Trust update on the Supporter Committee meeting... Supporters Committee Meeting – 26/07/2017 On Wednesday 26th July HCST Director Graham Cannon represented the Trust at Hull City’s latest Supporters’ Committee Meeting. Here are the key points from the meeting. Concessionary ticket prices were requested to be reinstated but the club will not entertain this request. The club say they are expecting to have 11,000 members this season. They agreed to release a breakdown of members by age following a request. It was requested that the name Hull City is used on all social media accounts. The club suggested that the Facebook page could be changed to ‘Hull City Tigers’. Despite this, the club once again claimed that it does not have a policy not to use the name Hull City. The club say that no more players will leave during this window unless there is a huge offer and expect that once transfers are completed they will have the wage bill of a top 6 team. City acknowledge that the Wi-Fi service in the ground is poor and are investigating this. They are also aware of a problem with the PA system but have no plans to address this as it would apparently cost a six figure sum to resolve. The SMC are looking to equip food and drink kiosks with contactless payment to increased the speed of service. Other topics were also discussed such as new food options at the ground, and communication from the club. In summary, despite being left in no doubt as to the main issues impacting supporters, the club has not taken any action on key points since the last meeting. The club insist that concessions will not be reintroduced and flatly deny that the club is being rebranded by stealth. A claim which is difficult to take seriously while the club advertise fixtures such as “Hull City Tigers v Burton Albion”. It seems apparent once again that the club representatives who attend these meetings don’t have the authority to make the changes which fans want to see. HCST strongly recommends that future meetings be led by a club representative who is fully accountable for the actions of the club and the implementation of actions agreed at previous meetings. Without this the Supporters’ Committee simply lacks credibility. http://hullcitysupporterstrust.com/supporters-committee-meeting-26072017/?platform=hootsuite
Jesus H - the PA system and the food is still being discussed? These were the hot topics when Adam was in charge. As for the social media accounts, the simple solution is not to follow them until the correct club name is used.
Talking about changing the facebook page to Hull City Tigers ? It's all a waste of time , people should stop going to these things
I do wonder why it should be thought necessary that a decision maker must attend for the meeting to have credibility. Those attending are the paid representatives of the club, they will take back the content of the meeting and return with any responses; that's perfectly normal. The real point is that the supporter element of this committee is simply repeating old topics and expecting different answers from an obviously intransigent and manipulative club and that is usually accepted as madness. But never mind, the club has its supporter liaison box ticked. The initial decision to attend these meetings was flawed, its still flawed.
With regard to the Trust, attending wasn't flawed, it was absolutely necessary. They've been calling for a dialogue with the club since the Trust was formed, they obviously couldn't not attend once an invite was offered. You can make a good case for refusing to attend now it's obvious, as expected, that it's a waste of time, but they had to attend to know that.
I thought they wanted a dialogue with Ehab ? Nobody else at the club seems in the position to make a decision about anything
I take that point under the circumstance of the Trust demanding dialogue with the club, although that demand is also critically flawed; so I stand by my opinion that the decision to attend was flawed and my reasoning has nothing to do with hindsight. The two key points, lack of concessions and rebranding, were both already entrenched in their strategy and moving forward constantly. The remainder of the nonsense - PR system, contactless payments, broader food offer, etc. - are mundane and decided before anyone walks in the room; best left to one of their announcements. The meetings never were going to achieve anything for anyone other than the club - box ticked.
The box can be unticked though. Its just a question of choosing the best time to do it to have the biggest impact.
I agree. The minutes of the meetings will show if the fans are being listened to or if the group is simply a token gesture.
Was with you until the last line, an olive branch was offered it had to be taken. I said at the time of the first meeting challenge them to do something anything no mater how small and then if the don't do it take their olive branch and beat the **** out of them.
The question now is, who are those going / invited to the meeting? And are they prepared to do something ie a mass walk out?
Can it, really? The time has passed, another season has begun, memberships are sold, meetings have been held. The supporter involvement box is ticked and can't be unticked this season.
It was an olive branch with a barb on it. It was a simple thing to ask the direct question about who, from the club, would attend. Who attends critical meetings without being sure that key people are present? The Trust knew beyond any reasonable doubt that there would not be a Allam at the meeting. They also know beyond any reasonable doubt that the Allams are the only decision makers. They now, rather lamely complain that they want decision makers to attend; I understand their frustration, but I don't share their choice of strategy. If someone offers you a stick with **** on it, olive or not, you don't grasp it. Especially if it concedes them an advantage i.e. supporter liaison box ticked. That had been my opinion for a very long time and the owners have done absolutely nothing to change it, despite the excellent efforts of various organisations and individuals.
I agree with most of that but the trust had to send a rep to the first meeting. What happens now? If the activists walk away will the invited individuals walk too, or have thay been bought by a few free drinks a pie and the status of been close to the club.
A tad confused, as you agree with most of that even though all of that disagrees with your thought that the Trust had to send a rep to the first meeting. What happens now? That is down to the organisations and individuals involved; but why stop now when it was always plain what would happen in the first place? Surely their strategy is that it is best to be involved and try to bring about change that way. I don’t agree with it, but that's just my opinion and how it seems.
