RD advised SH that in his opinion miscommunications and protests were not assisting in the sale of the Club. SH didn’t disagree with this.
So was Harvey challenged over this?
Take that to be a no then
This is from PragueAddick on the Trust AGM thread:
So having met Harvey. He represents his clubs, so was never going to indicate any doubts he has about RDs version of events to us. BUT, having met and listened to him I will go out on a limb and say he doesn't believe for one moment that fan protests have put them off. He's from Leeds. He has seen protests at all the clubs. And btw, it might have been a quite smart exercise in flattery, but he knew not just about The Valley Party but that the advertising was "award winning" . He has Charlton fans correctly calibrated in terms of their discipline and restraint, IMO.
So a bit different to what the minutes say then as quoted.
For. Fuck's. Sake.
Don’t see the need for that. I read the line in the minutes in exactly the same way
RD advised SH that in his opinion miscommunications and protests were not assisting in the sale of the Club. SH didn’t disagree with this.
So was Harvey challenged over this?
Take that to be a no then
This is from PragueAddick on the Trust AGM thread:
So having met Harvey. He represents his clubs, so was never going to indicate any doubts he has about RDs version of events to us. BUT, having met and listened to him I will go out on a limb and say he doesn't believe for one moment that fan protests have put them off. He's from Leeds. He has seen protests at all the clubs. And btw, it might have been a quite smart exercise in flattery, but he knew not just about The Valley Party but that the advertising was "award winning" . He has Charlton fans correctly calibrated in terms of their discipline and restraint, IMO.
So a bit different to what the minutes say then as quoted.
For. Fuck's. Sake.
Don’t see the need for that. I read the line in the minutes in exactly the same way
RD advised SH that in his opinion miscommunications and protests were not assisting in the sale of the Club. SH didn’t disagree with this.
So was Harvey challenged over this?
Take that to be a no then
This is from PragueAddick on the Trust AGM thread:
So having met Harvey. He represents his clubs, so was never going to indicate any doubts he has about RDs version of events to us. BUT, having met and listened to him I will go out on a limb and say he doesn't believe for one moment that fan protests have put them off. He's from Leeds. He has seen protests at all the clubs. And btw, it might have been a quite smart exercise in flattery, but he knew not just about The Valley Party but that the advertising was "award winning" . He has Charlton fans correctly calibrated in terms of their discipline and restraint, IMO.
So a bit different to what the minutes say then as quoted.
For. Fuck's. Sake.
Don’t see the need for that. I read the line in the minutes in exactly the same way
You don't, eh? Well maybe then my post was not phrased as clearly as it could have been. But you might consider the mitigating circumstances, if so....
My day that day started with Amy Lewis of ITN in my ear as I headed for the 8.30 train, prepping herself for an interview for which she required me to be at City Hall at 13.00. I left my colleagues in a Pret to work on the post EFL statement, and we did the interview. At 5.30 she texted me that she was sorry, but they ( her editors) had told her to cover the breaking Wembley story instead. No coverage of our important proposals. In the meantime I had sat in the room as a GLA AM asked Brady if West Ham would like to buy the Olympic Stadium. I went to two meetings on the issue with legal experts in the City, together with Nigel from the Trust, before we headed straight to the AGM together. No chance of anything to eat beforehand, too busy dealing on the phone, on the Tube, with a fellow Board member unhappy that our statement sounded like we had been too passive. I got back to my Eltham B&B at midnight.
The next morning, as I tried to lie in a bit, @Rob7Lee was warning us on WhatsApp that you and @shirty5 - a perennial non Trust member - were pushing for an answer to your question.
So on the other thread,( believe it or not, I was so knackered that I had forgotten which thread contained what) I posted what I thought would be obvious - to you at least - was my PERSONAL OPINION of what Shaun Harvey might think. Whether it is right or not, the EFL asked that our statement be a straight record of what was actually said at the meeting, not embellished by any interpretation. Quite obviously then, what I wrote was going to be different to what was in the statement, and was provided to try and add a bit of colour to our report without reneging on our agreement with the EFL.. For fuck's sake...
And if people wonder why some Trust board members don't post here, well maybe the above gives you some clue.
RD advised SH that in his opinion miscommunications and protests were not assisting in the sale of the Club. SH didn’t disagree with this.
So was Harvey challenged over this?
