Reconciliation would need a mediator that wasn't part of any established group; someone who could be objective across problems and not be sssociated with single issues. I'm not sure there is any obvious candidate, but work has to be done before the club met direct with groups. A bit like the secret back channels when the Irish problem was an issue. No one can be seen to be negotiating with the opposition publicly (it would kill it by weight of visible expectation). You talk publicly when you know you can reach agreement.
Malcolm Clarke, the top fella from the FSF would be an ideal mediator. Except he's the one that the Allams' lawyers went after their name change was turned down by the FA committee that Malcolm sat on. Maybe Alan Johnson can be involved?
That interview was good, but only in terms of propaganda for the owners. Scripted throughout and totally without any hint of an Olive Branch, just another bothersome Bramble that irritates. It served a purpose in tabling some figures that can be safely referred to as having come from the Arsehole's Mouth. It also, I would hope, knocked back any remaining nonsense about us being a Selling Club. It paid credit and praise on the new manager, whilst taking his own share of credit - which is due, but begrudged by most of us. I didn't get anything new from it, the figures mentioned were always going to be about that, the changes in regime were very obvious; in no way did I see any sense of 'come speak to me' his his words or approach. I am still of the opinion that there should be no meeting until there is a real change to something that has been changed for the worse. Concessions can be changed easily, simply revert to what was. The name can be changed very easily, if there is a will to do so. The badge (I like the current one) can also be changed very easily. No meetings with supporters necessary. It certainly looks like this will rumble on for a very long time and I can see no value in boycotting games. This is now all about using all aspects of media focus, which is exactly what he has done.
How can they be changed easily and revert to what was? Some twats sat in my old seat. For all the concessions are wrong a lot of people started going again just cos the prices dropped. Over 18 and legal bought a pass cos of the price. He wasnt the only one i imagine.
Realistically, there's not going to be any change to the concession issue this season, the aim needs to be to sort if ahead of next season.
Does that mean that next season Sunderland and/or Newcastle (depending on promotion and/or relegation) may have to change?
I thought one of the justifications of the membership was that changes could be made at short notice. The club could easily introduce concessions and change all online "branding" to Hull City immediately. Other matters such as the badge, etc. could be done after due consideration and discussions. This would mean an end to any boycott and fans and club working in the same direction.
It only really needs a change to online / marketing branding, which could be done immediately and needs no consultation Then after that they could simply say they'd like to engage with fans to discuss anything else Piece of piss...but Ehab won't want to do it I don't think
Yes, but the way he said it implied that the club wasn't currently up for sale, I believed it still was up for sale and that may well be the case although the interviewer didn't query the situation
With the exception of Man City and Chelsea, everyone hates their chairmen for all the same reasons, they have to sell the players to balance the books. Add to that the Allams are brown skinned and Hull isn't know for it's 'tolerance.'
A 'big supporter' is overstating it, I could understand the thinking behind it and I wasn't against it, but I always understood those who were pissed off about being moved and it was handled appallingly.
