MOTD didn't ignore it. They spoke about it after the set of highlights we were in and said it was about the supporters protesting against the owners. It wasn't shown in the highlights but they spoke about it afterwards.
it doesn't necessarily follow that because you think Allams a **** you immediately want to donate to save the hedgehog
Good to see them acknowledge not only the low crowd but the likelihood of it even that being as high as that in reality.
I don't really get your point. Do you think that the threat of the boycott could have worked to get them to use our name? The Allams don't listen to anyone. All that matters to them is reputation and money. Ehab thinks he's the coolest kid ever, with his garishly modified vehicles and reg plates and likes to show it off to the ladies. Assem just thinks he's a ****ing boss and hates being undermined. That's why national media attention is the holy grail.
You're making the Trust out to be a vindictive organisation with no aim other than embarrassment. Which I'm sure wasn't it's original intention. I think something similar to Cardiff's "no blue, no renew" campaign had more chance of working than "hey look, our owners are a bit ****". Everyone knows our owners are a bit **** (they suggested Hull Tigers themselves ffs), but once you have the national medal attention, what do you plan to do with it? This has been a massive waste of an opportunity and probably means we can't use this means of action again. Even if next time there's actually a cause behind it.
I did not go to the match, but I did not boycott it. The media did focus on the empty stands and they did comment on it. So the object of having a boycott worked In terms of value the boycott, performed very well, it did not cost much to organise or to enact and it raised the profile of the message to a national audience. I believe that there needs to be a clear message now from the support, that message should be that the KC belongs to the supporters of Hull City and when they are behind the team, miracles do happen.
After the media coverage the Trust might like to consider contacting the FSF to launch a campaign to give the Premier League some teeth allowing it to impose their rules and ensure that home supporters get the benefit of "meaningful" concessions. It is after all part of their rules. I'm sure there will be plenty of journalists interested after yesterday. The Premier League can tell the Allams what to do and its about time they lived up to their own fine words.
At the end of the day now keeping us in this division is going to be the best way of the Allam's selling, and that looks likely to be the end of the season now. So the more we can get behind the team the better chance of that happening.
That's good news. For what it's worth I'm very much with Obadiah - we need initiatives to fill the stadium, support the team and slate the Allams while we are there. Support the team, not the regime... you could say.
I just don't get your point at all. Are you seriously saying that if we asked the Allams to start using our name again in relation to the boycott they might have listened? Remember they only don't use it out of spite. Because they hate us.
I think what I would say if was TFW, is that the name change (and concessions) remains the key message to get across and the boycott wasn't able to convey all of that message - so maybe the boycott wasn't such a good idea after all. That's my view, anyway.
I wouldn't dispute that. Of all the things we've realistically wanted to do, getting the national media to fully report the situation has been most difficult.
Just need focus, at the right time, in the right place. 2 things really jump out: 1. Name branding online, games etc 2. Concessions/Membership scheme For me, the biggest thing on the top of the Trusts list should be concessions and the membership scheme. But it feels like they think embarrassing people who don't actually care as much as they think, with the aim of pushing them out of the club. That will NOT happen. If they go, it's because they've chosen to go, on their terms. We've seen on both sides how entrenched some people can get, and who will refuse to back down, and how lies are spread. The most obvious one is recently how there's no money, and how they're running the club down, getting bags of money then running, leaving us up **** creek with relugation. Not happening at all is it? New coaching team and contract renewals, plus 2 or 3 new names expected. The view on running the club down never made any sense anyhow, but still seemed popular amongst some. The intent of the current owners is quite clear, be that with them continuing or with new owners. There now seems to be some local press support for the fans, it should be used better. Online and Media stuff should be concentrated on the name being put out. Game stuff should be concessions. Banners, cards, t-shirts, get the local press interviewing people who are affected despite the headline price reductions. Its really easy to highlight 2 things without diminishing one or the other, its just how you do it. Trying to push the Allams out is a complete waste of effort and just causes more alienation across our fan base. It's entirely possible they won't sell, but a vibrant KCOM, constantly keeping up the dissatisfaction is likely to either make us more appealing to other owners, will encourage the team, and will hopefully create a better general atmosphere for us, the fans. I know this will be dismissed by some, but clearly and concisely explaining what is wrong with the membership scheme will yield better results than mocking the chairman's son or singing about his nob size. The idea of the scheme was actually not a bad idea, 12 payments, rewards at different levels, it was almost ground breaking. Obviously the kid and OAP aspects of it weren't great by any stretch, but without the current antagonistic approach, that could be resolved. IMO. The Trust needs to either decide it's representing the fans interests, or its a vehicle for the egos and personal wars of a small handful of its directors/members. What's in the past is in the past. Everyone, on both sides, have said things that haven't turned out to be true, and both sides haven't showered themselves in glory despite notable successes for each. Rather than the constant childish bickering, which frankly pisses a lot of people off, be the bigger man/organisation. Take the positives and highlight them. Geoff is brilliant at that, so you have the right tools, you just need to start using them. For what it's worth, and despite my being cynical about the reasons for choosing a game I don't think would have had more than 6-8k at it anyhow, I think the message around the boycott was taken up pretty well across the press. I know some find it hard to imagine that the rest of the UK doesn't care about us, but, they don't. As much as none of you really care about Swansea and their problems, or Anti Glazier fans at Man U, or the problems Northampton had, or Coventry, or Rangers, or Newcastle, or...well you get the picture. The press do not specifically ignore us, its just how it is across the UK. I'd like to see support the team message much more loudly shouted.
The fact you're missing this point is probably what's making the trust so ineffective. I'm going to use the example of Cardiff again because it's such an obvious one, their "no blue, no renew" campaign included a boycott to show "this is what will happen next season if you don't make the simple change to blue shirts", Vincent Tan was as stubborn as Assem Allam at one point. The boycott yesterday just completely lost it's point, there was no reason for us to boycott, no stated aim and no measure of success (except the daft charity idea). So even if you do get the "national media attention" what now?
I think in light of Silva's post match comments yesterday, regarding needing the supporters, The Trust could, once again, approach the club with a view to opening up a line of communication. I think it may have now dawned on Ehab that losing PL status will cost them so he may soften a little. (Seriously??) They've invested in a management structure. The Trust have a chance to put to the test how far the owners are prepared to back them. Be the ones who make the first move at conciliation. In general, positive action will reap positive coverage. Negative action, negative coverage. Stay positive, offer communication to aid Silva's request.
