FAO Islay

[islaydarkblue]

[QUOTE=Deeranged;40362393]

Holding him to account, not bullying at all. He was very vociferous on another forum in opposition to the proposed plans, stating at one point that he would put in a formal objection if the plans were submitted as presented at the Landmark presentation stating traffic issues as the reason. He either was at the time, or made soon after, a director of Dee4Life. This is clearly what is being referred to in in the FPS response as stated by Dee4Life in their recent communication. At no point does that communication say that the observation was made either in writing to the club or even vocally at the time of the presentation - it's a generic comment. This is a man who has been a thorn in the flesh of FPS since the day they took over and has been the same with previous owners. Islay is the one that needs held to account for his actions, not me.

Read the item again and try to recall all the objections Islay made over on TDB, and n here, at the time of the proposal before he was, sadly and possibly wrongly, banned from it.

'Much of the anger appeared to be linked to the fact that a Dee4Life director had, while acting in a personal capacity, responded to the Camperdown statutory consultation by noting that they opposed the plan as it was presented at that time'.

There were eleven Dee4life directors including external directors at the time of Camperdown statutory consultation.