I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Denying what They knew? leave off it was less than 24 hours, or would you have preferred inaccurate information straight away?
Anyway, I look forward to you volunteering your time and the next meeting being reported within minutes.
Why would five lines as per golfies post above been too much to ask or inaccurate?
The club are not trustworthy or honourable. The fans forum is an obligation they have. There should be no collusion with the club to do things their way and wait for formal minutes. The fans represented by the various FF groups would not have been outraged that Duchatelets Charlton didn’t get to dictate the time and method of cascading what went on.
As for those representatives attending on our behalf. I do appreciate your effort and time. It’s wonderful for us that you do. It doesn’t however mean that criticism can’t be levied if it’s justified. I think. ( just my opinion) is that a very short update should definitely been made by the attendees on the evening of the FF.
The club is rotten to the core. We the fans owe them nothing.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
And wanker sums you up quite well.
No wonder we struggle to get volunteers for things like the Trust Board, when you get morons posting crap like this about individuals.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Denying what They knew? leave off it was less than 24 hours, or would you have preferred inaccurate information straight away?
Anyway, I look forward to you volunteering your time and the next meeting being reported within minutes.
Why would five lines as per golfies post above been too much to ask or inaccurate?
The club are not trustworthy or honourable. The fans forum is an obligation they have. There should be no collusion with the club to do things their way and wait for formal minutes. The fans represented by the various FF groups would not have been outraged that Duchatelets Charlton didn’t get to dictate the time and method of cascading what went on.
As for those representatives attending on our behalf. I do appreciate your effort and time. It’s wonderful for us that you do. It doesn’t however mean that criticism can’t be levied if it’s justified. I think. ( just my opinion) is that a very short update should definitely been made by the attendees on the evening of the FF.
The club is rotten to the core. We the fans owe them nothing.
I look forward to your update minutes after the next meeting.
Ah, the internet age ...... where we desperately need to know everything immediately and get upset when we have to wait a little.
When I was a lad, and it cost 2/- to get in to stand on a proper terrace (that's 10p to those who don't know who Eddie Firmani is), we had to wait all week until the Kentish Independent came out.
Those were the days. With Keithy Peacock on the wing and Ray Treacy in the middle. We even beat Millwall at home once. And Palace away at Selhurst in the Cup.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Denying what They knew? leave off it was less than 24 hours, or would you have preferred inaccurate information straight away?
Anyway, I look forward to you volunteering your time and the next meeting being reported within minutes.
Why would five lines as per golfies post above been too much to ask or inaccurate?
The club are not trustworthy or honourable. The fans forum is an obligation they have. There should be no collusion with the club to do things their way and wait for formal minutes. The fans represented by the various FF groups would not have been outraged that Duchatelets Charlton didn’t get to dictate the time and method of cascading what went on.
As for those representatives attending on our behalf. I do appreciate your effort and time. It’s wonderful for us that you do. It doesn’t however mean that criticism can’t be levied if it’s justified. I think. ( just my opinion) is that a very short update should definitely been made by the attendees on the evening of the FF.
The club is rotten to the core. We the fans owe them nothing.
I look forward to your update minutes after the next meeting.
What a ridiculous comment. The fact that I am not party to the meeting kind of prevents that doesn’t it. What it doesn’t do is stop me expressing an opinion that those that were there should have posted something brief. That’s not everyone’s opinion I realise but it’s mine.
Ah, the internet age ...... where we desperately need to know everything immediately and get upset when we have to wait a little.
When I was a lad, and it cost 2/- to get in to stand on a proper terrace (that's 10p to those who don't know who Eddie Firmani is), we had to wait all week until the Kentish Independent came out.
Those were the days. With Keithy Peacock on the wing and Ray Treacy in the middle. We even beat Millwall at home once. And Palace away at Selhurst in the Cup.
It is clearly ridiculous that it takes a FF meeting to get the club to disclose information like this. It isn’t the purpose of the FF and it shows what a shambles the club is, including Rubashow, that it doesn’t share what it can in a timely and managed way. That’s the problem.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Denying what They knew? leave off it was less than 24 hours, or would you have preferred inaccurate information straight away?
Anyway, I look forward to you volunteering your time and the next meeting being reported within minutes.
Why would five lines as per golfies post above been too much to ask or inaccurate?
The club are not trustworthy or honourable. The fans forum is an obligation they have. There should be no collusion with the club to do things their way and wait for formal minutes. The fans represented by the various FF groups would not have been outraged that Duchatelets Charlton didn’t get to dictate the time and method of cascading what went on.
As for those representatives attending on our behalf. I do appreciate your effort and time. It’s wonderful for us that you do. It doesn’t however mean that criticism can’t be levied if it’s justified. I think. ( just my opinion) is that a very short update should definitely been made by the attendees on the evening of the FF.
The club is rotten to the core. We the fans owe them nothing.
I look forward to your update minutes after the next meeting.
