I think that is a very honest and well written statement and I find myself with more in common with their aims than those of the Trust. The underhand nature of the club's approach really doesnt surprise me but it does challenge my think on the acceptable nature of protests - perhaps anything legal within the ground is where they need to be. They made mistaeks and have quickly identified them and reacted in a very transparent and forthright manner - well done, them. This is interesting, as it seems to support what I have been saying about the Allams using the protests, rather than trying to prevent them, by anything other than empty words.
Ok I don’t think there’s enough in the published guidelines to prove their doing anything wrong, and they’re just guidelines so they wouldn’t care even if there was I don’t understand why that caused a meeting to be cancelled mind you Actually I have a bigger issues with Stand reps having a voice at the table. They’re not representing a democratic group (like Trust and OSC) that could chose to change them if needed It’s fine when you’re discussing mirrors in the ladies, but not when there are serious matters to be discussed. In that case I think it should be only reps of groups that if you want to influence you can join and democratically contribute to / change if needed
I'm not sure you have it right. Wishing to remain anonymous in their statements is not undemocratic, they talk under a group name, which this group has now amended and restated. I think there is more to life that the letter of the law, we should also embrace the true spirit of decent concepts and initiatives - not use and abuse them. If the Trust issued those obligations to try and get the club to embrace the true spirit of decent concepts and initiatives - not use and abuse them, then I can only applaud them - but, as I said, I am not privy to their intentions. As a stated director (Communications?) of the OSC and one of the so-called ITKs, I think you are taking the wrong tack here and overstepping the mark - your powder should be far drier.
I have no idea who is right or wrong. However, if someone even slightly criticises the OSC you come out defending them and do exactly what OLM is doing. So why are you allowed to defend the OSC from completely legitimate criticism sometimes but OLM can't defend the trust? You can't have it both ways.... On another note, I agree with Fez in a number of ways, however I do agree with protests.I believe by attending any meetings we are playing right into their hands and I have no doubt come the 2nd April they will back down from the name change and the concessions they put forward will be unfeasible and children will get no benefits whatsoever. I am not sure protesting will work, however, what else do we have? We have to try protesting or boycotting.
When you say our name reinstated, is that on 1 billboard or newspaper advert for an up and coming game? or is it when all the social media site have been changed to Hull City. It's going to be a hard thing to define when they have done enough and then what is to stop them doing a little bit by the end of the month then changing things back again.
I think there was a push for it, Dennis. I recall it being said that omitting those who protest and not listening to their POV was not constructive and I agree with that. Then Scarfgate came and went (we were kept in the dark), so yes, there was clearly some intent in that direction. Being anonymous is a red herring for me, a name, an email address and no DNA would suffice to listen to someones concerns and report back to them. It is this whole mishmash of views and opinions that make the meetings so unhelpful to supporters and very helpful to the owners - which is why I have always been against them.
How would you go about submitting a design for the new badge (I've been having a mess around with designs this morning) or do you think it's already been decided?
Giving recognition to anonymous groups would simply increase the ‘mishmash of views’ Where do you stop? If anonymous groups are allowed to get a view to the table just because they have a name and an email address then you could end with me setting up my own ‘group’ , even on my own, and then expecting to have my voice considered. That would be nonsense (the idea of it and my view probably) I don’t accept anyone should be able to have a voice on behalf of fans unless that person was democratically chosen and can be democratically removed If protest groups want a voice then they should be open to be joined, and influenced, even if they set up an anonymous arm to actually arrange the detail of protests to try and achieve their agreed targets Democracy is important
I really don't think groups who by their own admission are secretive and anonymous have any right to demand a seat at the table. Elected representatives are there. If you want to see democracy in action, join the Trust, put your views forward, hell put yourself forward. Demanding a seat because you feel entitled is shameful. Transparency is important.
That remains to be seen, though they can’t really claim they’ve reverted to calling us Hull City if the Facebook page is still Hull Tigers.
Happy to stand corrected, but I think the only person in attendance at the Supporters' Committee who was elected by membership is the HCST Chairman. I confess I'm not aware of how the Senior Tigers' constitution works so I could be wrong.
I think many see you as the voice of the OSC on this board. It's evolved for good reasons, but it has evolved and I think you sometimes need to be mindful of that. Your frustration is all yours, I don't disrespect that one iota. I frequently challenge the club, the Trust, the action groups, the OSC and, yes, that sometimes ends with being abused. Strangely, not from the club or the OSC. Water, ducks, back. If there are to be supporter liaison meetings and the meetings are meant to explore, and make better, issues that reflect badly on the club, then surely the protesters should have a voice at those meetings? I am only against the meetings because I believe they have always been and still are a total bloody sham and disrespectful. Leave others to their own ends, it doesn't go unnoticed.
PLEASE nobody design a new crest. We surely should demand the return of our previous crest. No redesign needed. No excuse for further (tactical) delays. Absolutely nothing wrong with what we had. Please dont fall into their trap a d their stupid game playing.
They will not revert back to our previous badge Driff. That would be admitting defeat. They are not humble people.
