I agree with this. On the one hand, got lots of coverage of how bad the owners are, but is that likely to bother them? Not really. Is it likely to affect any potential sale? I'd hope not. On the other, 6k there, is realistically what you'd have expected for this tie, even with the prices being quite low. I do agree with a specific aim, such as the use of the clubs name, would be easier to orchestrate too I would think? Tshirts, cards/banners. Although for me, my biggest annoyance is the membership scheme and lack of concessions, so I'd rather that was focused on, although it shouldn't be that difficult to do both in parallel.
Thank you. That is entirely my point. I supported the boycott principle as it was ramping up the level of action against the owners, not in a financial way, but in terms of focussing unwanted attention on them; but I don't see what the real desired objective of that extra attention was and I expected that to be clearer and well defined. As has been frequently said, a boycott is a last resort, so surely it is not something that is not very well measured or productive. PLT took the trouble to explain that this was the case, which I thought was such a waste of a collective effort.
You can read my response to TWF, who suggested a boycott. My answer to you is that yes, it did raise some media awareness, so in that it achieved its very limited objective. But the other response explains why I believe a boycott should have sought to achievè more. But it's done, we all move on.
Your last sentence highlights the problem There are so many things the Allams have done wrong that everyone has their own most important issue I'd agree that one issue would be better for specific action, but which one, and doing them 'in parallel' defeats that point Wasn't perfect, these things never are. Personally I think it showed good fan unity (we would have absolutely got more than 6k without it...didn't we play them in the cup before and get 15k+ ? ) But I don't think another boycott makes sense. Some will have found it hard and now is the time to allow the people who want to attend to support the club vocally, whilst encouraging them to protest in the ground (even if that protest is simply getting the words Hull City more visible as Obi suggested) I don't think it's done any harm, and if anything it's increased fan unity. Next home game should be buzzing
1. You're obviously not a city fan. 2. I don't believe you have 1 post on this entire board that wasn't complete, inane ****e. 3. You genuinely seem like a miserable, horrible ****. 4. Your remarks about being "common" really show what a **** you are. 5. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz bore off
I think that's more accurate. Many seem to be lumping us in with the poor attendances at the other PL clubs, simply taking 6K as a sign of our historic **** attendance, in their eyes. To bè fair, it's a mixed bag and to be expected.
We got 10000 last season in the fa cup against Brighton this same round. What will be interesting is how much the charity receives in money from the people who didn't go. Do we have a total for that yet?
We're not planning any more boycotts. My opinion is that whilst the boycott was well observed, it split fans more than I'd have liked. Before we announced we were doing it it seemed like almost everyone was calling for a boycott. As soon as we called it, those people went quiet, others spike up and suddenly the picture was very different. The fans need to be united and I'd be uncomfortable with us doing anything that hinders that cause, which I think I further boycotts would. I've said this loads of time, but to be absolutely clear, the purpose of the boycott was to get the media to talk about it. That's the only measure of success that matters. Locally that has certainly worked, but the national scene was more the aim. MOTD ignored it, and SSN this morning did a big feature on low attendances highlighting that ours was the biggest drop by far, but didn't mention why. Other national media outlets gave it good coverage. So the success of it was mixed. The boycott was part of a wider strategy to bring national attention and therefore embarrassment to the Allams, as their reputation is one thing that's very important to them, and they've got off very lightly in that respect. I don't see any reason why we should follow it up with another boycott now. There's plenty of other things we can do which will hopefully be more successful in uniting the fans, and perhaps equally successful in embarrassing the Allams. The hardest bit as always though is getting that national media attention.
I'm not sure why national media attention is seen as the holy grail for the HCST. The Allams don't seem to be fussed about embarrassment (they suggested Hull Tigers themselves ffs), and business deals are gonna take time, and if they don't want to sell, they aren't selling. I originally suggested the boycott to get the club the use our actual name (in a similar way to how Cardiff achieved the return of blue shirts), but when the HCST announced the boycott there was non mention of this at all, instead just "hey we're having a boycott" and the addition of the charity which, whilst well intentioned, was doomed to failure and only served to hand ammunition to the naysayers. I've always been hesitant to join in those criticising the Trust, but I worry after the fantastic work on the CTWD campaign (which really shouldn't have ended, as like it or not we're still not Hull City), the Trust is losing all sight of what it is and what it should be. They're simply not getting it.