What a ridiculous comment. The fact that I am not party to the meeting kind of prevents that doesn’t it. What it doesn’t do is stop me expressing an opinion that those that were there should have posted something brief. That’s not everyone’s opinion I realise but it’s mine.
You could volunteer your time like others do, I agree with everything you say about the club and The state it's in, i just think the abuse aimed at people giving up their free time for our benefit is grossly unfair.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Ridiculous comments.
@Pico explained why the report of the meeting was published when it was, which was within 24 hours of the meeting concluding. A 24 hour period which included England's biggest match for 20 years.
Some people need to have a word with themselves.
What I think @shooters hill guru was getting at was that anyone leaving the meeting could have posted a very brief summary of it & not having to wait until the next day for the minutes. No-one was expecting war & peace at 5pm last night, but a couple of lines to the effect of; EFL still awaiting some docs, price agreed with Aussies & another as yet unamed party.....minutes to follow later.
Instead we got radio silence or "we've all be sworn to secrecy" with no one daring to say what the fuck was said.
I apprecate very much to statement that was put out today, but do agree that some update was needed after the event yestetday.
As has been said the recording had to be checked to confirm some of what was said. People remember different things in meetings.
A wait until the morning was reasonable given the semi final.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Denying what They knew? leave off it was less than 24 hours, or would you have preferred inaccurate information straight away?
Anyway, I look forward to you volunteering your time and the next meeting being reported within minutes.
Why would five lines as per golfies post above been too much to ask or inaccurate?
The club are not trustworthy or honourable. The fans forum is an obligation they have. There should be no collusion with the club to do things their way and wait for formal minutes. The fans represented by the various FF groups would not have been outraged that Duchatelets Charlton didn’t get to dictate the time and method of cascading what went on.
As for those representatives attending on our behalf. I do appreciate your effort and time. It’s wonderful for us that you do. It doesn’t however mean that criticism can’t be levied if it’s justified. I think. ( just my opinion) is that a very short update should definitely been made by the attendees on the evening of the FF.
The club is rotten to the core. We the fans owe them nothing.
I look forward to your update minutes after the next meeting.
What a ridiculous comment. The fact that I am not party to the meeting kind of prevents that doesn’t it. What it doesn’t do is stop me expressing an opinion that those that were there should have posted something brief. That’s not everyone’s opinion I realise but it’s mine.
You could volunteer your time like others do, I agree with everything you say about the club and The state it's in, i just think the abuse aimed at people giving up their free time for our benefit is grossly unfair.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Denying what They knew? leave off it was less than 24 hours, or would you have preferred inaccurate information straight away?
Anyway, I look forward to you volunteering your time and the next meeting being reported within minutes.
Why would five lines as per golfies post above been too much to ask or inaccurate?
The club are not trustworthy or honourable. The fans forum is an obligation they have. There should be no collusion with the club to do things their way and wait for formal minutes. The fans represented by the various FF groups would not have been outraged that Duchatelets Charlton didn’t get to dictate the time and method of cascading what went on.
As for those representatives attending on our behalf. I do appreciate your effort and time. It’s wonderful for us that you do. It doesn’t however mean that criticism can’t be levied if it’s justified. I think. ( just my opinion) is that a very short update should definitely been made by the attendees on the evening of the FF.
The club is rotten to the core. We the fans owe them nothing.
I look forward to your update minutes after the next meeting.
What a ridiculous comment. The fact that I am not party to the meeting kind of prevents that doesn’t it. What it doesn’t do is stop me expressing an opinion that those that were there should have posted something brief. That’s not everyone’s opinion I realise but it’s mine.
You could volunteer your time like others do, I agree with everything you say about the club and The state it's in, i just think the abuse aimed at people giving up their free time for our benefit is grossly unfair.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Denying what They knew? leave off it was less than 24 hours, or would you have preferred inaccurate information straight away?
Anyway, I look forward to you volunteering your time and the next meeting being reported within minutes.
Why would five lines as per golfies post above been too much to ask or inaccurate?
The club are not trustworthy or honourable. The fans forum is an obligation they have. There should be no collusion with the club to do things their way and wait for formal minutes. The fans represented by the various FF groups would not have been outraged that Duchatelets Charlton didn’t get to dictate the time and method of cascading what went on.
As for those representatives attending on our behalf. I do appreciate your effort and time. It’s wonderful for us that you do. It doesn’t however mean that criticism can’t be levied if it’s justified. I think. ( just my opinion) is that a very short update should definitely been made by the attendees on the evening of the FF.
The club is rotten to the core. We the fans owe them nothing.
I look forward to your update minutes after the next meeting.
What a ridiculous comment. The fact that I am not party to the meeting kind of prevents that doesn’t it. What it doesn’t do is stop me expressing an opinion that those that were there should have posted something brief. That’s not everyone’s opinion I realise but it’s mine.
You could volunteer your time like others do, I agree with everything you say about the club and The state it's in, i just think the abuse aimed at people giving up their free time for our benefit is grossly unfair.
I have before. Have you ?
No, nor do I abuse those who do for not meeting my own ridiculous time frames.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Ridiculous comments.
