PeteG Posted February 22, 2022 Share Posted February 22, 2022 13 hours ago, adamoafc said: Why would Leytons trust want to influence our trust?! What do they gain from that? literally makes zero sense ‘Pete’. 'Adam' it actually says in the minutes there was an email from Orient's trust. There was a rumour some resignations were because of the content. Stop being obtuse, you know they have played a big role with ptb and now trying to 'advise' the foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteG Posted February 22, 2022 Share Posted February 22, 2022 8 hours ago, underdog said: I was not at the December meeting to approve the Nov notes, I'm afraid. However, I asked for clarity on OASF stance with regards to its suggested content. Some good/some controversial ideas. I asked for clarity with regards to a October " chat" with the party the email was addressed to, as I was not involved in that chat either. Unfortunatley, I am unable to say anymore as I am pending legal advice on my status as an ex-oasf director and what I can and cannot say in the public domain. However, If you are a member, you could contact OASF and raise it as an item for the March meeting agenda? Agenda should be drafted and sent 10 days before a meeting. So you could very well be in time Just contact the "hello" email address Cheers Thanks Tracy, appreciate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted February 22, 2022 Share Posted February 22, 2022 49 minutes ago, PeteG said: 'Adam' it actually says in the minutes there was an email from Orient's trust. There was a rumour some resignations were because of the content. Stop being obtuse, you know they have played a big role with ptb and now trying to 'advise' the foundation. You seem to be implying., correct me if I am wrong, that input from a supporters group that has been through a period with their club with some similarities to our own is somehow unwelcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underdog Posted February 22, 2022 Author Share Posted February 22, 2022 50 minutes ago, PeteG said: Thanks Tracy, appreciate that. Your welcome. The email was not addressed to the foundation. It was about the foundation and addressed to the party who OASF have a dialogue with, that is why I asked the second question. I am not a GDPR expert so unsure if foundation can disclose anything more about the email. But its worth a shot asking them Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underdog Posted February 22, 2022 Author Share Posted February 22, 2022 4 minutes ago, Dave_Og said: You seem to be implying., correct me if I am wrong, that input from a supporters group that has been through a period with their club with some similarities to our own is somehow unwelcome? Tbf Dave, it had some good pieces of advice and some not so good..cough, cough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted February 22, 2022 Share Posted February 22, 2022 23 minutes ago, underdog said: Tbf Dave, it had some good pieces of advice and some not so good..cough, cough. Well, I guess that the person/group who gives nothing but sound advice has yet to be invented... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteG Posted February 22, 2022 Share Posted February 22, 2022 33 minutes ago, Dave_Og said: You seem to be implying., correct me if I am wrong, that input from a supporters group that has been through a period with their club with some similarities to our own is somehow unwelcome? Not at all but if it crosses a line which makes people uncomfortable then it's certainly unwelcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteG Posted February 22, 2022 Share Posted February 22, 2022 4 minutes ago, Dave_Og said: Well, I guess that the person/group who gives nothing but sound advice has yet to be invented... Let's see if the Foundation are comfortable enough to publish said advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underdog Posted February 22, 2022 Author Share Posted February 22, 2022 38 minutes ago, PeteG said: Let's see if the Foundation are comfortable enough to publish said advice. Like I said I am unsure with GDPR bit as it was not addressed to OASF directly. OASF AGM will be over Summer. Members are asked to submit questions/live questioning at the end of the AGM agenda. OASF is accountable to its membership. Another option is that the party it was addressed to, does frequent this message board. Maybe they will release it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underdog Posted February 22, 2022 Author Share Posted February 22, 2022 51 minutes ago, PeteG said: Not at all but if it crosses a line which makes people uncomfortable then it's certainly unwelcome Agreed and that is why it was brought to OASF attention immediately and we discussed it's content at the board meeting. Correct process was followed at the time, which was five months ago now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted February 22, 2022 Share Posted February 22, 2022 4 minutes ago, underdog said: Like I said I am unsure with GDPR bit as it was not addressed to OASF directly. OASF AGM will be over Summer. Members are asked to submit questions/live questioning at the end of the AGM agenda. OASF is accountable to its membership. Another option is that the party it was addressed to, does frequent this message board. Maybe they will release it? Unaffected by GDPR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted February 22, 2022 Share Posted February 22, 2022 1 hour ago, PeteG said: Let's see if the Foundation are comfortable enough to publish said advice. Can't imagine why they would. I think they are duty bound to seek useful input form as many parties as possible, I can't see any merit in publishing all input received. My (very limited) understanding was that some input was received from the Hearts equivalent and I see no need at all to publish that either. I would also think that if a body was in the habit of publishing advice and information it received it would soon stop receiving any Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteG Posted February 22, 2022 Share Posted February 22, 2022 33 minutes ago, Dave_Og said: Can't imagine why they would. I think they are duty bound to seek useful input form as many parties as possible, I can't see any merit in publishing all input received. My (very limited) understanding was that some input was received from the Hearts equivalent and I see no need at all to publish that either. I would also think that if a body was in the habit of publishing advice and information it received it would soon stop receiving any If the advice has led to resignations then i think it's duty bound to it's membership to let us know why and if it's unwelcome advice then perhaps they should stop communicating with such a group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted February 22, 2022 Share Posted February 22, 2022 2 minutes ago, PeteG said: If the advice has led to resignations then i think it's duty bound to it's membership to let us know why and if it's unwelcome advice then perhaps they should stop communicating with such a group. It can't possibly be the advice that has led to resignations can it? the adoption of it possibly, but then it is the job of the board to reach decisions on policies and if some directors cannot support it then it may be appropriate that they step aside. The reasons for that will be fairly evident as they will be reflected in the changes of approach. Publishing advice provided which, presumably, was not intended for publication would be totally inappropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamoafc Posted February 22, 2022 Share Posted February 22, 2022 39 minutes ago, Dave_Og said: It can't possibly be the advice that has led to resignations can it? the adoption of it possibly, but then it is the job of the board to reach decisions on policies and if some directors cannot support it then it may be appropriate that they step aside. The reasons for that will be fairly evident as they will be reflected in the changes of approach. Publishing advice provided which, presumably, was not intended for publication would be totally inappropriate. Good sensible post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamoafc Posted February 22, 2022 Share Posted February 22, 2022 1 hour ago, underdog said: Like I said I am unsure with GDPR bit as it was not addressed to OASF directly. OASF AGM will be over Summer. Members are asked to submit questions/live questioning at the end of the AGM agenda. OASF is accountable to its membership. Another option is that the party it was addressed to, does frequent this message board. Maybe they will r 1 hour ago, underdog said: Like I said I am unsure with GDPR bit as it was not addressed to OASF directly. OASF AGM will be over Summer. Members are asked to submit questions/live questioning at the end of the AGM agenda. OASF is accountable to its membership. Another option is that the party it was addressed to, does frequent this message board. Maybe they will release it? What party are you suggesting Tracey give us a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underdog Posted February 22, 2022 Author Share Posted February 22, 2022 55 minutes ago, PeteG said: If the advice has led to resignations then i think it's duty bound to it's membership to let us know why and if it's unwelcome advice then perhaps they should stop communicating with such a group. I think I said right at the start that this was NOT the reason why I resigned. OASF have permission to publish my resignation as well to foster openess and transparency if they want to Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.