CAS Trust: Murray Q&A Feb 13th, Counting House EC3

Excellent evening well done to the Trust for putting it on. Enjoyed meeting a few fellow lifers there.I did drink a lot more than I planned to,so much for staying dry midweek.

The excellent write up means you will not need my drunken reminisces,Richard Murray did ask for discretion, as I live in East London the venue worked very well for me .

As a VIP I look forward to 6 March.

Very encouraged by this,

Airman Brown said:

As a witness in Steve Kavanagh's claim and consequently someone who has been aware of the situation throughout, I can say categorically that it is not true this was settled prior to the takeover being announced.

Is there a difference between the 'takeover being announced' and the 'take-over' as described in the article on the Trust's web site? Is it possible that the case was settled after the takeover was announced but before it was completed?

If not, are you suggesting that Richard mislead the fans last night?

Great read, thanks. Sounds like a good evening.

But who are all the old fat guys in the audience? :-)

kings hill addick said:

Airman Brown said:

As a witness in Steve Kavanagh's claim and consequently someone who has been aware of the situation throughout, I can say categorically that it is not true this was settled prior to the takeover being announced.

Is there a difference between the 'takeover being announced' and the 'take-over' as described in the article on the Trust's web site? Is it possible that the case was settled after the takeover was announced but before it was completed?

If not, are you suggesting that Richard mislead the fans last night?

This is why RM asked for things to be kept private last night.He said that at a previous supporters meeting last year he got served with legal letters based on some of his comments. He didn't want to be quoted out of context and asked the audience to keep his confidence .It was agreed that the Trust would provide a report on their website.

I certainly found the meeting fascinating and I thought he was quite open and candid about these issues.It is my recollection that he confirmed that Kavanagh's case had been settled but didn't specify when.

The fact though is that the case has been settled, isn't it? I am not sure what the implications are if the timing was slightly before or slightly after the takeover. Is it a case of questioning RM's integrity? Or a need to set the record one hundred percent straight?

Kap10 said:

The fact though is that the case has been settled, isn't it? I am not sure what the implications are if the timing was slightly before or slightly after the takeover. Is it a case of questioning RM's integrity? Or a need to set the record one hundred percent straight?

Why bother reporting something in the first place if it's not accurate? Why bother saying it if it's not true? I don't think the timing is particularly important, but I didn't introduce it.

Airman Brown said:

Kap10 said:

The fact though is that the case has been settled, isn't it? I am not sure what the implications are if the timing was slightly before or slightly after the takeover. Is it a case of questioning RM's integrity? Or a need to set the record one hundred percent straight?

Why bother reporting something in the first place if it's not accurate? Why bother saying it if it's not true? I don't think the timing is particularly important, but I didn't introduce it.

So you were just putting the record straight. Thats all I asked.

Many thanks for the report. Many interesting points

PL54 said:

Richard J said:

kings hill addick said:

Airman Brown said:

As a witness in Steve Kavanagh's claim and consequently someone who has been aware of the situation throughout, I can say categorically that it is not true this was settled prior to the takeover being announced.

Is there a difference between the 'takeover being announced' and the 'take-over' as described in the article on the Trust's web site? Is it possible that the case was settled after the takeover was announced but before it was completed?

If not, are you suggesting that Richard mislead the fans last night?

This is why RM asked for things to be kept private last night.He said that at a previous supporters meeting last year he got served with legal letters based on some of his comments. He didn't want to be quoted out of context and asked the audience to keep his confidence .It was agreed that the Trust would provide a report on their website.

I certainly found the meeting fascinating and I thought he was quite open and candid about these issues.It is my recollection that he confirmed that Kavanagh's case had been settled but didn't specify when.

What ?

He was referring to the Bromley meeting last May ,that is why I want to keep to being discreet about what was said last night.I hope RM continues the dialogue.

We cannot on the one hand complain when Tony Jiminez never meets anyone and then when Richard Murray does and is open and candid criticise him.It is inappropriate for the detail of the employment matters to be discussed in such an arena but I was reassured that SK's case is now settled which as a fan is all we need to know.

Davo55 said:

Great read, thanks. Sounds like a good evening.

But who are all the old fat guys in the audience? :-)

I'm not old.

@redrobo email membership@castrust.org

razil said:

@redrobo email membership@castrust.org

Thanks.

Getting ready for the abuse that will follow this no doubt...

I'm struggling to understand why a trust representing the fans - who pay for membership - would arrange a meeting with a member of the board, and agree not to fully disclose the content of the meeting.

Surely when only 50 of the 1000 odd members are present, you are neglecting 95% of your membership base?

I get why you can't post it here, or on a public domain, but surely it should be in made available to those members who request it.

No disrepect intended for the hardwork you've done to get this off the ground, but you are representing your members, not Richard Murray.

I don't know what RM said last night (other than what is in the write up) but I doubt it was anything very juicy. No way would (or should) the club chairman take a risk on one of those present breaching the confidence.

Also, there must be a number of attendees above which RM would deem it inappropriate to say anything off the record. If he is prepared to give a nod and a wink to 50, what about 75, or 100, or 150 etc?

By the way, I don't have a problem at all with those who make it to the meeting being treated to a few mild additional tid-bits. Sure, some fans including me find it very difficult to travel into London at that time but that's the rub of the green.