[Uncle Travelling Matt]

Originally Posted by real red Had to get this off my chest, and it's not aimed at anyone personally, or even suggesting that anyone is acting as they are for anything other than the good of the club. - - - - - - - Wasn't the vote at the last meeting that said dialogue with owners or potential owners carried with the proviso all meetings were minuted, the contents were not kept secret? Not trying to stir up trouble, but surely a meeting with Hicks done in this way would raise no end of complaints about what was said or not said, what sweeteners might have been offered and so on? I think that's something like the way the comments went before that vote at the meeting anyway. Staveley represents an investment firm that has used dubious tactics to try and win fans over (Tony Barrett's piece about the Sheikh being a boyhood Red for example) that might have an LFC-wallpaper-using CEO but is still a company looking to make itself richer out of us. I understand the conflict between insisting everything's on the record and actually not getting a meeting with them at all, but I think if you're going to announce you've had such meetings, or you or they are going to let it leak, that such meetings should be put on record. Personally I trust them only marginally more than Tom Hicks, but far more than George Gillett. I've not fully made up my mind where Parry sits in this tree of shite, but he's sharing a branch with David Moores. The "we were also told DIC hold the manager in high regard" is an example of why the meeting should either have been kept completely confidential, or thoroughly minuted. It's a nothing statement. It's a David Bick style statement. Did it have a "but" on the end? I've also noticed some inaccuracies creeping into some of the statements and quotes attributed to SoS, which I think as supporters who have seen what innacuracies in reporting can do, we should never, ever, even dream of going down the road of. The selective quoting, the mis-quoting, the quotes going to the wrong person. Throwing a claim onto a forum to back up what you think of someone is all well and good. But unfortunately those who are in positions of responsibility need to be telling the truth and checking their facts. Maybe it makes no difference, because maybe he's going down anyway. I suppose it depends on how you feel about people being judged on the truth, rather than the version of it that fits the aims of those claiming the 'truth'. Maybe that's how the police got away with stuff against the IRA in the past. In some cases they thought they knew who was guilty, they had almost enough proof, but just to be on the safe side they added a bit more. And nobody was bothered, after all, it was only someone everybody hated. It can only have really been DIC and Parry that told us through the media from December onwards about the financial troubles that Hicks and Gillett had. In the end we believed it. And now, we want to make sure there's no doubt, so just to be on the safe side we add a bit more evidence. We even now find we can ignore Gillett's 'crimes', he's made a plea bargain and what a great guy he is for doing so. Even Parry's sentence will be lowered if he can help send this guy down. All of them should be judged on the truth. Whether we like them or not. Because then, in ten or twenty years' time, we can tell our kids or grandkids that we weren't part of something that we should all be ashamed of. If not, then we'd better not ever expect the truth to work for us again. Ever.

SOS are doing a good job but you are so spot on. They should get you on board as their PR man.