Take that to be a no then
This is from PragueAddick on the Trust AGM thread:
So having met Harvey. He represents his clubs, so was never going to indicate any doubts he has about RDs version of events to us. BUT, having met and listened to him I will go out on a limb and say he doesn't believe for one moment that fan protests have put them off. He's from Leeds. He has seen protests at all the clubs. And btw, it might have been a quite smart exercise in flattery, but he knew not just about The Valley Party but that the advertising was "award winning" . He has Charlton fans correctly calibrated in terms of their discipline and restraint, IMO.
So a bit different to what the minutes say then as quoted.
For. Fuck's. Sake.
Don’t see the need for that. I read the line in the minutes in exactly the same way
You don't, eh? Well maybe then my post was not phrased as clearly as it could have been. But you might consider the mitigating circumstances, if so....
My day that day started with Amy Lewis of ITN in my ear as I headed for the 8.30 train, prepping herself for an interview for which she required me to be at City Hall at 13.00. I left my colleagues in a Pret to work on the post EFL statement, and we did the interview. At 5.30 she texted me that she was sorry, but they ( her editors) had told her to cover the breaking Wembley story instead. No coverage of our important proposals. In the meantime I had sat in the room as a GLA AM asked Brady if West Ham would like to buy the Olympic Stadium. I went to two meetings on the issue with legal experts in the City, together with Nigel from the Trust, before we headed straight to the AGM together. No chance of anything to eat beforehand, too busy dealing on the phone, on the Tube, with a fellow Board member unhappy that our statement sounded like we had been too passive. I got back to my Eltham B&B at midnight.
The next morning, as I tried to lie in a bit, @Rob7Lee was warning us on WhatsApp that you and @shirty5 - a perennial non Trust member - were pushing for an answer to your question.
So on the other thread,( believe it or not, I was so knackered that I had forgotten which thread contained what) I posted what I thought would be obvious - to you at least - was my PERSONAL OPINION of what Shaun Harvey might think. Whether it is right or not, the EFL asked that our statement be a straight record of what was actually said at the meeting, not embellished by any interpretation. Quite obviously then, what I wrote was going to be different to what was in the statement, and was provided to try and add a bit of colour to our report without reneging on our agreement with the EFL.. For fuck's sake...
And if people wonder why some Trust board members don't post here, well maybe the above gives you some clue.
Check your records sunshine! I've been a trust member for the past 3 years!!
RD advised SH that in his opinion miscommunications and protests were not assisting in the sale of the Club. SH didn’t disagree with this.
So was Harvey challenged over this?
Take that to be a no then
This is from PragueAddick on the Trust AGM thread:
So having met Harvey. He represents his clubs, so was never going to indicate any doubts he has about RDs version of events to us. BUT, having met and listened to him I will go out on a limb and say he doesn't believe for one moment that fan protests have put them off. He's from Leeds. He has seen protests at all the clubs. And btw, it might have been a quite smart exercise in flattery, but he knew not just about The Valley Party but that the advertising was "award winning" . He has Charlton fans correctly calibrated in terms of their discipline and restraint, IMO.
So a bit different to what the minutes say then as quoted.
For. Fuck's. Sake.
Don’t see the need for that. I read the line in the minutes in exactly the same way
You don't, eh? Well maybe then my post was not phrased as clearly as it could have been. But you might consider the mitigating circumstances, if so....
My day that day started with Amy Lewis of ITN in my ear as I headed for the 8.30 train, prepping herself for an interview for which she required me to be at City Hall at 13.00. I left my colleagues in a Pret to work on the post EFL statement, and we did the interview. At 5.30 she texted me that she was sorry, but they ( her editors) had told her to cover the breaking Wembley story instead. No coverage of our important proposals. In the meantime I had sat in the room as a GLA AM asked Brady if West Ham would like to buy the Olympic Stadium. I went to two meetings on the issue with legal experts in the City, together with Nigel from the Trust, before we headed straight to the AGM together. No chance of anything to eat beforehand, too busy dealing on the phone, on the Tube, with a fellow Board member unhappy that our statement sounded like we had been too passive. I got back to my Eltham B&B at midnight.
The next morning, as I tried to lie in a bit, @Rob7Lee was warning us on WhatsApp that you and @shirty5 - a perennial non Trust member - were pushing for an answer to your question.
