A Carlisle United manager of yesteryear once gave an interview to local radio. This was nothing new, for he was a man routinely happy to speak his mind.

On this occasion, his views were particularly absorbing, and it was inevitable that what he said would be of interest to newspaper reporters tuning in.

Indeed, some of his remarks formed the basis of the next day's back page lead.

This did not please the manager in question. It was not that he had been misquoted, nor that there was a misleading headline attached. It was that he felt his words were for a radio audience only, not for the more permanent and, at times, emphatic medium of print.

Times have changed since then and the world generally seems a less naïve place. In a 24/7 media climate there are fewer people in football, or any other domain, who think they can sneak public comments into one particular, closed-off place and keep them there.

The real world, it is called, and while there are some users of social media still stubbornly reluctant to see that everything they write is a publication, the majority seem to accept that what you say is what you say, and the best way not to release your views - should that be your wish - is not to say them in the first place.

By the same token, one has to wonder what Carlisle United's owners felt would happen when they entertained the club's fan representative for a chat about holding company matters, particularly on the big talking point of investment.

Did they assume the information disclosed was for Claire Winder's ears only, that the person elected to represent fans would not then seek to inform said fans?

Or, in line with Winder's statement, published on the day she resigned, was it that they felt a "verbal" reporting of the conversation was acceptable, but a written version was not?

If the latter, it hardly seems a thought-through path. Be sure that any verbal distribution of whatever it is that seems to have got Winder into hot water would have ended up in written form anyway, once people started talking.

It is what folk do, which is perhaps why she felt a programme article was a safer and more direct way of telling supporters what happened, rather than run the risk of Chinese whispers, the tale separated from the truth by the time it appeared on social media.

There may, of course, be other explanations, other fine-print details, other perspectives that would make the accusation of "breaching confidentiality", which Winder said she faced, more understandable. If so it would be good to hear them.

Alas, the asking of questions to the top level of Brunton Park is seldom an easy transaction. Some of the below were sent on Monday and so far have not received a response. They are an attempt at eliciting the regime's side of a rather troubling story and are reproduced here:

- Was Claire Winder indeed accused of breaching confidentiality in her March 28 programme article by club owners/directors before last Thursday's 1921 operational board meeting?

- If so, had confidentiality been mentioned at any stage of the conversation with holding company directors Andrew Jenkins and John Nixon on March 14, which formed the basis of Winder's programme piece?

- Is it the case that Winder was told on April 21 that the holding company directors had been happy for her to pass on information from the above meeting "verbally" to supporters, but not in written form?

- If so, why did those directors, also club owners, allow Winder to write about the meeting in an apparently unedited article in United's own matchday programme?

- If Winder's version is accurate, why did it take from the date of that programme, March 28, to April 21 before any breach of confidentiality was mentioned to her? 

- And why, if Winder's version is accurate, was the alleged confidentiality breach raised in an un-minuted conversation before a 1921 operational board meeting, when it had not been the business of that board, but a holding company matter?

- Which and how many directors made the accusation of a confidentiality breach, and what was the involvement of the other directors at the time?

- What was the 'confidential' nature of anything specifically referred to by Winder in her article, given that matters such as the "billionaire" and the CUOSC/local business investment offer have been the subject of Jenkins' own programme notes several times, occasionally in detail?

If there is a means of providing satisfactory explanation for these and the general path of events - or if United are able to challenge anything else Winder said - it may be time to do so, for otherwise it is difficult to see how the fan rep role, less than a year old, has not been seriously compromised.

This may not be the best week to be tiptoeing around Twitter alone, but if Carlisle's owners were to check the replies on Winder's account after her resignation announcement, they will find almost universal support for her.

Indeed, praise for her approach has also come from the club itself, finance director Suzanne Kidd telling The Cumberland News how well Winder had set about the role, and United's own statement on Monday, which only brushed the confidentiality topic, recognising her "energy" and enthusiasm.

So, which is it: an ageing regime momentarily disarmed by the modern-day thirst for information, a set of circumstances still short of a decisive fact or two from the other side, or the question many fans are inevitably now asking - whether there is a messenger out there at all regarding Carlisle United's top table who is safe from the bullet?