Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

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

1246

Comments

  • Scoham
    Scoham Posts: 37,752
    razil said:

    http://www.castrust.org/2014/02/report-richard-murray-qa-13214/

    would appreciate if peeps could hold off pasting this for now

    Thanks for that
  • Richard J
    Richard J Posts: 8,040
    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.
  • charente addick
    charente addick Posts: 3,850
    Thanks for this - sounds promising
  • mistrollingin
    mistrollingin Posts: 3,868
    Very encouraged by this,
  • PL54
    PL54 Posts: 10,757
    Many thanks for the write-up
  • kings hill addick
    kings hill addick Posts: 5,781
    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?
  • falconwood_1
    falconwood_1 Posts: 7,369
    edited February 2014
    Looks a very diverse and IT heavy crowd?
  • Davo55
    Davo55 Posts: 7,859
    Great read, thanks. Sounds like a good evening.

    But who are all the old fat guys in the audience? :-)
  • LargeAddick
    LargeAddick Posts: 32,958
    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?
    wouldn't be the first time

  • Richard J
    Richard J Posts: 8,040
    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.




  • Sponsored links:



  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,792
    edited February 2014
    LargeAddick 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?
    wouldn't be the first time

    I wasn't there and therefore I don't know exactly what he said. I know Steve's claim was not settled at the point fans were told the club had been taken over. If in fact the takeover was completed much later than people think then it's possible what it's reported he said was accurate. It is not true that the claim was settled prior to or on January 3rd and if people took that meaning and it was intended then they have been misled.
  • Kap10
    Kap10 Posts: 15,641
    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?
  • EastTerrace
    EastTerrace Posts: 3,972
    falconwood_1 said:

    Looks a very diverse and IT heavy crowd?

    Looks like a nursing home, especially the old fella on the right with the white hair.
  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,792
    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.
  • PL54
    PL54 Posts: 10,757
    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 ?
  • Kap10
    Kap10 Posts: 15,641
    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.
  • shirty5
    shirty5 Posts: 19,424
    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 ?
    Legal letters!! Unbelievable
  • MattTeesHeader
    MattTeesHeader Posts: 634
    edited February 2014
    Many thanks for the report. Many interesting points
  • The Red Robin
    The Red Robin Posts: 26,365
    I just hope RD doesn't try to do it on the cheap too much. That could cost us our league status this season.
  • Richard J
    Richard J Posts: 8,040
    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.

  • Sponsored links:



  • clb74
    clb74 Posts: 10,836
    EastTerrace said:


    falconwood_1 said:

    Looks a very diverse and IT heavy crowd?

    Looks like a nursing home, especially the old fella on the right with the white hair.
    the one with the glasses on
  • Athletico Charlton
    Athletico Charlton Posts: 14,423
    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
    Redrobo Posts: 11,343
    Can any one help me to log onto the trust site. My password did not work so I asked for reset. I then get an email telling me to log on site. I put user name and press button to re set password. I then get an email and round and round I go.
  • razil
    razil Posts: 15,041
    @redrobo email membership@castrust.org
  • Fanny Fanackapan
    Fanny Fanackapan Posts: 18,815
    Thanks for the write up, guys.

    This is very much in line with questions that were asked at the recent FF meeting and sounds as though Lifers there last night came away with lighter hearts as I did 2 weeks ago.
  • Redrobo
    Redrobo Posts: 11,343
    razil said:

    @redrobo email membership@castrust.org

    Thanks.

  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,484
    Thanks for the write up.
  • SOTF
    SOTF Posts: 1,155
    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.
  • Im_Jordans_Cousin
    Im_Jordans_Cousin Posts: 449
    To be fair, I'm not too sure that there was anything said last night that would cause trouble should it get out.
  • Davo55
    Davo55 Posts: 7,859
    edited February 2014
    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.

Categories

“Marketplace”