SOS Minutes with Purslow meeting

[PeeG]

Of course he does' date=' he has a relationship with those two wankers to maintain, and a professional reputation to uphold.

 

I think it's a bit of a PR boo boo by SOS printing what he allegedly said (and I do believe he said it), I think it would have been more helpful not printing them, but I'm not going to cry bitch and moan about it.

 

The Union is doing a good job, and needs more backing.[/quote']

 

That is the type of thing the Oldham Echo do, not SOS.

[Hermes]

Of course he does' date=' he has a relationship with those two wankers to maintain, and a professional reputation to uphold.

 

[/quote']

 

Why, if they don't employ him?

 

How does lying about what was said in the meeting uphold his professional reputation?

['Kaka]

He isn't necessarily the best way, we have now unlocked the key information about the £100m being a requirement for investors. We couldn't just become a mouthpiece for Purslow. That is not what I signed up to do.

 

He'll always be the link man though, clearly. I just think it would have been better keeping him onside. Omitting the remarks about the owners but printing everything else wouldn't have meant you were a mouthpiece in any way IMO.

 

But please don't take what I said the wrong way, once again, thanks to you and Graham and the rest of SOS.

[Ring of Fire]

Of course he does' date=' he has a relationship with those two wankers to maintain, and a professional reputation to uphold.

 

I think it's a bit of a PR boo boo by SOS printing what he allegedly said (and I do believe he said it), I think it would have been more helpful not printing them, but I'm not going to cry bitch and moan about it.

 

The Union is doing a good job, and needs more backing.[/quote']

 

I have to disagree fella. The press reaction in the last 2 hours would not have happened and those still not educated into what they have done/are doing to the club would still be blissfully unaware. It has also proved to some doubters that SOS is a union that can make a difference.

[shaunstrudwick]

yes - well done chaps

['Kaka]

After announcing the meeting and him behaving as he did - what was our realistic alternative?

 

"Listen everyone, we sat there for an hour or so took minutes but can't agree them or release anything."

 

Yeah, quite rightly our members and the forgiving non-members would have slaughtered us - you've gone native.

 

There's one "villain" in this and it isn't SOS.

 

Easy tiger. As I've just said in response to Pee G, I do think you could have left those remarks out without lessoning the seriousness of the rest of his comments and the situation we're in.

 

As I said, I fully appreciate what you're doing, and I'll be behind it every step of the way in whatever way I can.

[PeeG]

He'll always be the link man though' date=' clearly. I just think it would have been better keeping him onside. Omitting the remarks about the owners but printing everything else wouldn't have meant you were a mouthpiece in any way IMO.

 

But please don't take what I said the wrong way, once again, thanks to you and Graham and the rest of SOS.[/quote']

 

If he came back to us and said, "look, take that line out as I may lose my job" then things would have been looked at differently. Instead it was a complete rewrite near enough of the meeting.

[Brownie]

You think he's that naive to make those comments then try to retract them when he knows they're going to appear all over the internet?

 

Well as people are claiming, he could possibly of wanted to make people aware of the real situation, whilst also covering his own back?

 

I'm pontificating here; I have as much clue about the motives as you do.

[Graham Smith]

Easy tiger. As I've just said in response to Pee G' date=' I do think you could have left those remarks out without lessoning the seriousness of the rest of his comments and the situation we're in.

 

As I said, I fully appreciate what you're doing, and I'll be behind it every step of the way in whatever way I can.[/quote']

 

Just re-read my post.

 

The "native" bit should have been in quotations- it is what we would have been accused of - I wasn't accusing you.

 

Apologies if that's what you thought.

[Hermes]

Well as people are claiming, he could possibly of wanted to make people aware of the real situation, whilst also covering his own back?

 

I'm pontificating here; I have as much clue about the motives as you do.

 

Would you have done it and still expect to employed?

 

Think about it. He'd be writing his own dismissal letter.

['Kaka]

That is the type of thing the Oldham Echo do, not SOS.

 

Mate, far be it for me to preach this, but is it not in the best interests of the Union to keep key players onside? I just don't see how releasing those comments, whether he made them officially, off the record whatever, can help your ties with him.

 

He is what he is, a money man there to keep the club in the black and keep the good ship Anfield from capsizing, but I do not see him as an enemy of either the club or of SOS.

 

Personally.

['Kaka]

If he came back to us and said, "look, take that line out as I may lose my job" then things would have been looked at differently. Instead it was a complete rewrite near enough of the meeting.

 

Which is why I said just those remarks. I don't know, call it a good will gesture, a favour. The rest of the comments are hugely damaging to those two fuckers, I just truly believe this could burn a bridge.

 

What has been his reaction to the Union about your version of events if you don't mind me asking?

[Brownie]

Would you have done it and still expect to employed?

 

Think about it. He'd be writing his own dismissal letter.