@Pico explained why the report of the meeting was published when it was, which was within 24 hours of the meeting concluding. A 24 hour period which included England's biggest match for 20 years.
Some people need to have a word with themselves.
What I think @shooters hill guru was getting at was that anyone leaving the meeting could have posted a very brief summary of it & not having to wait until the next day for the minutes. No-one was expecting war & peace at 5pm last night, but a couple of lines to the effect of; EFL still awaiting some docs, price agreed with Aussies & another as yet unamed party.....minutes to follow later.
Instead we got radio silence or "we've all be sworn to secrecy" with no one daring to say what the fuck was said.
I apprecate very much to statement that was put out today, but do agree that some update was needed after the event yestetday.
As has been said the recording had to be checked to confirm some of what was said. People remember different things in meetings.
A wait until the morning was reasonable given the semi final.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Ridiculous comments.
@Pico explained why the report of the meeting was published when it was, which was within 24 hours of the meeting concluding. A 24 hour period which included England's biggest match for 20 years.
Some people need to have a word with themselves.
What I think @shooters hill guru was getting at was that anyone leaving the meeting could have posted a very brief summary of it & not having to wait until the next day for the minutes. No-one was expecting war & peace at 5pm last night, but a couple of lines to the effect of; EFL still awaiting some docs, price agreed with Aussies & another as yet unamed party.....minutes to follow later.
Instead we got radio silence or "we've all be sworn to secrecy" with no one daring to say what the fuck was said.
I apprecate very much to statement that was put out today, but do agree that some update was needed after the event yestetday.
As has been said the recording had to be checked to confirm some of what was said. People remember different things in meetings.
A wait until the morning was reasonable given the semi final.
I would say not only reasonable, but sensible.
The most important thing to come out of the FF was the news that the Australian bid still needs to lodge papers with the EFL.
If someone had just posted that with a comment of more to follow in due course then that would have been good.
Instead we got zip until the club’s due process of agreed minutes and protocols was adhered to. I don’t get any sense why anyone wouldn’t think the club can do one. They don’t communicate with us fans and when under the obligation of the FF they dein fit to do so I personally think it would have been good fir the fans in attendance to share the most salient point straight away.
It is clearly ridiculous that it takes a FF meeting to get the club to disclose information like this. It isn’t the purpose of the FF and it shows what a shambles the club is, including Rubashow, that it doesn’t share what it can in a timely and managed way. That’s the problem.
But they didn't say anything did they?
There was nothing there that was news worthy. A press conference to say we trade players, for multiple reasons, as BAU?
We are in talks with someone but we can't say any more due to NDAs?
I am amazed that he even mentioned the season ticket money situation. Why would you put that in the public demain if you didn't have to?
Well done @Pico , your efforts, which some people seem to forget are done for love and no financial gain, are much appreciated. You can't please all of the people all of the time but don't let the others get you down .
A***licker
Not as far as I can recall. But I do drink a lot of wine sometimes.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Ridiculous comments.
@Pico explained why the report of the meeting was published when it was, which was within 24 hours of the meeting concluding. A 24 hour period which included England's biggest match for 20 years.
Some people need to have a word with themselves.
What I think @shooters hill guru was getting at was that anyone leaving the meeting could have posted a very brief summary of it & not having to wait until the next day for the minutes. No-one was expecting war & peace at 5pm last night, but a couple of lines to the effect of; EFL still awaiting some docs, price agreed with Aussies & another as yet unamed party.....minutes to follow later.
Instead we got radio silence or "we've all be sworn to secrecy" with no one daring to say what the fuck was said.
I apprecate very much to statement that was put out today, but do agree that some update was needed after the event yestetday.
As has been said the recording had to be checked to confirm some of what was said. People remember different things in meetings.
A wait until the morning was reasonable given the semi final.
I would say not only reasonable, but sensible.
The most important thing to come out of the FF was the news that the Australian bid still needs to lodge papers with the EFL.
If someone had just posted that with a comment of more to follow in due course then that would have been good.
Instead we got zip until the club’s due process of agreed minutes and protocols was adhered to. I don’t get any sense why anyone wouldn’t think the club can do one. They don’t communicate with us fans and when under the obligation of the FF they dein fit to do so I personally think it would have been good fir the fans in attendance to share the most salient point straight away.
SHG, it's almost like someone has hacked your account.
I don't think anyone is condoning Charlton's lack of communication. What they are saying is out of order, is your name calling & rudeness to fellow fans, who have taken their own time and trouble to attend a meeting on England's World Cup semi final day of all days.
It is franky ridiculous that anyone should be expected to agree and produce the minutes of the meeting when England are playing one of their most important games in many of our lifetimes.
If I was in a business situation and it was agreed that someone would produce the minutes or an accurate summary of the minutes, within 24 hours. I would consider it very poor if anyone then disregarded that agreement. Presumably, you think it's fine to go back on your word ?
If anyone had posted a comment that the Australians still needed to lodge papers with the EFL at 10.30 pm Wednesday night, what do you think would have happened ?