So on the other thread,( believe it or not, I was so knackered that I had forgotten which thread contained what) I posted what I thought would be obvious - to you at least - was my PERSONAL OPINION of what Shaun Harvey might think. Whether it is right or not, the EFL asked that our statement be a straight record of what was actually said at the meeting, not embellished by any interpretation. Quite obviously then, what I wrote was going to be different to what was in the statement, and was provided to try and add a bit of colour to our report without reneging on our agreement with the EFL.. For fuck's sake...
And if people wonder why some Trust board members don't post here, well maybe the above gives you some clue.
Shirty is a trust member and he gets treated like this by a board member up to a week ago. Really poor
RD advised SH that in his opinion miscommunications and protests were not assisting in the sale of the Club. SH didn’t disagree with this.
So was Harvey challenged over this?
Take that to be a no then
This is from PragueAddick on the Trust AGM thread:
So having met Harvey. He represents his clubs, so was never going to indicate any doubts he has about RDs version of events to us. BUT, having met and listened to him I will go out on a limb and say he doesn't believe for one moment that fan protests have put them off. He's from Leeds. He has seen protests at all the clubs. And btw, it might have been a quite smart exercise in flattery, but he knew not just about The Valley Party but that the advertising was "award winning" . He has Charlton fans correctly calibrated in terms of their discipline and restraint, IMO.
So a bit different to what the minutes say then as quoted.
For. Fuck's. Sake.
Don’t see the need for that. I read the line in the minutes in exactly the same way
You don't, eh? Well maybe then my post was not phrased as clearly as it could have been. But you might consider the mitigating circumstances, if so....
My day that day started with Amy Lewis of ITN in my ear as I headed for the 8.30 train, prepping herself for an interview for which she required me to be at City Hall at 13.00. I left my colleagues in a Pret to work on the post EFL statement, and we did the interview. At 5.30 she texted me that she was sorry, but they ( her editors) had told her to cover the breaking Wembley story instead. No coverage of our important proposals. In the meantime I had sat in the room as a GLA AM asked Brady if West Ham would like to buy the Olympic Stadium. I went to two meetings on the issue with legal experts in the City, together with Nigel from the Trust, before we headed straight to the AGM together. No chance of anything to eat beforehand, too busy dealing on the phone, on the Tube, with a fellow Board member unhappy that our statement sounded like we had been too passive. I got back to my Eltham B&B at midnight.
The next morning, as I tried to lie in a bit, @Rob7Lee was warning us on WhatsApp that you and @shirty5 - a perennial non Trust member - were pushing for an answer to your question.
So on the other thread,( believe it or not, I was so knackered that I had forgotten which thread contained what) I posted what I thought would be obvious - to you at least - was my PERSONAL OPINION of what Shaun Harvey might think. Whether it is right or not, the EFL asked that our statement be a straight record of what was actually said at the meeting, not embellished by any interpretation. Quite obviously then, what I wrote was going to be different to what was in the statement, and was provided to try and add a bit of colour to our report without reneging on our agreement with the EFL.. For fuck's sake...
And if people wonder why some Trust board members don't post here, well maybe the above gives you some clue.
Check your records sunshine! I've been a trust member for the past 3 years!!
@shirty5 is a member of 3 years and yet even as a member is treated with suspicion and the subject of what's app between board and ex board members
Anyone can ask a question, member or not.
The WhatsApp was from me (it’s how the board generally keep in touch day to day) asking if one of those who attended the meeting could answer AFKA’s question about the Tuesday Rambling’s being raised or not as at that point I didn’t know the answer.
RD advised SH that in his opinion miscommunications and protests were not assisting in the sale of the Club. SH didn’t disagree with this.
So was Harvey challenged over this?
Take that to be a no then
This is from PragueAddick on the Trust AGM thread:
So having met Harvey. He represents his clubs, so was never going to indicate any doubts he has about RDs version of events to us. BUT, having met and listened to him I will go out on a limb and say he doesn't believe for one moment that fan protests have put them off. He's from Leeds. He has seen protests at all the clubs. And btw, it might have been a quite smart exercise in flattery, but he knew not just about The Valley Party but that the advertising was "award winning" . He has Charlton fans correctly calibrated in terms of their discipline and restraint, IMO.
So a bit different to what the minutes say then as quoted.
For. Fuck's. Sake.
Don’t see the need for that. I read the line in the minutes in exactly the same way
You don't, eh? Well maybe then my post was not phrased as clearly as it could have been. But you might consider the mitigating circumstances, if so....
