glen9mullan

I wish to cause no damage to any entity or fellow supporter. On that basis The Action Group will be issuing a statement today regarding the shenanigans , if other groups support or issue their own statement, that's of course their perogative. I can only act in the capacity I attended, which was as Chair of the AG, and the words we will issue will be for the benefit of transparency to our members,

I genuinely dont believe the club has any intention of having any other narrative than the one they wish to portray. The consistent view of "only a handful with an agenda" have any concerns is the line they are giving the media and its in their interest that the minutes show them in a positive light. This is clearly the motive to not speaking to groups whilst also the motive why they continually ignore emails from groups notably WATR who have an MOU the club are now failing to honour

I ain't a clue

No O2G didn't write any lies, ive said previously its hard writing minutes as things jump about in meetings. He captured what he could but there were parts missing, or not elaborated for context. The points missing where probably the key points most would have an interest in. I never saw a version until they were approved by the club, so cant comment on how they looked prior. I've not seen any comments from any FF members who have not disputed the minutes or indeed suggested the ones which were put forwards as the second draft are a not correct record of facts. . Those who have commented clearly state the second version is true and accurate. The current version (number 3) is the clubs amended version of 2, which ive personally rejected completely as have others. This is ALL on the club, no-one else, no conspiracy, they've edited the truth to suit their own agenda and I maintain that if its not the truth that goes public then I will address the inaccuracies publicly. On your final point, its fair to say the opinions on the forum.are from one spectrum to another. I'd say Duncan, @K-Hod and myseif very much mirror the overall consensus on here. Its fair to say others, dont share this view but are equally allowed their opinion and the FF is the place for this Its fair to say what I may see as a priority, others may not, for example who we play in pre season is more important to some than who is running the club. However all members are doing it for free and deserve some respect for doing so, regardless of where their views lie. Is it the right vehicle, or set up correctly? I dont personally believe so, its not democratic and cannot be allowed to become the only comms, as i believe if certain people didn't attend that the questions that matter to me or others on this forum would not be asked or recorded with an acceptable answer.

O2G on holiday and I can't say it enough times, he's not the party villain here. The process certainly broken or never been challenged before that's a certainty. However he presented the edited version to the club when the initial approved set were rejected by the members of the forum Club has amended the new set, which all groups with members have rejected. The options presented by the chair are as my previous. I've reiterated my stance, (told others have too). Case closed from my perspective, the minutes if ever released wont be the ones which i believe reflect the meeting, so i will push on as per the mandate set by the members I represent, remain transparent and cover it off in the podcast i'm taking part in at the weekend. Under the FEP the FF is open to all,

Quite a lot of inflation on these reported fees. Our budget is the same as last seasons for transfers, we are clearly getting it to stretch further, and its not the tap has been turned on, or a reinvestment on sales. The budget has been set and agreed and sales have no baring. To be more granular sales dont mean more to spend. At the same time, we are not being told to sell players. If we do sell thats a choice at ground level based on , not wanted, dont want to be here or wont sign new contract.

I need to reiterate this is not @only2garners fault. He's done nothing wrong he sent the amended minutes to the club. They've severely butchered them and now it appears the options we are being offered by the chair is. 1. Accept the clubs amendments 2. Mark bits we dont agree with and these can be removed from the minutes as areas of neither party agrees (he does not want to go back to club rejecting the updated minutes despite members attendees rejecting them). I've left it with them and will be taking part in a podcast to discuss Rovers over the summer and im sure these minutes and that meeting will heavily debated. As an elected Chair of two of the largest supporter groups, I'd be doing the members no justice by agreeing to go along with the shenanigans this has created In over 20 years of supporter representation I've never once been asked to take part in censorship or report untruths, I'm not going to start now. My understanding talking to all the groups who have members, they are of the same opinion. What a mess

Sent me one, daughter never received one, Have emailed club as there is nothing on my account for my daughters or mine ad an option to download it either. Equally the apply actions section to forward ticket someone else also doesn't work

My issue is the unprofessional outburst and aggressive nature of some of the club officials. They went to a place where they lost total control of their emotions and lashed out stating things they now clearly regret. We were just a panel of supporters giving our free time. I can't accept a retraction or minutes which state things which were never said or edits to change what was said , which in turn then make the published answer a lie and complete fabrication of the truth. Thankfully it appears particularly supporter group leads are all of the same opinion and are also rejecting on this basis

Imo the club under their own FEP must publish the minutes as per the meeting. Being published elsewhere only let's them off hook, and the tampering go away

Think we maybe waiting a while yet, edited version diluted to read completely differently, I've notified FF, as have others I reject the club edits as they are not in line in what was said (I note nothing was stipulated in the meeting as off the record), and the changes are in places a fabrication of the discussion

To be clear, not one forum member to my knowledge has rejected the edited version, nor has the Chair or Secretary dismissed the request either. It was received in the sprit It was sent, and sent to the club. The only people holding things up are the club. The minutes are not ground breaking but demonstrate the questions asked and answers recieved , (should of been more questions) but would need more than one meeting for that.

I recieved the first set of club approved minutes on the 18th July from a forum member as I was accidentally left of the circulation . I reviewed and requested if I could edit as i felt they were inaccuate. I sent edited version which was supported by other attendees on the 20th July to chair/secretary. When it went club I'm not sure, But its certainly been with them a while.

I can answer thst , as i sent the edited version. Some things missed, some things needed more detail, some things misrepresented or incorrect. Duncan and I have agreed to do a podcast to talk about a number of things and no doubt we will discuss the FF meeting and add meat to the bones were applicable

That game is our remembrance game for our fallen hero's, something completely lost on the club. I believe the 150 celebrations in the main have been diluted as much as possible so they dont have to spend any money in marking the achievement. Cheap and cheerful and milk the supporters where possible,

To add, the flaw in the ff system is the original minutes go to the club for approval prior to being circulated to the FF attendees, with the intention they are on website within 48 hours of club approval. This needs to change, having no input into the minutes or agreement of the accuracy of minutes prior to going to the club has created this indigestion Its the process which is broken, not the people

Writing minutes in a meeting with so much going on aint easy, so very unfair to take it out on O2G. He did the minutes, they were asked to be amended, he's obliged by sending the edited ones for approval. They are sat with the club, Taking lumps out of each other is exactly what the club would like to see.

I made the point of asking LT after the meeting if id been any of the above She stated ive always conducted myself professionally and respectfully in all meetings she's attended in 15 years. I'd also say, the derogatory manner they spoke about those who have left., would need our transfer budget to pay the resulting fees. In 20 years its the most unprofessional panel of employees ive had the displeasure of sitting with for a couple of hours .

Completely unprofessional, aggressive, dismissive and clueless

As things stand the new FEP suggest everyone can attend the FF going forwards , be that 100, 1000. In terms of minutes I dont think there is anything now to stop all attendees writing their own or indeed reporting what was said , as its clear no one can be excluded. Minutes coming out when out of date is not an ideal situation. I believe these are still stuck with the club.

Thanks for this, seems they are intent on lighting the blue torch paper!!!! "Gonna need a bigger boat"

Still employed

Correct

Timing could be bad if we end up with female CEO Bigger fish to fry i think