There would have been numerous people asking for more information and those questioned would have had to be ignored or elaborated upon against the "business" agreement that had been made.
I am rightly or wrongly presuming that your tirade was as a result of England's defeat, possibly coupled with alcohol. Apologies, if this is not the case, but I know I was somewhat fed up and had had a few beers.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Ridiculous comments.
@Pico explained why the report of the meeting was published when it was, which was within 24 hours of the meeting concluding. A 24 hour period which included England's biggest match for 20 years.
Some people need to have a word with themselves.
What I think @shooters hill guru was getting at was that anyone leaving the meeting could have posted a very brief summary of it & not having to wait until the next day for the minutes. No-one was expecting war & peace at 5pm last night, but a couple of lines to the effect of; EFL still awaiting some docs, price agreed with Aussies & another as yet unamed party.....minutes to follow later.
Instead we got radio silence or "we've all be sworn to secrecy" with no one daring to say what the fuck was said.
I apprecate very much to statement that was put out today, but do agree that some update was needed after the event yestetday.
As has been said the recording had to be checked to confirm some of what was said. People remember different things in meetings.
A wait until the morning was reasonable given the semi final.
I would say not only reasonable, but sensible.
The most important thing to come out of the FF was the news that the Australian bid still needs to lodge papers with the EFL.
If someone had just posted that with a comment of more to follow in due course then that would have been good.
Instead we got zip until the club’s due process of agreed minutes and protocols was adhered to. I don’t get any sense why anyone wouldn’t think the club can do one. They don’t communicate with us fans and when under the obligation of the FF they dein fit to do so I personally think it would have been good fir the fans in attendance to share the most salient point straight away.
That is not what was said.
Original documentation was submitted some weeks ago. The club and the Australians have stated this several times.
Both sides assumed it was all that was needed but the review panel wanted more.
EFL has asked for additional paperwork which is yet to passed to them. If this is in Australia and needs to found and authenticated by a lawyer it will take take time.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Ridiculous comments.
@Pico explained why the report of the meeting was published when it was, which was within 24 hours of the meeting concluding. A 24 hour period which included England's biggest match for 20 years.
Some people need to have a word with themselves.
What I think @shooters hill guru was getting at was that anyone leaving the meeting could have posted a very brief summary of it & not having to wait until the next day for the minutes. No-one was expecting war & peace at 5pm last night, but a couple of lines to the effect of; EFL still awaiting some docs, price agreed with Aussies & another as yet unamed party.....minutes to follow later.
Instead we got radio silence or "we've all be sworn to secrecy" with no one daring to say what the fuck was said.
I apprecate very much to statement that was put out today, but do agree that some update was needed after the event yestetday.
As has been said the recording had to be checked to confirm some of what was said. People remember different things in meetings.
A wait until the morning was reasonable given the semi final.
I would say not only reasonable, but sensible.
The most important thing to come out of the FF was the news that the Australian bid still needs to lodge papers with the EFL.
If someone had just posted that with a comment of more to follow in due course then that would have been good.
Instead we got zip until the club’s due process of agreed minutes and protocols was adhered to. I don’t get any sense why anyone wouldn’t think the club can do one. They don’t communicate with us fans and when under the obligation of the FF they dein fit to do so I personally think it would have been good fir the fans in attendance to share the most salient point straight away.
That is not what was said.
Original documentation was submitted some weeks ago. The club and the Australians have stated this several times.
Both sides assumed it was all that was needed but the review panel wanted more.
EFL has asked for additional paperwork which is yet to passed to them. If this is in Australia and needs to found and authenticated by a lawyer it will take take time.
The Aussies have still to lodge papers with the EFL. Fact.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Ridiculous comments.
@Pico explained why the report of the meeting was published when it was, which was within 24 hours of the meeting concluding. A 24 hour period which included England's biggest match for 20 years.
Some people need to have a word with themselves.
What I think @shooters hill guru was getting at was that anyone leaving the meeting could have posted a very brief summary of it & not having to wait until the next day for the minutes. No-one was expecting war & peace at 5pm last night, but a couple of lines to the effect of; EFL still awaiting some docs, price agreed with Aussies & another as yet unamed party.....minutes to follow later.
Instead we got radio silence or "we've all be sworn to secrecy" with no one daring to say what the fuck was said.
I apprecate very much to statement that was put out today, but do agree that some update was needed after the event yestetday.
As has been said the recording had to be checked to confirm some of what was said. People remember different things in meetings.
A wait until the morning was reasonable given the semi final.
I would say not only reasonable, but sensible.
The most important thing to come out of the FF was the news that the Australian bid still needs to lodge papers with the EFL.
If someone had just posted that with a comment of more to follow in due course then that would have been good.
Instead we got zip until the club’s due process of agreed minutes and protocols was adhered to. I don’t get any sense why anyone wouldn’t think the club can do one. They don’t communicate with us fans and when under the obligation of the FF they dein fit to do so I personally think it would have been good fir the fans in attendance to share the most salient point straight away.
