SOS Minutes with Purslow meeting

[redrosetints]

I think you're overstating our sense of outrage. There really isn't any - if it looks like there is from my posts then I apologise.

 

The point you highlighted was really us addressing the issue about his clumsy attempt to rewrite the minute. That's all.

 

What he said gave new, confirmed information to the fans and as time goes on and there are no ramifications from this for him we'll see where the true power currently lies.

 

This must all be good for the Club and fans.

 

I've quoted you furhter down suggesting he sue you, hardly a harmonious way forward is it ? Indeed, its the sort of thing that one would expect from a bully like HIcks, not a uniion rep.

 

I Totally understand what you want to achieve and I respect that, however, there seems to be no understanding of how these things work.

 

Lets suppose Purslow is genuine and disgusted with G&T, by releasing the minutes you have and by calling him a liar you have instantly put a wedge between you and the top of the club. If Purslow is genuine, then he wants what we want, therefore, shoudlnt SoS stop and think about the consequences of its actions, shouldnt you follow his lead ?

 

What happens if we dont get the 100m, the owners leave, rejoice, but what doesn that mean in reality ? Its not in our interests for the club to go into administration is it ? Is that a possibility ? If the owners cant pay, who is liable for the debt ? Is it G&T, or is it the club ? If RBS take over, willl that mean they have to sell Gerrard and Torres to get their 100m ? as far as Im concerned, there is alot to be worried about.

 

Therefore we, the club, need that 100m just as much as the owners do. Your notes and I believe they are genuine, state clearly that the banks want them gone, he wants them gone and they need 100m quick sharp, so what do you think that will do to the price an investor is wiling to pay ? It will go south.

 

I firmly believe Puslow knew you'd release the notes as is, therefore IM sure its all part of his plan, I just think that the reaction of the SoS memebers on here, seems to be highly critical of Purslow, when in fact we should be pleased that someone at this level has such a clear understanding of how w, the fans feel.

[Durango]

Will I be joiing a union whose MO is so outdated, naive and juvenile that they cant even see the wood for the trees ? no thank you very much.

 

A top exec has been more candid with you than you could ever have imagined and instead of recognising this and embracing him, you are now out to shoot him down ?

 

In making these comments, doesnt it make him on 'our' side, ie that he wants rid of G&T too ? In which case why put his positon in possible danger ?

 

Or do you think it was all lies and just bullshit ?

 

Its absoutley astonishing the lack of savvy you have.

 

What next a witch hunt for King Kenny, cos he's trying to help the club out ? Oh sorry, yeah, thats already started .....

You don't even go the game,and your lecturing people who do.

 

Go on,you've had your 15 minutes,run along

[Graham Smith]

Exactly right in my opinioin. I really and honestly cannot see what harm it would have done to have listened to this "Off the record" detail he so obviously was desperate to impart.

 

I'm not having a go at them, it's a decision they made early in the process.

 

If I was to offer any constructive criticism it would be that perhaps they should now revisit that decision.

 

I think that is right and I think it will be discussed at the AGM.

 

If we want some dialogue with investors prior to any sale then they and Purslow need some certainty that we are able to meet with them confidentially.

 

Ultimately the members will decide if this is what we should do.

[Graham Smith]

I've quoted you furhter down suggesting he sue you, hardly a harmonious way forward is it ? Indeed, its the sort of thing that one would expect from a bully like HIcks, not a uniion rep.

 

I Totally understand what you want to achieve and I respect that, however, there seems to be no understanding of how these things work.

 

Lets suppose Purslow is genuine and disgusted with G&T, by releasing the minutes you have and by calling him a liar you have instantly put a wedge between you and the top of the club. If Purslow is genuine, then he wants what we want, therefore, shoudlnt SoS stop and think about the consequences of its actions, shouldnt you follow his lead ?

 

What happens if we dont get the 100m, the owners leave, rejoice, but what doesn that mean in reality ? Its not in our interests for the club to go into administration is it ? Is that a possibility ? If the owners cant pay, who is liable for the debt ? Is it G&T, or is it the club ? If RBS take over, willl that mean they have to sell Gerrard and Torres to get their 100m ? as far as Im concerned, there is alot to be worried about.

 

Therefore we, the club, need that 100m just as much as the owners do. Your notes and I believe they are genuine, state clearly that the banks want them gone, he wants them gone and they need 100m quick sharp, so what do you think that will do to the price an investor is wiling to pay ? It will go south.

 

I firmly believe Puslow knew you'd release the notes as is, therefore IM sure its all part of his plan, I just think that the reaction of the SoS memebers on here, seems to be highly critical of Purslow, when in fact we should be pleased that someone at this level has such a clear understanding of how w, the fans feel.

 

If it was part of a plan then it was a pretty clumsy way of doing it.