My day that day started with Amy Lewis of ITN in my ear as I headed for the 8.30 train, prepping herself for an interview for which she required me to be at City Hall at 13.00. I left my colleagues in a Pret to work on the post EFL statement, and we did the interview. At 5.30 she texted me that she was sorry, but they ( her editors) had told her to cover the breaking Wembley story instead. No coverage of our important proposals. In the meantime I had sat in the room as a GLA AM asked Brady if West Ham would like to buy the Olympic Stadium. I went to two meetings on the issue with legal experts in the City, together with Nigel from the Trust, before we headed straight to the AGM together. No chance of anything to eat beforehand, too busy dealing on the phone, on the Tube, with a fellow Board member unhappy that our statement sounded like we had been too passive. I got back to my Eltham B&B at midnight.
The next morning, as I tried to lie in a bit, @Rob7Lee was warning us on WhatsApp that you and @shirty5 - a perennial non Trust member - were pushing for an answer to your question.
So on the other thread,( believe it or not, I was so knackered that I had forgotten which thread contained what) I posted what I thought would be obvious - to you at least - was my PERSONAL OPINION of what Shaun Harvey might think. Whether it is right or not, the EFL asked that our statement be a straight record of what was actually said at the meeting, not embellished by any interpretation. Quite obviously then, what I wrote was going to be different to what was in the statement, and was provided to try and add a bit of colour to our report without reneging on our agreement with the EFL.. For fuck's sake...
And if people wonder why some Trust board members don't post here, well maybe the above gives you some clue.
For someone who likes to deal with facts. Here is one for you. @shirty5 has been a Trust member for some time. Jeez you take yourself seriously.
Well then I unreservedly apologise to @shirty5 for not being aware that you had joined. We had a private conversation a while back from which I took that you were not going to join.
Had I known that, I would not have reacted in such strong terms. However your "take that as a no then" comment was a bit much for me when we had all had a bloody long day. Then your comment re my remarks about Harvey seemed to me to be trying to suggest that different Trust people were saying different things, and I thought I'd made it clear that I was just offering my own personal opinion on that question.
I dont know whether you were at the AGM yourself because I dont know your real name but I'd have been happy afterwards to have discussed with you what I made of that meet. Again would have been just my personal opinion, but they are always much better face to face, less room for misunderstanding, sunshine.
RD advised SH that in his opinion miscommunications and protests were not assisting in the sale of the Club. SH didn’t disagree with this.
So was Harvey challenged over this?
Take that to be a no then
This is from PragueAddick on the Trust AGM thread:
So having met Harvey. He represents his clubs, so was never going to indicate any doubts he has about RDs version of events to us. BUT, having met and listened to him I will go out on a limb and say he doesn't believe for one moment that fan protests have put them off. He's from Leeds. He has seen protests at all the clubs. And btw, it might have been a quite smart exercise in flattery, but he knew not just about The Valley Party but that the advertising was "award winning" . He has Charlton fans correctly calibrated in terms of their discipline and restraint, IMO.
So a bit different to what the minutes say then as quoted.
For. Fuck's. Sake.
Don’t see the need for that. I read the line in the minutes in exactly the same way
You don't, eh? Well maybe then my post was not phrased as clearly as it could have been. But you might consider the mitigating circumstances, if so....
My day that day started with Amy Lewis of ITN in my ear as I headed for the 8.30 train, prepping herself for an interview for which she required me to be at City Hall at 13.00. I left my colleagues in a Pret to work on the post EFL statement, and we did the interview. At 5.30 she texted me that she was sorry, but they ( her editors) had told her to cover the breaking Wembley story instead. No coverage of our important proposals. In the meantime I had sat in the room as a GLA AM asked Brady if West Ham would like to buy the Olympic Stadium. I went to two meetings on the issue with legal experts in the City, together with Nigel from the Trust, before we headed straight to the AGM together. No chance of anything to eat beforehand, too busy dealing on the phone, on the Tube, with a fellow Board member unhappy that our statement sounded like we had been too passive. I got back to my Eltham B&B at midnight.
The next morning, as I tried to lie in a bit, @Rob7Lee was warning us on WhatsApp that you and @shirty5 - a perennial non Trust member - were pushing for an answer to your question.
So on the other thread,( believe it or not, I was so knackered that I had forgotten which thread contained what) I posted what I thought would be obvious - to you at least - was my PERSONAL OPINION of what Shaun Harvey might think. Whether it is right or not, the EFL asked that our statement be a straight record of what was actually said at the meeting, not embellished by any interpretation. Quite obviously then, what I wrote was going to be different to what was in the statement, and was provided to try and add a bit of colour to our report without reneging on our agreement with the EFL.. For fuck's sake...