SHG, it's almost like someone has hacked your account.
I don't think anyone is condoning Charlton's lack of communication. What they are saying is out of order, is your name calling & rudeness to fellow fans, who have taken their own time and trouble to attend a meeting on England's World Cup semi final day of all days.
It is franky ridiculous that anyone should be expected to agree and produce the minutes of the meeting when England are playing one of their most important games in many of our lifetimes.
If I was in a business situation and it was agreed that someone would produce the minutes or an accurate summary of the minutes, within 24 hours. I would consider it very poor if anyone then disregarded that agreement. Presumably, you think it's fine to go back on your word ?
If anyone had posted a comment that the Australians still needed to lodge papers with the EFL at 10.30 pm Wednesday night, what do you think would have happened ?
There would have been numerous people asking for more information and those questioned would have had to be ignored or elaborated upon against the "business" agreement that had been made.
I am rightly or wrongly presuming that your tirade was as a result of England's defeat, possibly coupled with alcohol. Apologies, if this is not the case, but I know I was somewhat fed up and had had a few beers.
I think it’s obvious I upset a few people by my remarks and for that I apologise. I’m not crazy enough yet to not recognise that those fans putting themselves forward to be general representatives of us all are doing so without reward and in their own time. I appreciate that. I really do.
I can’t change my opinion that a very brief post of the salient point being that the EFL are still waiting for documentation couldn’t have been posted, tweeted or shouted as soon as the meeting had ended.
It is clearly ridiculous that it takes a FF meeting to get the club to disclose information like this. It isn’t the purpose of the FF and it shows what a shambles the club is, including Rubashow, that it doesn’t share what it can in a timely and managed way. That’s the problem.
But they didn't say anything did they?
There was nothing there that was news worthy. A press conference to say we trade players, for multiple reasons, as BAU?
We are in talks with someone but we can't say any more due to NDAs?
I am amazed that he even mentioned the season ticket money situation. Why would you put that in the public demain if you didn't have to?
You miss the point that this is the club saying it. There is quite a lot of information in that summary which has never previously been confirmed by the club - yes, it was out there because it had appeared on message boards and other sites, but not from the club. This allows people to dismiss it as “speculation”, as they regularly do. Even when reputable professionals report it, people come on here asserting they are just publishing stuff they have read on message boards, although to my certain knowledge that isn’t true.
The club could manage this situation much more proactively if it chose to do so, without breaching confidentiality, but Duchatelet really couidn’t care less about fans and with no board and no senior management team worthy of the name it won’t happen.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Ridiculous comments.
@Pico explained why the report of the meeting was published when it was, which was within 24 hours of the meeting concluding. A 24 hour period which included England's biggest match for 20 years.
Some people need to have a word with themselves.
What I think @shooters hill guru was getting at was that anyone leaving the meeting could have posted a very brief summary of it & not having to wait until the next day for the minutes. No-one was expecting war & peace at 5pm last night, but a couple of lines to the effect of; EFL still awaiting some docs, price agreed with Aussies & another as yet unamed party.....minutes to follow later.
Instead we got radio silence or "we've all be sworn to secrecy" with no one daring to say what the fuck was said.
I apprecate very much to statement that was put out today, but do agree that some update was needed after the event yestetday.
As has been said the recording had to be checked to confirm some of what was said. People remember different things in meetings.
A wait until the morning was reasonable given the semi final.
I would say not only reasonable, but sensible.
The most important thing to come out of the FF was the news that the Australian bid still needs to lodge papers with the EFL.
If someone had just posted that with a comment of more to follow in due course then that would have been good.
Instead we got zip until the club’s due process of agreed minutes and protocols was adhered to. I don’t get any sense why anyone wouldn’t think the club can do one. They don’t communicate with us fans and when under the obligation of the FF they dein fit to do so I personally think it would have been good fir the fans in attendance to share the most salient point straight away.
SHG, it's almost like someone has hacked your account.
I don't think anyone is condoning Charlton's lack of communication. What they are saying is out of order, is your name calling & rudeness to fellow fans, who have taken their own time and trouble to attend a meeting on England's World Cup semi final day of all days.
It is franky ridiculous that anyone should be expected to agree and produce the minutes of the meeting when England are playing one of their most important games in many of our lifetimes.
If I was in a business situation and it was agreed that someone would produce the minutes or an accurate summary of the minutes, within 24 hours. I would consider it very poor if anyone then disregarded that agreement. Presumably, you think it's fine to go back on your word ?
If anyone had posted a comment that the Australians still needed to lodge papers with the EFL at 10.30 pm Wednesday night, what do you think would have happened ?
There would have been numerous people asking for more information and those questioned would have had to be ignored or elaborated upon against the "business" agreement that had been made.
I am rightly or wrongly presuming that your tirade was as a result of England's defeat, possibly coupled with alcohol. Apologies, if this is not the case, but I know I was somewhat fed up and had had a few beers.