[redrosetints]

At the end of the day we'll presumably get crucified by our members at the AGM in three weeks for how we have handled this. The membership that has grown by over 100 in the last day and a half.

 

If he was so canny don't you think there was a better way to "use" us if that's what you think he was doing?

 

Or even if he just wanted to share information then as a "top exec" talking to 12 "ordinary" people should he not of said "Listen lads, this is how this meeting is going to work, and this is how it is going to be reported afterwards" - presumably that's what "top execs" do?

 

Not leave the whole thing unregulated, unstructured and lose control of the message?

 

He choose this route effectively and there's little chance of him being walked off the job and no way you can characterise what we have done or our responses on sites as a witch hunt.

 

However, his denials of what he said diminish him in my eyes as he knows what he said and how he said it and that's why he won't take it any further because what we published was the truth.

 

You see thats my issue, not about what he said or didnt say, but that your opinion of the man has been lowered, inspite him having the balls to meet 12 of you on his own and be totally honest with you and make it clear he's on our side.

 

Of course he is denying saying what he said, as clearly, noone would say about their bosses. As RobboRiise so eloquently pointed out, there are things you'll say to immediate work colleagues that you'd never say or phrase in that way to senior management.

 

Ultimaltey, whats more important for the club ? That we have a CEO who wants rid fo the owners and who has our best intersts at heart, or dislking the CSO cos you feel he's not being totally honest about something he said, which no sane person would say on record about their boss ?

 

In the grand scheme of things, knowing, if you beleive him, that he wants them gone is far, far more important and worth focussing on.

[Durango]

You see thats my issue, not about what he said or didnt say, but that your opinion of the man has been lowered, inspite him having the balls to meet 12 of you on his own and be totally honest with you and make it clear he's on our side.

 

Of course he is denying saying what he said, as clearly, noone would say about their bosses. As RobboRiise so eloquently pointed out, there are things you'll say to immediate work colleagues that you'd never say or phrase in that way to senior management.

 

Ultimaltey, whats more important for the club ? That we have a CEO who wants rid fo the owners and who has our best intersts at heart, or dislking the CSO cos you feel he's not being totally honest about something he said, which no sane person would say on record about their boss ?

 

In the grand scheme of things, knowing, if you beleive him, that he wants them gone is far, far more important and worth focussing on.

What you forget is that, Hicks and Gillett aren't Purslow's boss

[redrosetints]

Professionalism? Reputation?

 

Or maybe he believes that the inflammatory comments could affect the search for investment?

 

Exactly, which means perhaps it wasnt such a good idea to publish them 'warts n all' afterall, since the club needs investment.

 

Purslow has clearly laid out the marker, that it will be at least 34% and less than 100m for any new investor, but what happens if we dont get investment ? Maybe Id not be so bothered if I thought that were a better scenario, are we better off owned by Watchiovo (or what they are called) and RBS than G&H ? What happens is investment isnt found by July.

[Graham Smith]

You see thats my issue, not about what he said or didnt say, but that your opinion of the man has been lowered, inspite him having the balls to meet 12 of you on his own and be totally honest with you and make it clear he's on our side.

 

Of course he is denying saying what he said, as clearly, noone would say about their bosses. As RobboRiise so eloquently pointed out, there are things you'll say to immediate work colleagues that you'd never say or phrase in that way to senior management.

 

Ultimaltey, whats more important for the club ? That we have a CEO who wants rid fo the owners and who has our best intersts at heart, or dislking the CSO cos you feel he's not being totally honest about something he said, which no sane person would say on record about their boss ?

 

In the grand scheme of things, knowing, if you beleive him, that he wants them gone is far, far more important and worth focussing on.

 

Don't misconstrue criticism of his clumsiness and him taking to the press denying he said things as a sign that he's completely damned in our eyes - he isn't.

 

We'll be back in touch with the club to find out what he wante to do going forward. It may well be he's just been looking for an excuse to get rid of us and this is it. But if so, it will be to his detriment.

[HJohal]

At the end of the day we'll presumably get crucified by our members at the AGM in three weeks for how we have handled this. The membership that has grown by over 100 in the last day and a half.

 

If he was so canny don't you think there was a better way to "use" us if that's what you think he was doing?

 

Or even if he just wanted to share information then as a "top exec" talking to 12 "ordinary" people should he not of said "Listen lads, this is how this meeting is going to work, and this is how it is going to be reported afterwards" - presumably that's what "top execs" do?

 

Not leave the whole thing unregulated, unstructured and lose control of the message?

 

He choose this route effectively and there's little chance of him being walked off the job and no way you can characterise what we have done or our responses on sites as a witch hunt.

 

However, his denials of what he said diminish him in my eyes as he knows what he said and how he said it and that's why he won't take it any further because what we published was the truth.

