[shakermaker]

It is puzzling how some think that the only possible alternative to a closed meeting in the Gazelle was to 'hunt for ages to find a venue in which a herd of Red fans would heckle and bay for blood'. I would like to know when and where this precedent for Stanley fans 'baying for blood' was set. It must have been a traumatic experience for it to have affected considerations on how to treat fan meetings in such a way. Crikey.

Anyway, this isn't about who was or who wasn't invited to a meeting (although it is all-so-easy for those invited to accuse those non-present of being jealous of an invite). To divide our fanbase over such a trivial matter would be farcical.

It's just quite clear to me and several others that this meeting was a misguided, mistimed and possibly misinformed cock-up.

For once I find myself agreeing with Katei. Until the club admits these claims, HMRC issue a winding-up order or some other creditor gets the bailiffs in, all we have is word of mouth. (That's not to knock the credibility of anyone at the meeting or giving out information.)

As Stanley fans we have learned to 'believe it when we see it'. Whether it's coming from the club or a fan nominated to the board, skepticism must be employed both ways. There's just too much crap flying about to believe it all. We can only trust original sources. It might be different for some of you, but I don't count a fan nominated to the board as an original source. And I repeat, that's not knocking anyone's stature, reputation or character.

I don't doubt that the club is in deep dogchod. It's quite clear to anyone who has come within two miles of an abacus in their lifetime that Stanley cannot support itself with the way that it is run. However, the stories are all-too-blurred and feelings are running all-too-high at the moment. It's much easier to see when the dust settles.

I'd rather wait 'til we hear from Ilyas.