I can’t change my opinion that a very brief post of the salient point being that the EFL are still waiting for documentation couldn’t have been posted, tweeted or shouted as soon as the meeting had ended.
If they did that, they'd then be hounded for more information, once that wasn't forthcoming they'd still be receiving abuse.
It is clearly ridiculous that it takes a FF meeting to get the club to disclose information like this. It isn’t the purpose of the FF and it shows what a shambles the club is, including Rubashow, that it doesn’t share what it can in a timely and managed way. That’s the problem.
But they didn't say anything did they?
There was nothing there that was news worthy. A press conference to say we trade players, for multiple reasons, as BAU?
We are in talks with someone but we can't say any more due to NDAs?
I am amazed that he even mentioned the season ticket money situation. Why would you put that in the public demain if you didn't have to?
You miss the point that this is the club saying it. There is quite a lot of information in that summary which has never previously been confirmed by the club - yes, it was out there because it had appeared on message boards and other sites, but not from the club. This allows people to dismiss it as “speculation”, as they regularly do. Even when reputable professionals report it, people come on here asserting they are just publishing stuff they have read on message boards, although to my certain knowledge that isn’t true.
The club could manage this situation much more proactively if it chose to do so, without breaching confidentiality, but Duchatelet really couidn’t care less about fans and with no board and no senior management team worthy of the name it won’t happen.
But your missing my point that they didn't actually say anything news worthy.
Unless we are expecting up dates such as what documents have and haven't been sent to the EFL. There has been very little coming out of the club. I would imagine that's because there is nothing significant they can actually say?
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for comment (this is a role I have fulfilled on behalf of the FF for the last year or so). That seems to me to be an example of good practice which in my experience is common procedure in producing meeting records. ( I am a great admirer of Fulham Supporters Trust and the productive relationship they have built up with Fulham FC. They have done this by developing trust through exactly this sort of process.)
The production of a meeting summary (as compared to a verbatim record) is by definition a question of choosing what are the crucial things which need to be highlighted. Different people in a meeting might well have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Ridiculous comments.
@Pico explained why the report of the meeting was published when it was, which was within 24 hours of the meeting concluding. A 24 hour period which included England's biggest match for 20 years.
Some people need to have a word with themselves.
What I think @shooters hill guru was getting at was that anyone leaving the meeting could have posted a very brief summary of it & not having to wait until the next day for the minutes. No-one was expecting war & peace at 5pm last night, but a couple of lines to the effect of; EFL still awaiting some docs, price agreed with Aussies & another as yet unamed party.....minutes to follow later.
Instead we got radio silence or "we've all be sworn to secrecy" with no one daring to say what the fuck was said.
I apprecate very much to statement that was put out today, but do agree that some update was needed after the event yestetday.
As has been said the recording had to be checked to confirm some of what was said. People remember different things in meetings.
A wait until the morning was reasonable given the semi final.
I would say not only reasonable, but sensible.
The most important thing to come out of the FF was the news that the Australian bid still needs to lodge papers with the EFL.
If someone had just posted that with a comment of more to follow in due course then that would have been good.
Instead we got zip until the club’s due process of agreed minutes and protocols was adhered to. I don’t get any sense why anyone wouldn’t think the club can do one. They don’t communicate with us fans and when under the obligation of the FF they dein fit to do so I personally think it would have been good fir the fans in attendance to share the most salient point straight away.
SHG, it's almost like someone has hacked your account.
I don't think anyone is condoning Charlton's lack of communication. What they are saying is out of order, is your name calling & rudeness to fellow fans, who have taken their own time and trouble to attend a meeting on England's World Cup semi final day of all days.
It is franky ridiculous that anyone should be expected to agree and produce the minutes of the meeting when England are playing one of their most important games in many of our lifetimes.
If I was in a business situation and it was agreed that someone would produce the minutes or an accurate summary of the minutes, within 24 hours. I would consider it very poor if anyone then disregarded that agreement. Presumably, you think it's fine to go back on your word ?
If anyone had posted a comment that the Australians still needed to lodge papers with the EFL at 10.30 pm Wednesday night, what do you think would have happened ?
There would have been numerous people asking for more information and those questioned would have had to be ignored or elaborated upon against the "business" agreement that had been made.
I am rightly or wrongly presuming that your tirade was as a result of England's defeat, possibly coupled with alcohol. Apologies, if this is not the case, but I know I was somewhat fed up and had had a few beers.
I can’t change my opinion that a very brief post of the salient point being that the EFL are still waiting for documentation couldn’t have been posted, tweeted or shouted as soon as the meeting had ended.
If they did that, they'd then be hounded for more information, once that wasn't forthcoming they'd still be receiving abuse.
I’ll go further. If anyone who attended this shite meeting is not now informing us all of what was said then they are just club patsy’s. Our club is at risk here. Man up ffs.
Well, thanks a lot, Shooters Hill Guru.