 

To be fair Graham there is an argument to be made that Purslow wanted SoS to aware of the information so it could be made available to the 'real fans' directly. For obvious reasons he cannot confirm excatly what he said as it would damage his relationship with the owners in the short term. However the end result is that fans through SoS have a far better understanding/confirmation of what is now going on at the football club - that can only be a good thing. It is now either a matter of how SoS can support Purlsow following his comments or continuing upon the current path based on this new information and the validity of it - i am sure this will be discussed at the AGM in depth.

Edited February 4, 2010 by HJohal

[WaltonRed]

I'm lost.

 

Why are people giving SOS loads about this?

[Graham Smith]

To be fair Graham there is an argument to be made that Purslow wanted SoS to aware of the information so it could be made available to the 'real fans' directly. For obvious reasons he cannot confirm excatly what he said as it would damage his relationship with the owners in the short term. However the end result is that fans through SoS have a far better understanding/confirmation of what is now going on at the football club - that can only be a good thing. It is now either a matter of how SoS can support Purlsow following his comments or continuing upon the current path based on this new information and the validity of it - i am sure this will be discussed at the AGM in depth.

 

Hugely clumsy way of doing it.

[zigackly]

I'm lost.

 

Why are people giving SOS loads about this?

 

In my opinion it's guilt that they are doing nothing themselves and a feeling they can't have any dialogue with the owners so they transfer their anger onto the easiest target.

[redrosetints]

He isn't stupid. He knew about it. As I have said a few times in this thread, he could have said take those couple of lines out as it puts my job at risk or something like that and we would have been having a different discussion on Monday night, but instead he did a complete rewrite. He let him know what we were going to be doing then. We haven't heard anything else so far from him. Trust is a two way thing as well, so he should have been honest about his rewrite to us if he had any worries about it.

 

As has been said, disagrements over minutes are common place as they are the interpretation of the minute taker. Are th SOS minutes verbatum or one of your lads interpretation of what CP said ? There is a huge difference.

[Kennys_spell]

You don't even go the game,and your lecturing people who do.

 

Go on,you've had your 15 minutes,run along

 

That just seems to be inflamatory. He has an opinion - isn't that what is supposed to be aired on these boards?

 

What state would the Union be in if it turned away ""Non match going fans"?

 

No need.

[Kennys_spell]

At the end of the day we'll presumably get crucified by our members at the AGM in three weeks for how we have handled this. The membership that has grown by over 100 in the last day and a half.

 

If he was so canny don't you think there was a better way to "use" us if that's what you think he was doing?

 

Or even if he just wanted to share information then as a "top exec" talking to 12 "ordinary" people should he not of said "Listen lads, this is how this meeting is going to work, and this is how it is going to be reported afterwards" - presumably that's what "top execs" do?

 

Not leave the whole thing unregulated, unstructured and lose control of the message?

 

He choose this route effectively and there's little chance of him being walked off the job and no way you can characterise what we have done or our responses on sites as a witch hunt.

 

However, his denials of what he said diminish him in my eyes as he knows what he said and how he said it and that's why he won't take it any further because what we published was the truth.

 

I hope thats not the case because when the minutes were posted (Both sets) they lifted my spirits no end. In terms of the current situation at our club it seems now as if it is just a matter of time. I didn't have that view before you posted the meeting minutes. So thanks for that.

 

I think most of the comments that have been posted have been constructive criticism. Perhaps they could have been presented better but overall I think everyone is happy with the information that this meeting has brought into the public domain.

 

Thanks for your (and PeeG) efforts.

[redrosetints]

You don't even go the game,and your lecturing people who do.

 

Go on,you've had your 15 minutes,run along

 

And to think som eof those green lights were given to you by me, how silly I was.

[redrosetints]

Don't misconstrue criticism of his clumsiness and him taking to the press denying he said things as a sign that he's completely damned in our eyes - he isn't.

 

We'll be back in touch with the club to find out what he wante to do going forward. It may well be he's just been looking for an excuse to get rid of us and this is it. But if so, it will be to his detriment.

 

"It will be to his detriment" ? Jees who is the egotist now ?

 

For all the work you do Graham, Im afrid, you and the people in SoS will not be the ones to save our club, unless you can get access to £100m. FACT. Same at United, same at newcastle, Portsmouth and every other club in debt. It will be men in suits.

 

Now we either get one who is on our side embrace him and encourage him or we push him aside and let god knows who into the fray to do god knows what.

 

You said earlier you were a solicitor, do you prosecute of defend ? When defedning do yo uinsist on honesty all the time ? No, so you know how these things work, you seem to be forgetting this isnt about the little man on the ground feeling improtant, its about the men in suits getting proper and right owners for the club. Was John Houlding a little man of the people ? no he fucked his club off to create a new one, for rent money.