 

Not if he's employed by RBS. Just consider the possiblity that he may have wanted the 'real' situation into the public domain to hasten the owners departure. Then, to ensure that he maintains professional reputation, he disputes the version of minutes.

 

Ultimately RBS don't sack him because they are fully aware that his strategy was in the best interests of all parties, i.e. H&G sell some shares, lower the debt and RBS can then refinance a deal for the stadium and make more money.

 

I'm not saying that's what's happened and your version of events is equally as possible. I'm just offering a potential explanation.

[PeeG]

Mate' date=' far be it for me to preach this, but is it not in the best interests of the Union to keep key players onside? I just don't see how releasing those comments, whether he made them officially, off the record whatever, can help your ties with him.

 

He is what he is, a money man there to keep the club in the black and keep the good ship Anfield from capsizing, but I do not see him as an enemy of either the club or of SOS.

 

Personally.[/quote']

 

I could never have signed off on Purslow's version after we have told members we are having on the record meetings with Purslow. I didn't go to that meeting to end up just putting out what Purslow wanted and not what he told us.

[Graham Smith]

Which is why I said just those remarks. I don't know' date=' call it a good will gesture, a favour. The rest of the comments are hugely damaging to those two fuckers, I just truly believe this could burn a bridge.

 

What has been his reaction to the Union about your version of events if you don't mind me asking?[/quote']

 

Denial throught the press. That's it.

[PeeG]

Which is why I said just those remarks. I don't know' date=' call it a good will gesture, a favour. The rest of the comments are hugely damaging to those two fuckers, I just truly believe this could burn a bridge.

 

What has been his reaction to the Union about your version of events if you don't mind me asking?[/quote']

 

He didn't do that though and he hasn't got in touch with us since we have released the minutes.

[Hermes]

I just don't see how releasing those comments' date=' whether he made them officially, off the record whatever, can help your ties with him.

 

[/quote']

 

If I'd been at the meeting I'd have been stunned by his comments and asked the question - "You sound like you are totally against the owners yourself, if we print these comments do you expect to be sacked the day after?".

['Kaka]

I have to disagree fella. The press reaction in the last 2 hours would not have happened and those still not educated into what they have done/are doing to the club would still be blissfully unaware. It has also proved to some doubters that SOS is a union that can make a difference.

 

I'm not really sure I agree. I've been following Pee G on twitter and he's been posting tomorrow's articles on the story - they really don't make that big a song and dance about his comments, more aboutthem two cunts being skint and the club being forcibly sold.

 

I don't want this t become a huge whinge either, it's just my take on things and I don't want it to detract from my view of the major hard work done by all those within SOS.

[Hermes]

Not if he's employed by RBS.

 

Where's the evidence for that. He was appointed by the club, surely he knows who pays his wages.

[Brownie]

Where's the evidence for that. He was appointed by the club, surely he knows who pays his wages.

 

I don't have any evidence for it, but then again i'm not suggesting that I know what the fuck is going on here am I?

 

As i've said on several occasions, both views are equally plausible to me. You're suggesting that there's only one explanation when there isn't.

[PeeG]

I'm not really sure I agree. I've been following Pee G on twitter and he's been posting tomorrow's articles on the story - they really don't make that big a song and dance about his comments' date=' more aboutthem two cunts being skint and the club being forcibly sold.

 

I don't want this t become a huge whinge either, it's just my take on things and I don't want it to detract from my view of the major hard work done by all those within SOS.[/quote']

 

You must surely be bored of me by my twitter posts.

['Kaka]

Why, if they don't employ him?

 

How does lying about what was said in the meeting uphold his professional reputation?

 

He works with those two and must maintain a relationship with them, whether he's employed by them, RBS or Mickey fucking Mouse. Admitting he made them is tantamount to writing your own resignation letter. RBS wouldn't be stupid enough to employ someone that daft either.

[Hermes]

You're suggesting that there's only one explanation when there isn't.

 

There is only one explanation if his reported comments are true..... he didn't care if he was sacked for making them.

['Kaka]

I could never have signed off on Purslow's version after we have told members we are having on the record meetings with Purslow. I didn't go to that meeting to end up just putting out what Purslow wanted and not what he told us.

 

I'll leave it there mate, I have more to say but it will seem like I'm slagging you lads and lasses off when I'm genuinely not and you're fighting my corner.

 

And your Tweets are educational mate, keep it up.

[Tyler Durden]

Where's the evidence for that. He was appointed by the club, surely he knows who pays his wages.

 

Are you just a complete arsehole or something? You dont know fuck all and people are just speculating why he might make those comments because he is the only one who would know the ramifications if they were released. It seems he isnt too bothered if he is mouthing off about the people that are supposed to employ him.

Is it beyond the realms of possibility he may have been appointed because RBS demanded it in the same way they are now demanding £100 million be paid down?