I went to the meeting at 3pm and it finished soon after 4pm. It was agreed that a summary of the meeting would be produced by Tom Rubashow (TR) from his recording and he would send it to me for have different views about what is important. Ensuring that the club and the FF (in the shape of me) had input into the summary went some way, to ensuring a balance is achieved.
Given the high level of interest in the meeting it was agreed that we would try to produce an agreed summary yesterday evening.
I received the first draft at 5.30pm. There were a few things which I thought should be included which weren't. There was also some stuff which I thought wasn't needed. I also thought there were some changes which might make the document easier to digest and less ambiguous. There were a couple of things which I thought were incorrect. I sent back the document with my suggested revisions at 6.30pm.
There was then a football match on TV which I (and TR) were quite keen to watch.
Nearly all my suggested revisions were accepted and the summary amended accordingly. However, the two things which I thought were incorrect proved not to be incorrect. The recording of the meeting was not surprisingly more accurate than the notes I had taken. I assume TR listened to the recording again at half time to check this.
After the game had finished there were still a couple of points outstanding which I wanted to pursue so I agreed with TR that we would not try to cut corners and that he would delay publication until this morning.
When I woke up this morning those points didn't seem so important but I noticed that HMRC had been specifically mentioned in the meeting but that it was not in the summary, so I e mailed TR and he subsequently included it.
The outcome of all this was that a summary of the meeting to which both parties have agreed was published the morning after the meeting. (If someone else from the FF had taken my place the summary might look a bit different, but I hope that those at the meeting think it reflects most of the important stuff).
What possible positive purpose would it have served for seven different supporters to have posted their version and interpretation of events during yesterday evening ? I suggest it might have been chaotic and I suspect that people would soon have been clamouring for the "official" version.
A patsy is "a person who is easily cheated or victimised" (Collins Dictionary). I'm not sure if I and my six colleagues from yesterday really deserve such an epithet purely because we stuck to an agreed, commonplace and civilised process.
You didn't have to sit on what was said. There were what, half a dozen of you, agreeing to denying what you knew to thousands of fans. For no real reason. Patsy sums it up quite well I think. You forgot who you were there for.
Ridiculous comments.
@Pico explained why the report of the meeting was published when it was, which was within 24 hours of the meeting concluding. A 24 hour period which included England's biggest match for 20 years.
Some people need to have a word with themselves.
What I think @shooters hill guru was getting at was that anyone leaving the meeting could have posted a very brief summary of it & not having to wait until the next day for the minutes. No-one was expecting war & peace at 5pm last night, but a couple of lines to the effect of; EFL still awaiting some docs, price agreed with Aussies & another as yet unamed party.....minutes to follow later.
Instead we got radio silence or "we've all be sworn to secrecy" with no one daring to say what the fuck was said.
I apprecate very much to statement that was put out today, but do agree that some update was needed after the event yestetday.
As has been said the recording had to be checked to confirm some of what was said. People remember different things in meetings.
A wait until the morning was reasonable given the semi final.
I would say not only reasonable, but sensible.
The most important thing to come out of the FF was the news that the Australian bid still needs to lodge papers with the EFL.
If someone had just posted that with a comment of more to follow in due course then that would have been good.
Instead we got zip until the club’s due process of agreed minutes and protocols was adhered to. I don’t get any sense why anyone wouldn’t think the club can do one. They don’t communicate with us fans and when under the obligation of the FF they dein fit to do so I personally think it would have been good fir the fans in attendance to share the most salient point straight away.
SHG, it's almost like someone has hacked your account.
I don't think anyone is condoning Charlton's lack of communication. What they are saying is out of order, is your name calling & rudeness to fellow fans, who have taken their own time and trouble to attend a meeting on England's World Cup semi final day of all days.
It is franky ridiculous that anyone should be expected to agree and produce the minutes of the meeting when England are playing one of their most important games in many of our lifetimes.
If I was in a business situation and it was agreed that someone would produce the minutes or an accurate summary of the minutes, within 24 hours. I would consider it very poor if anyone then disregarded that agreement. Presumably, you think it's fine to go back on your word ?
If anyone had posted a comment that the Australians still needed to lodge papers with the EFL at 10.30 pm Wednesday night, what do you think would have happened ?
There would have been numerous people asking for more information and those questioned would have had to be ignored or elaborated upon against the "business" agreement that had been made.
I am rightly or wrongly presuming that your tirade was as a result of England's defeat, possibly coupled with alcohol. Apologies, if this is not the case, but I know I was somewhat fed up and had had a few beers.
I can’t change my opinion that a very brief post of the salient point being that the EFL are still waiting for documentation couldn’t have been posted, tweeted or shouted as soon as the meeting had ended.
If they did that, they'd then be hounded for more information, once that wasn't forthcoming they'd still be receiving abuse.
It is clearly ridiculous that it takes a FF meeting to get the club to disclose information like this. It isn’t the purpose of the FF and it shows what a shambles the club is, including Rubashow, that it doesn’t share what it can in a timely and managed way. That’s the problem.
But they didn't say anything did they?
There was nothing there that was news worthy. A press conference to say we trade players, for multiple reasons, as BAU?
