It was a mid table Championship game, just a quick blip in a weekend dominated by the Six Nations and PL (as per). Given the low profile of the game for the nation as a whole, it was as successful as it could have been. There seems to be a policy in the tv to downplay any protests, as it risks encouraging more protests at other games. Don't think anyone expected the Allams to roll over and die, but it keeps focus on their rotten and malign reign.
I am referring to the past 3 years. Actually, go back to CTWD. Fans together? Don't make me laugh. Only when it suits.
It's all about understanding, Happy. I, too, support and like (some) protests; I don't condone disrupting a match, though. I have been, on business, in Leeds over the last couple of days, sharing an hotel and occasion with folk from all over the country. Many of them were football fans, some were keen supporters. One was a Hull City fan from Beverley (he may read this) who gave his season pass up 4yrs ago - not because of the Allams, but because of a growing family, more choice and priorities, and the fact the group he used to go with all felt the same. It's all not as plain as is claimed. The telling thing is that neither him, or any of the others, had more than a weak, superficial view of the reality of the situation - even more telling was that they didn't care to change that. It's not apathy, it's interest, or the lack of it.
Same experiences. The most "knowledgeable" Ive come across is "what are you protesting about, surely the name thing was rejected, so what's the problem, it's not like the Oystons or Venkys own you is it?" We, or some of us, place our owners on a par with the worst, no one else has any interest or concern. You're right, it's not apathy, it's just a complete lack of interest.
Who knows? but plenty do just that. What do you suggest the supporters should do to resolve the long ongoing problems? the name and concessions for a start.
If the ballot on concessions next week is either a) another loaded ballot or b) on those bloody pointless "up yours" concessions Ehab suggested then protests must return.
Lots on that post that I hadn’t referenced, but anyway If the protests or the threat of protests didn’t bring them to the table then what did?
My view hasn't altered. I believe that protests, as with the marches, red cards, banners and chants are all fair game. I think that, because they are legal, they should be publicised to garner maximum support and impact (I didn't agree with the stress balls, but I agree with, Dennis, who does, that there would have been more impact if there were more balls and a better distribution and more than one disruption) - this has been the case with red cards and chants, in particular. I am totally against disrupting the game and throwing missiles onto the field of play; if that is the way of others, then so be it. I believe that the most effective way for organised protest against the owner's name and concessions policies is through one or more of the established supporter groups. My choice has been the Trust, as I am a member of it, although I will take a critical view of it when necessary. I believe, that in the case of the Trust, much good work has been accomplished in creating and securing effective links to the local and national media, and also to other supporter and governing bodies within football; I have always genuinely applauded this and given credit where it is due. I believe that associating with the action groups (scarf presentation, etc) is unnecessary and unhelpful to the position the Trust should be seeking to adopt. My favoured method for them to progress the views of their membership is through the media and not through nameless protesters. Focus on well constructed statements and interviews, be careful over enthusiastic support that doesn't best reflect the increasing professionalism of the Trust. I will be criticised for stating this again, (what am I supposed to do when challenged) but attending the meeting achieves nothing. The Allams have had a strategy for a good while now; they have adapted it and played the support through these meetings - they realised it was how to focus attention, use the support, occupy the media and give themselves space. They have achieved all of those things - whether we like it or not. This turning up (by them), or not, is just another mechanism of their calculated manipulation that is controlling the meetings and the reactions from those meetings - maybe not by everyone, but certainly from some (who are minuted). I have always said I like the current badge: it's modern, stylish and is excellent to be incorporated into a more balanced and supporter friendly branding strategy - it's the strategy that is lacking. I would accept its change back to the original without hesitation, if that is what folk want - it's the last of our concerns. The name shenanigans and concessions are not something that will change quickly, although more promises and timelines will be thrown out to appease the easily appeased. They say you cant push a river and truer words have never been said; it is what it is, simply use the media (national, local, social) and keep on with the other bodies to be a part of the voice against bad owners and poor legislation. Our problems are ours and will only stand a chance of being resolved by the sale of the club; in the meantime let's dance to a tune of our own choosing.
Their own motive; time to play everyone along, introduce VB into the equation, and time to continue taking their money to the point where a sale is due. It doesn't bother them at all if folk believe the protests brought them to the table as they can be magnanimous and also point fingers of blame, when it suits them. What are you seeing different, Dennis?
Which is why I paraphrased the bit from you in apostrophes. The rest was general comment, except for the last line.
In short you agree with lets call them less radical protests, and not the more hardcore. Fair enough. Putting trust in an organisation to work on your behalf is generally a good thing, and in this case the Trust and previously CTWD have done exceptional things. The presentation to the FA regarding the name change was 1st class and helped secure victory over the Allams. The case put forward regarding concessions at the time also resulted in a victory, the club have publicly stated that should we ever get back into the Premier League they will offer concessions according to their rules. However the Allams often manage to twist a defeat into victory for themselfs by reading the vague rules and guidelines of the football governing bodies to suit their own ends. It looks to me that the end will only come when those governing bodies get some balls of their own and make some new easy to follow rules and enforce them vigorously. I won't be holding my breath.
Regarding the badge - I think we already have a solution with our ladies team's badge. Change the 'Ladies' wording to '1904' or 'A.F.C.' and I would be happy.
I'm not really a fan of the badge above but it does say Hull City , do they actually get any funding from the club ?