[zigackly]

Tell you what fella, why don't you bring this up at the next SOS meeting?

[redrosetints]

Tell you what fella, why don't you bring this up at the SOS AGM?

 

Mate, answer me this, what will rid us of our owners ? People shouting and stamoping their feet, or someone with 100m ?

 

With SoS not able to have access to those people, I suggest we use what little faith we have left in giving Purslow 100% support.

 

Noone seems to doubt what he said, in that he is a fan and he wants G&T gone, so isnt that enough ?

[zigackly]

Why should I trust Purslow when it's obvious from this episode that he is either incompetent or playing dishonest games with people?

 

You want people to discard a mechanism for holding the club to account which is clearly working, because you are ready to plight your troth to some faceless suit?

 

Not. A. Chance.

[Jack the Sipper]

At the end of the day we'll presumably get crucified by our members at the AGM in three weeks for how we have handled this. The membership that has grown by over 100 in the last day and a half.

 

If he was so canny don't you think there was a better way to "use" us if that's what you think he was doing?

 

Or even if he just wanted to share information then as a "top exec" talking to 12 "ordinary" people should he not of said "Listen lads, this is how this meeting is going to work, and this is how it is going to be reported afterwards" - presumably that's what "top execs" do?

 

Not leave the whole thing unregulated, unstructured and lose control of the message?

 

He choose this route effectively and there's little chance of him being walked off the job and no way you can characterise what we have done or our responses on sites as a witch hunt.

 

However, his denials of what he said diminish him in my eyes as he knows what he said and how he said it and that's why he won't take it any further because what we published was the truth.

 

Hi,

 

I read the first few pages of this thread the other day, and have just come back to it, so apologies if this has already been discussed, but, what exactly was agreed regarding the release of the minutes prior to the meeting? Was Purslow made aware (before the meeting) that SOS could publish thier own minutes, or was it agreed that no minutes would be published without an agreement between SOS and Purslow as to what should be published?

[PeeG]

Hi,

 

I read the first few pages of this thread the other day, and have just come back to it, so apologies if this has already been discussed, but, what exactly was agreed regarding the release of the minutes prior to the meeting? Was Purslow made aware (before the meeting) that SOS could publish thier own minutes, or was it agreed that no minutes would be published without an agreement between SOS and Purslow as to what should be published?

 

It has been gone over many times in the thread this. Purslow was aware before, during and after the meeting that it was all on record and that we would try to agree the minutes. With the delay, he was then made aware of intention to release our minutes and with only minutes to spare he got back to us. The two versions were far from close to be able to come to an agreement and we informed Purslow via Ian Ayre of our course of action. He was aware at every stage of the process what was happening and what would happen.

[PeeG]

Mate, answer me this, what will rid us of our owners ? People shouting and stamoping their feet, or someone with 100m ?

 

With SoS not able to have access to those people, I suggest we use what little faith we have left in giving Purslow 100% support.

 

Noone seems to doubt what he said, in that he is a fan and he wants G&T gone, so isnt that enough ?

 

Its both. There is a role to play for both parties there. It wasn't known before these minutes were released that this £100m was a requirement by the banks. The figure was widely spread, but not known that it was a requirement. This gives the investors the chance to make Hicks and Gillett realise that their valuation is unrealistic as Purslow stated. By putting more and more pressure on Hicks and Gillett as well we hope that this will speed up the process. Even when you just take into account what has happened in the last month with these minutes, Bolton after game protest and Hicks Jr's resignation, it shows there we can play an important role in this.

[Delmar]

Mate, answer me this, what will rid us of our owners ? People shouting and stamoping their feet, or someone with 100m ?

 

Neither. It takes someone with 400 million +, and then someone should build the stadium to change the situation in the club.

 

With SoS not able to have access to those people, I suggest we use what little faith we have left in giving Purslow 100% support.

 

How exactly has he earned 100% support by anyone? By saying something in a meeting and then denying it?

 

Noone seems to doubt what he said, in that he is a fan and he wants G&T gone, so isnt that enough ?

 

I don't doubt too much that he said these things, I do not know his motives, so it is not enough for me.

[coop]

What you forget is that, Hicks and Gillett aren't Purslow's boss

 

The final decision to get rid of Purslow rests with Hicks and Gillett.

 

The removal of Purslow is not what we fans should want as regardless of your feelings towards the man he is the one more likely to get rid of the current owners.

 

If they want rid they can do but at this moment in time its more important he remains to continue talks with the investors.

 

As regards if the club fell into the hands of RBS they would not sell Torres etc to make the cash but would basically sell to the highest bidder whilst i presume going after Hicks and Gillett for the shortfall.