out of interest, what does sealioning mean? Never heard that one before
Can someone fill in a gap in my understanding? Is CAST a "part of" CARD? Or are there merely CAST members who support CARD and its goals?
If CARD is "officially" a part of CARD, then I would agree with @AFKABartram that it's difficult to see how the club should be expected to welcome official meetings with CAST. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't still take place.
I can confirm CARD is officially part of CARD, not sure why you don’t get that really @chizz
Can someone fill in a gap in my understanding? Is CAST a "part of" CARD? Or are there merely CAST members who support CARD and its goals?
If CARD is "officially" a part of CARD, then I would agree with @AFKABartram that it's difficult to see how the club should be expected to welcome official meetings with CAST. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't still take place.
I can confirm CARD is officially part of CARD, not sure why you don’t get that really @chizz
Because he is a sealion :-)
out of interest, what does sealioning mean? Never heard that one before
"Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretence of civility. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".
Can someone fill in a gap in my understanding? Is CAST a "part of" CARD? Or are there merely CAST members who support CARD and its goals?
If CARD is "officially" a part of CARD, then I would agree with @AFKABartram that it's difficult to see how the club should be expected to welcome official meetings with CAST. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't still take place.
I am not going back to edit that, because it's gloriously stupid. But I will confirm that what I MEANT was... Is CAST "officially" a part of CARD?
Comments
I’m sure a few comments about that was discussed wouldn’t pose much of a threat to national security if they weren’t 100% verbatim.
You don't have to be part of a group to attend. Individuals were invited to apply to attend this meeting. @golfaddick
Talking about mundane and routine matters is what it is for. The incompetent and dishonest management is the reason the takeover is discussed in a forum not designed for such a purpose but it is better than nothing.
The make up of the group badly needs reviewing but that needs to be done when we are no longer in abnormal times.
There is no rule stopping attendees commenting in general or in detail ahead of the formal minutes. I have done both on the two occasions I have attended and never been told or asked not to do so. The Trust in particular should be giving its own comments IMHO.
The cryptic comments from Razil are worse than silence IMO.
The meetings are recorded but not filmed. Meire tried that once but realised it made her look even worse.
The Fans'Forum is not the enemy nor is it the problem.
Duchatelet is and always has been the problem.
The point of the fans forum is to discuss operational matters so of course operational managers should be there.
The anomaly is discussing takeovers but that just highlights the incompent mismanagement of De Turck and Duchatelet.
As a trust board member could you not ask the trust board member attendee to comment publicly.
It is quite possible and should be a priority to make some comments, even if they are very general.
Not everyone takes notes or has time to type them out but headlines are easily done. People work too and the club staff also have other duties. No reasonable fan should expect instant minutes but an overview could and should have been given by now.
It will be mundane but we often see long discussions in catering and ticketing on CL so they are of interest to many.
Where we might not agree is that IMO the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues such as ownership, (enabling minutes to be published within 48 hours, I'd think) while the Fans Forum (inc a CAST rep) meets separately to discuss more day to day issues around going to footie. It's a moot point while this lot are in charge, but I remain convinced that this is the best model which is followed by more progressive club owners.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no agreement on not commenting before the minutes come out. I repeat, I commented in general and in detail, on both of the occasions I attended before the minutes came out.
I totally disagree the CAST should be given special status to alone discuss ownership and strategic issues with the club while excluding other groups although that a former Trust board member even thinks that is appropriate sadly doesn't surprise me.
No minutes/comments are posted - people moan.
Minutes/comments are posted - people moan saying it's the same old shit, LDT is a liar, it's a waste of time, etc.
CAST already has regular meetings with the club and I did not suggest that they shouldn't
Prague has suggested "the solution is for the club to meet regularly with CAST to discuss and inform supporters about the important strategic issues". That seems to be a good idea.
You've posted that you "totally disagree". You've gone on to mention "excluding other groups", which wasn't in Prague's post.
So, can I ask why you don't think Prague's suggestion is appropriate?
The issue about the structure of dialogue has nothing to do with the personalities who might or might not be involved. Anyone who has worked in the corporate environment is familiar with the problems when management meetings try to embrace, by accident or design, both strategic/long term issues and daily/short term issues. Both are important but they need to be separated, otherwise it is always the long term strategic issues which lose out, to great detriment.
i agree with you on that Prague in terms of approach. However, i feel it unrealistic to expect 'the club' to engage with CAST in such relationship all the while it remains a part of a protesting coalition against the club. You can't really sit on both sides of the fence in that respect.
I hope like you that things change in the next regime shift though.
If you're happy for your comments not to be understood, that's curious, but fine.
If CARD is "officially" a part of CARD, then I would agree with @AFKABartram that it's difficult to see how the club should be expected to welcome official meetings with CAST. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't still take place.
Neither, they're a splinter group of the Judean People's Front
I agree that CAST should meet and, as I pointed out, already do meet with the club to discuss both takeover and operational issues alongside the various groups.
How CAST reconcile that with their membership of CARD (no idea if that is current membership but they certainly were part of the CARD organising group at the height of the protests) is down to them and I'm not a CAST member.
Why should the other groups, many of which existed before the Trust and represent valid "contingencies" of fans, be excluded either now or under new ownership from discussing strategic issues?
Because he is a sealion :-)
out of interest, what does sealioning mean? Never heard that one before