Spurs accused of doctoring minutes of fans' meeting

The Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust has accused the club of selectively editing the minutes of their February meeting before publication, claiming that references to fan concerns — including “the risk of relegation” and discussion of the club’s “lack of ambition” — were left out.

The trust has a memorandum of understanding with the club stating that they should meet twice a year. The latest meeting took place on February 3, eight days before the dismissal of the head coach Thomas Frank, at which four trust board members met with four club representatives, including the chief executive Vinai Venkatesham.

The trust has claimed that there were “a number of specific points raised during the meeting which the club did not agree to include in the final published version”. The agreed minutes were published on Monday.

In a statement accompanying the publication of the minutes on its website, the trust said: “As a democratic supporters’ organisation elected to represent fans’ views, we believe it is vital that supporters can see what issues are being raised with the club, how those issues are being discussed and what responses are being given.

“Publishing a full record of the points raised helps ensure accountability and allows members, and the wider fan base, to understand how the trust is fulfilling its role on their behalf. Transparency is integral to our role and in our dealings with the club.”

Tottenham have not commented, but a source close to the club suggested they provided standard minutes — as per their normal procedure — but that the trust asked for narrative minutes to be included, a format that includes added context, which is a different type of reporting.

This is differs from an account provided by a source close to the trust, which suggested the initial draft was in narrative format and that the trust sought to amend it by including missing contributions. The format was then changed for the subsequent draft, and that was accepted for publication by the trust on the basis that the they would also publish the points made in their amendments.

The trust claimed that eight sections, which it had asked to be included, were left out. This included references to financial concerns about the club’s ability to generate profit, the use of young players from the academy and fans’ desire for a style of play that runs from the academy through to the first team.

Another paragraph, noting that “fans are genuinely concerned at the risk of relegation” and that “fans are concerned at a perceived lack of ambition and at results, performances and the failure to strengthen the team, despite injuries to key first-team players” was also omitted, it is claimed.

The trust also suggested that a sentence saying that “the club welcomed the input of THST” was not included.