We are in talks with someone but we can't say any more due to NDAs?
I am amazed that he even mentioned the season ticket money situation. Why would you put that in the public demain if you didn't have to?
You miss the point that this is the club saying it. There is quite a lot of information in that summary which has never previously been confirmed by the club - yes, it was out there because it had appeared on message boards and other sites, but not from the club. This allows people to dismiss it as “speculation”, as they regularly do. Even when reputable professionals report it, people come on here asserting they are just publishing stuff they have read on message boards, although to my certain knowledge that isn’t true.
The club could manage this situation much more proactively if it chose to do so, without breaching confidentiality, but Duchatelet really couidn’t care less about fans and with no board and no senior management team worthy of the name it won’t happen.
But your missing my point that they didn't actually say anything news worthy.
Unless we are expecting up dates such as what documents have and haven't been sent to the EFL. There has been very little coming out of the club. I would imagine that's because there is nothing significant they can actually say?
Well, let’s just take the point that they said the process is being held up - and only held up - by the issue of documents submitted to the EFL. That is newsworthy and it had not been confirmed publicly by any party involved.
Comments
The club are not trustworthy or honourable. The fans forum is an obligation they have. There should be no collusion with the club to do things their way and wait for formal minutes. The fans represented by the various FF groups would not have been outraged that Duchatelets Charlton didn’t get to dictate the time and method of cascading what went on.
As for those representatives attending on our behalf. I do appreciate your effort and time. It’s wonderful for us that you do. It doesn’t however mean that criticism can’t be levied if it’s justified. I think. ( just my opinion) is that a very short update should definitely been made by the attendees on the evening of the FF.
The club is rotten to the core. We the fans owe them nothing.
No wonder we struggle to get volunteers for things like the Trust Board, when you get morons posting crap like this about individuals.
Ah, the internet age ...... where we desperately need to know everything immediately and get upset when we have to wait a little.
When I was a lad, and it cost 2/- to get in to stand on a proper terrace (that's 10p to those who don't know who Eddie Firmani is),
we had to wait all week until the Kentish Independent came out.
Those were the days. With Keithy Peacock on the wing and Ray Treacy in the middle.
We even beat Millwall at home once. And Palace away at Selhurst in the Cup.
A wait until the morning was reasonable given the semi final.
The most important thing to come out of the FF was the news that the Australian bid still needs to lodge papers with the EFL.
If someone had just posted that with a comment of more to follow in due course then that would have been good.
Instead we got zip until the club’s due process of agreed minutes and protocols was adhered to. I don’t get any sense why anyone wouldn’t think the club can do one. They don’t communicate with us fans and when under the obligation of the FF they dein fit to do so I personally think it would have been good fir the fans in attendance to share the most salient point straight away.
There was nothing there that was news worthy. A press conference to say we trade players, for multiple reasons, as BAU?
We are in talks with someone but we can't say any more due to NDAs?
I am amazed that he even mentioned the season ticket money situation. Why would you put that in the public demain if you didn't have to?
I don't think anyone is condoning Charlton's lack of communication.
What they are saying is out of order, is your name calling & rudeness to fellow fans, who have taken their own time and trouble to attend a meeting on England's World Cup semi final day of all days.
It is franky ridiculous that anyone should be expected to agree and produce the minutes of the meeting when England are playing one of their most important games in many of our lifetimes.
If I was in a business situation and it was agreed that someone would produce the minutes or an accurate summary of the minutes, within 24 hours. I would consider it very poor if anyone then disregarded that agreement.
Presumably, you think it's fine to go back on your word ?
If anyone had posted a comment that the Australians still needed to lodge papers with the EFL at 10.30 pm Wednesday night, what do you think would have happened ?
There would have been numerous people asking for more information and those questioned would have had to be ignored or elaborated upon against the "business" agreement that had been made.
I am rightly or wrongly presuming that your tirade was as a result of England's defeat, possibly coupled with alcohol.
Apologies, if this is not the case, but I know I was somewhat fed up and had had a few beers.
Original documentation was submitted some weeks ago. The club and the Australians have stated this several times.
Both sides assumed it was all that was needed but the review panel wanted more.
EFL has asked for additional paperwork which is yet to passed to them. If this is in Australia and needs to found and authenticated by a lawyer it will take take time.
Not all papers but papers nonetheless.
That’s what was said. That’s what I said.
I can’t change my opinion that a very brief post of the salient point being that the EFL are still waiting for documentation couldn’t have been posted, tweeted or shouted as soon as the meeting had ended.
I still think that and I’m not
Anyway. I apologise to those that thought my remarks ott and in particular to those who gave up their own time to attend
The club could manage this situation much more proactively if it chose to do so, without breaching confidentiality, but Duchatelet really couidn’t care less about fans and with no board and no senior management team worthy of the name it won’t happen.
Unless we are expecting up dates such as what documents have and haven't been sent to the EFL. There has been very little coming out of the club. I would imagine that's because there is nothing significant they can actually say?