Lee Sinnott Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 There is a copy of the letter from AL to the Trust doing the rounds on Facebook... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boundaryblue80 Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, Lee Sinnott said: There is a copy of the letter from AL to the Trust doing the rounds on Facebook... Indeed there is. Quite enlightening. Not the tone the Trust have been para-phrasing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythemostimportantkick Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 13 minutes ago, Lee Sinnott said: There is a copy of the letter from AL to the Trust doing the rounds on Facebook... 5 minutes ago, boundaryblue80 said: Indeed there is. Quite enlightening. Not the tone the Trust have been para-phrasing. Care to share for those of us too cool for Facebook? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamoafc Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latics22 Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 There is nothing in that letter that needed to be kept from the fans? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythemostimportantkick Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, latics22 said: There is nothing in that letter that needed to be kept from the fans? Maybe the quotes on PS breaching contract etc could be deemed quite sensitive ? Suing the daily mail too ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythemostimportantkick Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Also notice that letter is not actually signed ? Maybe leaked by AL himself as oppose to someone at the trust ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) If that is the response in full, as a newly paid up member of the Trust I’m very disappointed this was withheld. Bullshit or not AL has initiated he’s suing Keegan, Corney AND Scholes why redact that? This shows either there’s a lot of crap floating about over AL’s running of the club, he’s paying lip service to the criticisms of him or he’s even more deluded than we thought? Are the Trust, editing the response to suit their own agenda? I think an explanation is needed here. I can’t see any legal angle for summarising the reply in the way it was released to the fan base. This is no way an endorsement of AL but at this stage we have to promote togetherness, if there is a CLEAR legal reason for redaction, communicate it to us. And I still think there should be a show of strength of feeling against the owner v Mansfield... Edited April 17, 2019 by oafcprozac 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twisbrogan Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, latics22 said: There is nothing in that letter that needed to be kept from the fans? Pretty much nailed on that even an intention to sue PS will now make the press (especially as suing someone for £175 for quitting their job after a month seems either fanciful or something that we should do more often). Looks like it has been leaked by one of Chuckle's FB group 'mates' - would be interesting to know how it fell into his hands. Edited April 17, 2019 by Twisbrogan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 I think the Trust was right, in view of their place in the process, to take advice whether to release info. But I don't think ultimately it would have prevented it being released. Eventually, if it happens, that info would become a matter of public info, but it may well be settled beforehand so that would be reason for caution. It's all about actions from now on. Darren Ratcliffe is China at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookersstandandy Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 17 minutes ago, latics22 said: There is nothing in that letter that needed to be kept from the fans? 9 minutes ago, oafcprozac said: If that is the response in full, as a newly paid up member of the Trust I’m very disappointed this was withheld. Bullshit or not AL has initiated he’s suing Keegan, Corney AND Scholes why redact that? This shows either there’s a lot of crap floating about over AL’s running of the club, he’s paying lip service to the criticisms of him or he’s even more deluded than we thought? Are the Trust, editing the response to suit their own agenda? I think an explanation is needed here. I can’t see any legal angle for summarising the reply in the way it was released to the fan base. This is no way an endorsement of AL but at this stage we have to promote togetherness, if there is a CLEAR legal reason for redaction, communicate it to us. And I still think there should be a show of strength of feeling against the owner v Mansfield... Whoa..... the Trust chose to withhold it because the ongoing litigation between Mr. Lemsagam and 3 parties listed in the letter are all unresolved..... and those 3 parties could take offence and seek further legal advice, nothing more, nothing less. I think their decision is entirely understandable. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 14 minutes ago, Twisbrogan said: Pretty much nailed on that even an intention to sue PS will now make the press (especially as suing someone for £175 for quitting their job after a month seems either fanciful or something that we should do more often). Looks like it has been leaked by one of Chuckle's FB group 'mates' - would be interesting to know how it fell into his hands. The £175k is ludricrous. And, if he'd consulted lawyers on the matter, they've have set him straight on that immediately. The guy's full of shit. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick26 Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Wonder if AL reported the missing gas meter to the police being as a bailiff didn't take it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookersstandandy Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) 51 minutes ago, boundaryblue80 said: Indeed there is. Quite enlightening. Not the tone the Trust have been para-phrasing. ....I don't come to the same conclusion. It's helpful to see the letter in full, I agree. There is nothing that is factually and/or tonally incorrect in the Trust's response last evening. Edited April 17, 2019 by lookersstandandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said: Whoa..... the Trust chose to withhold it because the ongoing litigation between Mr. Lemsagam and 3 parties listed in the letter are all unresolved..... and those 3 parties could take offence and seek further legal advice, nothing more, nothing less. I think their decision is entirely understandable. If that’s the case, I stand corrected despite the fact the information has quickly found its way into the public domain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 But who was the mole? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookersstandandy Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, oafcprozac said: If that’s the case, I stand corrected despite the fact the information has quickly found its way into the public domain. It is the case Paul. As per my response to Ross above.... I also do not read anything factually or tonally different in the Trust's summary last evening, albeit it is helpful to see the original in full. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Clifford said: Corney found someone to loan OAFC money, no reason to think that same company or similar wouldn't do it again. The ‘someone’ was Marco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 3 hours ago, laticsmarra said: This further enforces many views on the incompetence around the EFLs Fit and Proper Test.How can a man who passed that test drain his life savings in 18 months ? Sorry but that's just silly (and there's no such thing as an EFL fit and proper test by the by). How can any sort of test conclude on what you are likely to do in the future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 12 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said: Whoa..... the Trust chose to withhold it because the ongoing litigation between Mr. Lemsagam and 3 parties listed in the letter are all unresolved..... and those 3 parties could take offence and seek further legal advice, nothing more, nothing less. I think their decision is entirely understandable. Maybe but, that aside, there’s loads in Abdallah’s response that sounds totally different and much more specific & detailed than the way the Trust have (sorry, I can’t think of any other way to put it) spun it. And then there's all the non sensitive stuff they’ve left out. Very odd, very concerning. It all smacks of a really piss poor attempt at a bit of Macchievelian brinkmanship at which Abdallah (and his advisers?) have easily & quickly rinsed them. I only know Darren Ratcliffe of those now involved and I don’t know him well at all but he seems genuine enough and I had/have high hopes of him influencing things to all of our benefits if/when he gets to speak properly with AL/ML. Unlike many I’ve never wasted any emotional energy on Abdallah not speaking his unconfident English to a baying mob as it’s never going to happen. The Trust all speak it well enough though and seem to have a bit of explaining to do.... 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 23 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said: ....I don't come to the same conclusion. It's helpful to see the letter in full, I agree. There is nothing that is factually and/or tonally incorrect in the Trust's response last evening. Come on Andy.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythemostimportantkick Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Keep hearing this life savings line. Maybe he has used some of it, not all of it ? If I take a tenner out of my piggybank for some milk and bread. I’d say I’ve used my savings , but I could still have another tenner left in ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Just now, simplythemostimportantkick said: Keep hearing this life savings line. Maybe he has used some of it, not all of it ? If I take a tenner out of my piggybank for some milk and bread. I’d say I’ve used my savings , but I could still have another tenner left in ? I’m hugely disappointed he didn’t say he’d used 95% of his life savings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythemostimportantkick Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, HarryBosch said: Come on Andy.... Oh his names Andy. I thought he was Stan Dandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythemostimportantkick Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 1 minute ago, HarryBosch said: I’m hugely disappointed he didn’t say he’d used 95% of his life savings I’m disappointed you didn’t say a tenner for milk and bread !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.