Minutes from Christian Purslow and SOS Meeting

[JohnDoe]

So why make the alleged comments in the first place then? Did CP let himself get riled by a bunch of no-marks who think having a business degree makes them all powerful in the world of corporate finance?

One possibility is that he's made a mistake. Not buying it though, he made those comments because he wanted them out and knew they were going to get out. He's done it without hurting himself since he can deny ever making the comments, but the fans are still getting the message. He wanted to let us know that he genuinely wants the best for the club, he's working hard to ensure that and he's just as disgusted as us with the current owners. He also wanted to get the financial situation out in the open, to call G&H's bluff and weaken their position in negotiations. It's quite obvious that he's RBS' guy and if he's right about the bank being sick of them as well, he's merely doing his job.

[cream]

Purslow job is to look out for the best interest of the LFC, not G+H.

[JohnDoe]

So you are saying our CEO is lying then?

He's doing what's best for the club.

and in my opinion, sos have allowed sentiment to sway their recollection of events rather than state facts which CP having been involved in issues like this before has

12 representatives of SOS were in that meaning. Purslow himself has commented during the meeting twice according to them, that he wishes he could say things "off the record". He was well aware that everything that was said was going to get out. If he wanted to, he could have asked them to take out a sentence or two if he was fearing for his position. Instead he's completely rewritten the meeting and forced SOS to publish both versions. They were never going to accept his version and rightfully so.

[Kenneth]

how many column inches have been written about hicks and gillett over the past 18 months or so. How much of that negativity had been brought upon by the SOS who were given credibility by Bill Shankly's grandaughter Karen.

The SOS are real mate and they are a pain in GH's backside. No business needs the amount of negative publicity that we have had recently and its off putting to investors.

No one wants to come to a club where there's trouble on the pitch and in the stands.

The idea is ridiculous. As if the views of Shankly's grandaughter mean ****

[Vermilion]

Well one things for sure, these Minutes have certainly turned into hours on lfc forums.

[redstaralex]

12 representatives of SOS were in that meaning. Purslow himself has commented during the meeting twice according to them, that he wishes he could say things "off the record". He was well aware that everything that was said was going to get out. If he wanted to, he could have asked them to take out a sentence or two if he was fearing for his position. Instead he's completely rewritten the meeting and forced SOS to publish both versions. They were never going to accept his version and rightfully so.

1) in just about every meeting I've ever been to someone says things that are "not for minuteing" that's the nature of meetings and to disregard the trust of everyone in the meeting is very unprofessional

2) because there were more sos there doesn't mean that they didn't make stuff up for their own benefit, if you're going to believe that CP is "mistaken" then you must also accept that they might have been

3) "They were never going to accept his version and rightfully so." by the same token he has no obligation to accept theirs

[Chrono]

1) in just about every meeting I've ever been to someone says things that are "not for minuteing" that's the nature of meetings and to disregard the trust of everyone in the meeting is very unprofessional

Absolutely, this looks a lot like he said things off the record and they printed it as part of the minutes. Either way they now have no chance of speaking to anyone again unless someone wants to use them.

[redstaralex]

Absolutely, this looks a lot like he said things off the record and they printed it as part of the minutes. Either way they now have no chance of speaking to anyone again unless someone wants to use them.

agreed

[JohnDoe]

1) in just about every meeting I've ever been to someone says things that are "not for minuteing" that's the nature of meetings and to disregard the trust of everyone in the meeting is very unprofessional

They are not a business. They are a supporters' union. They are obligated to say what was said in the meeting to their members. Purslow was aware of this, they've met him before.

2) because there were more sos there doesn't mean that they didn't make stuff up for their own benefit, if you're going to believe that CP is "mistaken" then you must also accept that they might have been

I have no reason to believe they would be lying. I do have reasons to believe why Purslow would lie about this, and I support and understand these reasons.

3) "They were never going to accept his version and rightfully so." by the same token he has no obligation to accept theirs

That is true, and I don't want him to. Both have done well in my eyes from this situation. As I've said earlier in the thread, I won't be surprised if they are actually together in this, and there is no conflict between SOS and Purslow.

[el matador]

The idea is ridiculous. As if the views of Shankly's grandaughter mean ****

try telling that to the rest of the mob

Interestingly enough someone said to me that she had backed out or was starting to back out of her involvement with them.

There was also that incident with the video or something ? does anyone remember that ?

[el matador]

Absolutely, this looks a lot like he said things off the record and they printed it as part of the minutes. Either way they now have no chance of speaking to anyone again unless someone wants to use them.

yes mate I totally agree - but publishing off the record stuff just goes to show what kind of a group the SOS is.

Can you imagine the grilling that CP is probably getting from hicks and gillette over this ? Mind you if he's been appointed by the bank then he probably wont give a ****.

[Exiled_red]

This quote from Yes Minister seems very apt:

It is characteristic of all committee discussions and decisions that every member has a vivid recollection of them and that every member's recollection of them differs violently from every other member's recollection. Consequently, we accept the convention that the official decisions are those and only those which have been officially recorded in the minutes by the Officials...

[el matador]

This quote from Yes Minister seems very apt:

unless they had a dictaphone and used it to record the minutes and the off the record stuff was said once the tape was switched off.

[James P]

I'm sorry, but there's some absolute bollocks being written on this thread.

John Doe & Craig H - you appear to not have a clue about how the corporate world works. Unless we get some billionaire suger daddy whose only desire is to piss his money up the wall keeping the fans happy, whoever takes us over will want the club to run as a business. Businessmen do not need or want to be barracked and harrassed, or have their names in the press in circumstances that make them look foolish or unprofessional. The activities of SOS are extremely detrimental to the investment process, regardless of how much you may agree with their sentiments.

Also, I find this belief that we fans have any right to dictate the policy and activity of the club quite bizarre. Yes, we are all passionate about the club we support, but does that actually give us any right to demand input into the way that the club is run? Absolutely not. We are not shareholders, we don't have a vote on the board, our own money is not at stake. We are fans, but in purely economic terms we are simply consumers. We pay to be allowed to watch matches, or for merchandise. We may want to believe that that gives us some sort of say in the way the club is run, but it doesn't, and groups like SOS need to wake up and realise that. If you do your shopping in Sainsbury's, do you think that it gives you the right to tell them how to run the company? If you're a fan of a particular band, do you think that spending money on their merchandise entitles you to tell them how to run their careers?

I'm surprised that SOS were lucky enough to get an interview with Purslow. The fact that they then threw it back in his face depresses me, but doesn't surprise me. They need to stop trying to pretend that they are a force in this process, and accept that the only people who control what's going on are RBS and G&H, in that order.

[redstaralex]

They are not a business. They are a supporters' union. They are obligated to say what was said in the meeting to their members. Purslow was aware of this, they've met him before.

I've been in union meetings, the same rules of trust and professionalism apply

I have no reason to believe they would be lying. I do have reasons to believe why Purslow would lie about this, and I support and understand these reasons.

I think that we're back to the credibility issue here, but I'm happy to agree to disagree

That is true, and I don't want him to. Both have done well in my eyes from this situation. As I've said earlier in the thread, I won't be surprised if they are actually together in this, and there is no conflict between SOS and Purslow.