As, OLM, is making a direct reference, by name, to the person responsible at that time for making the decision, perhaps, if you are going to say he is wrong you would consider naming the sorcery and detail of your information? Source, but I'll let it stand.
Your reply only really works if you accept it was Nick Thompson's decision. I get to know quite a bit from different places, partly because pople trust me to be discrete. It certainly sheds a different light on some of the 'inside' knowledge that's sometimes posted.
I accept what you say in principle, but, unless you are specific then what you say has no credit other than Pot Shots at a statement that is both specific and deniable by Nick Thompson. Are you saying Nick Thompson is telling lies? Do your sources fear for their jobs or patronage? What was the reason for pulling the meetings, no names no pack drill?
It's irrelevent to the main point of the post. It's also a leap to assume Nick Thompson had lied if he in deed said what he did to olm. I could undrstand why he may say that.
I can't admit to know which post you are being selective about, perhaps you could enlighten me. If Nick Thompson says he ceases the meetings and you say that, maybe he didn't, doesn't that infer that, maybe, he lied? Like I said, OLM, has been specific in his remark, but you simply make veiled inferences without ever substantiating a great deal; quite often folk who find themselves in that situation of discretion find it best to say nothing, especially not challenging someone who is prepared to back it up with a name. I can understand why he might have said that, but without anything to offer, I can't really say any of it is fact.
Er. We are. I didn't know you went to those meetings. Sides you're no way near as arsey and bolshy as them two. You're more refined.
I'm not being selective. I am being discrete. You choose to believe olm's version, that's your choice. It's immaterial to the minor point I was making, which is that a fan rep on sag precedes the current fans working group meetings.
It seems we're not going to be having another FWG meeting until next month. James says he wants the next meeting to cover next seasons ticket prices and new kit launch dates and he's not quite ready yet. What he really means, is he doesn't want three hours of interrogation about the arbitration panel, which he's not allowed to discuss. As the SAG meeting is next week, I've asked him to send an open email to all FWG members, so we can agree a fans representative to attend that meeting. I don't want that opportunity missed, just because there's no FWG meeting.
Whoever attends this meeting on our behalf, could they possibly bring up the issue with the plumbing in the South Stand Ladies (sorry Tigress!) Loos. The cisterns do not appear to be able to cope with the number of people using them resulting in non flushing loos both before kick off, half time and after the game. Its a ridiculous situation in a modern stadium. Cheers *sits back and awaits toilet humour*
