Minutes from Christian Purslow and SOS Meeting

[BrianF80]

Look at it a different way do you think purslow is stupid. Maybe it was his way of letting potential serious investors know the exact situation the owners are in. With the banks wanting them out etc

No I don't think he's stupid. I think when they said they would publish agreed minutes that he thought they would publish agreed minutes.

But again the fact that they acted unprofessional is only one part of the equation. Why humiliate him in public? What is the benefit? How does this help him in his job of finding someone to give us money to get rid of the owners?

[jack sonnelle]

Some clueless people on here!! SOS are far from perfect but they are doing whats right TRYING TO GET RID OF OUR OWNERS. How anybody can not applaud that is beyond me. Or would we rather let the club drift into oblivion!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you! Was beginning to think I'd stumbled into a parallel universe populated by a group of muppets.

SOS haven't 'stabbed anyone in the back', they're not 'dragging the club's name through the mud'. They had a meeting with Purslow which was understood by ALL attendees to be minuted, and apparently at one stage Purslow even stated that 'he wished he could speak off the record but couldn't'.

SOS then issued the minutes which Purslow wouldn't ratify, so they published both versions. It seems blindingly obvious to me that Purslow wanted the unsanitised facts out in the open with the fallback position of being able to deny specifics.

SOS are doing a great job. However, Purslow has used them here to get a message out. All they've done is agreed to be the messenger... and more kudos to them for it.

We need more people to wake up and see what's going on at the club.

[BrianF80]

Purslow was aware of it in a prior meeting with them months ago. There were no surprises. He knew full well what their policy was. He even acknowledged it during the meeting.

They told him in the meeting they would publish only an agreed minute. That they have admitted. True they did several months before say they would publish anyway. Why would Purslow believe what was said months ago took priority?

Even given that, it's clear there was plenty of room for misunderstanding. The sensible thing would have been to give the guy a heads up they were going to go to press, but they didn't. They had nothing to lose by giving him a heads up and on the contrary could have been given information that would have allowed them to make an informed judgment about whether releasing the minutes was in the best interests of the club. But instead they knee-jerked into action without having a clear idea of the consequences of their actions. Very risky. Who wants to work with someone who doesn't think things through and carefully weigh risks?

[James P]

Look at it a different way do you think purslow is stupid. Maybe it was his way of letting potential serious investors know the exact situation the owners are in. With the banks wanting them out etc

Because the best way to encourage investment is to allow the 'minutes' of a meeting with a bunch of fans to hit the press, contradicting your own earlier version of the same meeting.

[James P]

I'm interested to know how many people on here who are expounding theories about what Purslow may or may not have done, and about how the investment process has been affected, actually have ANY experience of the process of buying, selling, or investing in a company?

[JohnDoe]

Because the best way to encourage investment is to allow the 'minutes' of a meeting with a bunch of fans to hit the press, contradicting your own earlier version of the same meeting.

Saying things without taking the flak for it due to the ability to deny it? Sounds like a great plan.

[James P]

Saying things without taking the flak for it due to the ability to deny it? Sounds like a great plan.

I'll refer you to my subsequent post above.

[ralpal]

.

SOS then issued the minutes which Purslow wouldn't ratify, so they published both versions. It seems blindingly obvious to me that Purslow wanted the unsanitised facts out in the open with the fallback position of being able to deny specifics.

SOS are doing a great job. However, Purslow has used them here to get a message out. All they've done is agreed to be the messenger... and more kudos to them for it.
.

That's how I see it too.

[Daniel mote]

Because the best way to encourage investment is to allow the 'minutes' of a meeting with a bunch of fans to hit the press, contradicting your own earlier version of the same meeting.

Or could it be he has managed to get the message out he wanted.

[Daniel mote]

Saying things without taking the flak for it due to the ability to deny it? Sounds like a great plan.

[Rich]

Can I ask the people that say H&G are killing our club what the alternative is/was?

Should we have kept with our previous owners?
Should we have sold to a "sugar daddy"?

Curious to see what people think the alternative was back then to where we are now, which is the current owners struggling with finding "real" money to plough into the club - thanks, in the main, to the financial crises which hit the world 18 months ago.

[Daniel mote]

That's how I see it too.

[James P]

I'm interested to know how many people on here who are expounding theories about what Purslow may or may not have done, and about how the investment process has been affected, actually have ANY experience of the process of buying, selling, or investing in a company?

You're not getting this, are you. If Purslow wanted investors to know the gory details, he would disclose that to them during the due diligence process. The notion that he would wash that dirty laundry in public, in an interview with a group of fans, is bizarre. any investor would seriously question both his judgement and his discretion if that is the case.

Maybe you're all right and that was his intention. If so, he's not the right person for the job because his actions would display an incredible lack of professional judgement, and any serious investor would run a mile from someone displaying such blatant disregard for privacy.

[JohnDoe]

I'm interested to know how many people on here who are expounding theories about what Purslow may or may not have done, and about how the investment process has been affected, actually have ANY experience of the process of buying, selling, or investing in a company?

You don't have any knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes so how would you know how one action might affect something? Why do you need to be a "business expert" to think of the reasons why Purslow might have done things? The basis to my argument is that Purslow isn't stupid enough to trust information that could risk his position and everything he's worked for with a union who have made it clear they were not going to disclose anything. He's far too smart for that. This is why I think he's in control.

[James P]

Can I ask the people that say H&G are killing our club what the alternative is/was?

Should we have kept with our previous owners?
Should we have sold to a "sugar daddy"?

Curious to see what people think the alternative was back then to where we are now, which is the current owners struggling with finding "real" money to plough into the club - thanks, in the main, to the financial crises which hit the world 18 months ago.

Exactly. Some people are acting like G&H stole the club from a billionaire philanthropist by lies and deceit, and if they'd failed we would be minted like Man City and winning the league.

They bought us at a time when we could barely afford to buy Dirk Kuyt, and they've given us Torres, Mascherano, Babel, Aquilani, Keane and Johnson, all of whom cost way more than Kuyt did.

I'd have loved to have different investors, but they were the best option at the time. And before anyone dares mention DIC, google 'Dubai' and 'bankrupcty' and see what you get.