Sadly I fear your right,but then,we have never really been a club of solidarity amongst the fans have we. Far to many of our followers to this day all to easily still take pleasure in knocking each other down and the Allams quickly spotted this as our weakness. Let's face it,to this day many of our supporters still have a total disregard for anything that removes there 'sit down sterile approach' to Saturday afternoons let alone having any real vocal passion yet they think nothing of pointing out those who won't sit down or argue with a steward on a valid point as we have heard about in the past. We argue about tickets,who's been going the longest and worst of all it seems we do have a growing section who loathe anyone who lives on a council estate ! All this whilst citing 'we don't want these sorts' attending or other such Rugby Union type twaddle. It beggars belief how WE,the clubs supporters have allowed just TWO people with self confessed 'no knowledge' of the game to ruin our club whilst many carry on to moan about signings or ex players and mangers. It boils my undercarriage to read this sheet whilst the Allams don't even turn up at home for Christ sake. I'm sure many reading this can think of a few clubs supporters who would have hounded these pair of barstewards out long ago,yet here we are p!zzing about trying to argue with stone walled businessmen who never ever did understand the word NO. Asked yourselves this,is giving up and walking away on City the best YOU can do,because if it is,you deserve all what's coming your way Imo.
Surely you can see now after 3 meetings they will find any excuse they can to not do anything. This scarf is purely a convenient excuse, if it wasn't the scarf they would have found something else. I find it ironic in the week there is a lot in the news about the headscarf heroes, here we have another scarf issue. The Allams are not even worthy enough to clean the shoes with their tongues of these ladies, and the thought of AA hoping for an honour from the Queen, these women should be head of the queue.
Ok. I have skipped through the last couple of pages. For those who still support them just so you know I sincerely wish the scarf thing hadn't happened and I certainly would not have done it if I was involved. BUT this does not give that twat any excuse for what he has done Ehab and his old man are trying to claim the moral high ground. My message to those attending these 'waste of time meetings' is simply do not give him the option. Don't meet with them again. Make a public announcement to clarify the position. The lines are drawn. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not attend one more meeting dancing to his tune. HCST will get criticism whichever way it goes so may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. What a sorry state of affairs. And as lots have said, it could have been so different and so much better. The sooner they go the better.
Hull City Supp Trust @HullCityST Tune into @RadioHumberside for @bielbs56 on the @bbcburnsy show discussing last night's events and what happens next at #hcafc
The next step should be a written statement focusing on the clear and indisputable facts of what the club has offered. Challenge them to do something no matter how small but with a clearly visible result. The clubs offer about concessions from last year clearly said according to premier League rules, and only now are some people realising that the concessions are not happening. Using the name Hull City according to branding guidelines, amending guidelines, now it's guidelines he and his staff can understand. If it is not a club policy not to use Hull City the challenge should have been for them to rename the Hall of Fame.
I assume the Allams want to force the Trust to encourage a protest amnesty again. That would show the owner’s power over the oiks Having been involved in many negotiations I personally think it’s time to push back I’d suggest the following 1. Reiterate publicly that the Trust haven’t encouraged future protests, merely stated that Geoff ‘fears’ they may occur 2. Remind people that saying he ‘fears’ they may occur makes it very clear that he doesn’t want them to occur...otherwise he would have used the word ‘hope’ 3. Remind people that the only people that can actually resolve the issues being discussed are the owners as this isn’t a negotiation in the sense that workplace negotiations are. There’s no ACAS it is entirely down to the owners discretion what they want to do or not 4. Point out that the meeting would have been fairly pointless anyway because Ehab had already gone in the media to state his new ‘conditions’ and because he hadn’t shared them with the Trust before the meeting they wouldn’t have had time to respond to them in detail so another meeting would have been needed anyway 5. Produce detailed responses to how concessions could be ‘policed’ whilst reminding everyone that they have already given the club the way that it could be cost neutral, but the club haven’t responded to that proposal yet (I think?) 6. Produce more detailed brand guidelines to make the use of the name prescriptive so even the most confused reader can understand them 7. Produce a consultation plan for the badge, with very clear questions that should be asked. One being ‘should the name Hull City be used on the badge’ 8. Publish all the above 9. State the Trust are happy to meet when the club give them something in writing to consider in response to their proposals, but that a meeting before there is something for Trust members can consider the club’s stance would be pointless
Geoff has implored Ehab to have the reconvened meeting before Sheff Utd. There's the ammo needed to delay until later (no one dictates to me when to hold meetings).
Agree, apart from the challenge on the Hall of Fame The Club guidelines are very clear that it IS Club policy not to use Hull City Challenge the guidelines, albeit using the Hall of Fame as the example of how they stick to their own policies even when they know fans disagree Remind people that could be resolved with 20secs on a keyboard amendjngvthe guidelines
In an effort to maintain and continue the positive dialogue we have overlooked inappropriate incidents at the first two meetings, We know about the 'scarves' at the second meeting. So what 'inappropriate' incident took place at the first meeting?
I'm just hoping Barbara from Senior Tigers didn't gyrate topless on the table whilst singing 'Mirror in the Bathroom'