And if people wonder why some Trust board members don't post here, well maybe the above gives you some clue.
Regardless Prague, if you are going to go into rant mode it’s generally wise to make sure the basis of your rant is correct. From a quick scan you’ve confused two completely different things as a starting point and got the Shirty thing wrong.
Will message when I have more time as a couple of unecessary things there I take issue with. But for the record, I don’t think too many of us care if you wake up with Amy Lewis, Carl Lewis or Seb Lewis whispering in your ear!
RD advised SH that in his opinion miscommunications and protests were not assisting in the sale of the Club. SH didn’t disagree with this.
So was Harvey challenged over this?
Take that to be a no then
This is from PragueAddick on the Trust AGM thread:
So having met Harvey. He represents his clubs, so was never going to indicate any doubts he has about RDs version of events to us. BUT, having met and listened to him I will go out on a limb and say he doesn't believe for one moment that fan protests have put them off. He's from Leeds. He has seen protests at all the clubs. And btw, it might have been a quite smart exercise in flattery, but he knew not just about The Valley Party but that the advertising was "award winning" . He has Charlton fans correctly calibrated in terms of their discipline and restraint, IMO.
So a bit different to what the minutes say then as quoted.
For. Fuck's. Sake.
Don’t see the need for that. I read the line in the minutes in exactly the same way
You don't, eh? Well maybe then my post was not phrased as clearly as it could have been. But you might consider the mitigating circumstances, if so....
My day that day started with Amy Lewis of ITN in my ear as I headed for the 8.30 train, prepping herself for an interview for which she required me to be at City Hall at 13.00. I left my colleagues in a Pret to work on the post EFL statement, and we did the interview. At 5.30 she texted me that she was sorry, but they ( her editors) had told her to cover the breaking Wembley story instead. No coverage of our important proposals. In the meantime I had sat in the room as a GLA AM asked Brady if West Ham would like to buy the Olympic Stadium. I went to two meetings on the issue with legal experts in the City, together with Nigel from the Trust, before we headed straight to the AGM together. No chance of anything to eat beforehand, too busy dealing on the phone, on the Tube, with a fellow Board member unhappy that our statement sounded like we had been too passive. I got back to my Eltham B&B at midnight.
The next morning, as I tried to lie in a bit, @Rob7Lee was warning us on WhatsApp that you and @shirty5 - a perennial non Trust member - were pushing for an answer to your question.
So on the other thread,( believe it or not, I was so knackered that I had forgotten which thread contained what) I posted what I thought would be obvious - to you at least - was my PERSONAL OPINION of what Shaun Harvey might think. Whether it is right or not, the EFL asked that our statement be a straight record of what was actually said at the meeting, not embellished by any interpretation. Quite obviously then, what I wrote was going to be different to what was in the statement, and was provided to try and add a bit of colour to our report without reneging on our agreement with the EFL.. For fuck's sake...
And if people wonder why some Trust board members don't post here, well maybe the above gives you some clue.
Check your records sunshine! I've been a trust member for the past 3 years!!
I can see how, when you’ve put a lot of hours in voluntarily and then you believe (possibly wrongly) that someone else who doesn’t is having a pop at you, you might be a bit more Indiscrete than normal, lose your rag a bit, say things you later may regret, that sort of thing.
Sure nothing serious meant by it though so best to just move on eh?
RD advised SH that in his opinion miscommunications and protests were not assisting in the sale of the Club. SH didn’t disagree with this.
So was Harvey challenged over this?
Take that to be a no then
This is from PragueAddick on the Trust AGM thread:
So having met Harvey. He represents his clubs, so was never going to indicate any doubts he has about RDs version of events to us. BUT, having met and listened to him I will go out on a limb and say he doesn't believe for one moment that fan protests have put them off. He's from Leeds. He has seen protests at all the clubs. And btw, it might have been a quite smart exercise in flattery, but he knew not just about The Valley Party but that the advertising was "award winning" . He has Charlton fans correctly calibrated in terms of their discipline and restraint, IMO.
So a bit different to what the minutes say then as quoted.
For. Fuck's. Sake.
Don’t see the need for that. I read the line in the minutes in exactly the same way
You don't, eh? Well maybe then my post was not phrased as clearly as it could have been. But you might consider the mitigating circumstances, if so....
My day that day started with Amy Lewis of ITN in my ear as I headed for the 8.30 train, prepping herself for an interview for which she required me to be at City Hall at 13.00. I left my colleagues in a Pret to work on the post EFL statement, and we did the interview. At 5.30 she texted me that she was sorry, but they ( her editors) had told her to cover the breaking Wembley story instead. No coverage of our important proposals. In the meantime I had sat in the room as a GLA AM asked Brady if West Ham would like to buy the Olympic Stadium. I went to two meetings on the issue with legal experts in the City, together with Nigel from the Trust, before we headed straight to the AGM together. No chance of anything to eat beforehand, too busy dealing on the phone, on the Tube, with a fellow Board member unhappy that our statement sounded like we had been too passive. I got back to my Eltham B&B at midnight.
The next morning, as I tried to lie in a bit, @Rob7Lee was warning us on WhatsApp that you and @shirty5 - a perennial non Trust member - were pushing for an answer to your question.
So on the other thread,( believe it or not, I was so knackered that I had forgotten which thread contained what) I posted what I thought would be obvious - to you at least - was my PERSONAL OPINION of what Shaun Harvey might think. Whether it is right or not, the EFL asked that our statement be a straight record of what was actually said at the meeting, not embellished by any interpretation. Quite obviously then, what I wrote was going to be different to what was in the statement, and was provided to try and add a bit of colour to our report without reneging on our agreement with the EFL.. For fuck's sake...
And if people wonder why some Trust board members don't post here, well maybe the above gives you some clue.
But for the record, I don’t think too many of us care if you wake up with Amy Lewis, Carl Lewis or Seb Lewis whispering in your ear!
Comments
My day that day started with Amy Lewis of ITN in my ear as I headed for the 8.30 train, prepping herself for an interview for which she required me to be at City Hall at 13.00. I left my colleagues in a Pret to work on the post EFL statement, and we did the interview. At 5.30 she texted me that she was sorry, but they ( her editors) had told her to cover the breaking Wembley story instead. No coverage of our important proposals. In the meantime I had sat in the room as a GLA AM asked Brady if West Ham would like to buy the Olympic Stadium. I went to two meetings on the issue with legal experts in the City, together with Nigel from the Trust, before we headed straight to the AGM together. No chance of anything to eat beforehand, too busy dealing on the phone, on the Tube, with a fellow Board member unhappy that our statement sounded like we had been too passive. I got back to my Eltham B&B at midnight.
The next morning, as I tried to lie in a bit, @Rob7Lee was warning us on WhatsApp that you and @shirty5 - a perennial non Trust member - were pushing for an answer to your question.
So on the other thread,( believe it or not, I was so knackered that I had forgotten which thread contained what) I posted what I thought would be obvious - to you at least - was my PERSONAL OPINION of what Shaun Harvey might think. Whether it is right or not, the EFL asked that our statement be a straight record of what was actually said at the meeting, not embellished by any interpretation. Quite obviously then, what I wrote was going to be different to what was in the statement, and was provided to try and add a bit of colour to our report without reneging on our agreement with the EFL.. For fuck's sake...
And if people wonder why some Trust board members don't post here, well maybe the above gives you some clue.
(I've wanted to say that for ages).
@shirty5 is a member of 3 years and yet even as a member is treated with suspicion and the subject of what's app between board and ex board members
The WhatsApp was from me (it’s how the board generally keep in touch day to day) asking if one of those who attended the meeting could answer AFKA’s question about the Tuesday Rambling’s being raised or not as at that point I didn’t know the answer.
Had I known that, I would not have reacted in such strong terms. However your "take that as a no then" comment was a bit much for me when we had all had a bloody long day. Then your comment re my remarks about Harvey seemed to me to be trying to suggest that different Trust people were saying different things, and I thought I'd made it clear that I was just offering my own personal opinion on that question.
I dont know whether you were at the AGM yourself because I dont know your real name but I'd have been happy afterwards to have discussed with you what I made of that meet. Again would have been just my personal opinion, but they are always much better face to face, less room for misunderstanding, sunshine.
Will message when I have more time as a couple of unecessary things there I take issue with. But for the record, I don’t think too many of us care if you wake up with Amy Lewis, Carl Lewis or Seb Lewis whispering in your ear!
Sure nothing serious meant by it though so best to just move on eh?