Hull City fan banned from KCOM Stadium for three years
- Thread starter originallambrettaman
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
It should be the committee because it's what they're there for. If they aren't good enough to make decisions about what the fans want then there's no point in having a committee.
If it was the committee deciding, it'd be impossible for Ehab to invent the result, which is exactly why it won't happen. It'll be a fake ballot and the 'result' will be just over 50% in favour of the current proposal.
In reality the whole idea of having a process to decide whether fans really want concessions or not is a stupid Ehab game. Everyone knows it's what we want. That's why people are boycotting and protesting.
And yet amazingly still some people believe what they say or give them the benefit of doubt.
Just waiting for the next cleave of the Allams axe regarding the name Hull City to divide supporters even more. How little will they have to concede before some say there you are they are putting back our real name?
Oh now come on, they were not just picked out of a hat to be on the committee.
I do not think that it should be the committee deciding anything, they are not in my view there to do anything other that be a sounding board for the decisions of the club. They are not seen as anything other than a forum by the owners.
To give the decision making process over to a group that is transient, with the majority made up of supporters who are selected by the club, is not a good solution.
Many like Mr Bob, misunderstand EFL rule 112.
The protesters should lobby the clubs Season Membership. You do not know what the supporters want and nor does the club.
It seems that no matter what the outcome of any vote is, you have already decided that it has no value and to be honest that may work against you. Declaring a vote as fake, means that even if the vote was in favour of a return to acceptable concessions, you would not support it, how does that work?
The supporters committee will have different members the next time it meets, the extension was only until the last meeting.
There isn't even the slightest doubt that the supporters want concessions. This is one of those times where you're trying to find a complication where there isn't one.
Of course I have no faith in the club to run a ballot that's anything other than a sham. They've done it before. How stupid would I have to be to believe it to be genuine this time?
The OSC do have a little form of their own when it comes to the interpretation & reporting of ballot results.
I think we need to be careful here.
The evidence so far suggests we played better, and with more passion when we were Hull Tigers and we've gone downhill since the change back to Hull City.
The evidence so far suggests we played better, and with more passion when we were Hull Tigers and we've gone downhill since the change back to Hull City.
Are the only people who care about City those who have carried on with their membership schemes? Of course the Allams will be happy for a vote to be restricted to those who have continued with the scheme. I have no doubt some amongst them will be happy to have a cheaper seat with the added benefit of no OAPs and noisy kids spoiling their quiet contemplation of the match.
No doubt if there are 10,000 people left in the membership scheme and 5,000 voted no matter what the result Allam would say that the 5,000 who didn't did so because they werd happy with the scheme. Add those to who voted to continue with it and it is an overwhelming endorsment of the scheme.
Last edited:
I think even with the ridiculously skewed sample of only current members you'd still get a large majority in favour of re-introducing concessions if it was a genuine vote. There's barely any opposition to it. The Supporters' Committee have told the club for months that they want concessions and no one has objected or said they disagree with this. If they did say so then the committee members who represent them would have to adjust their stance.
Here we go again with a sort of ITK post just like the night of the last supporters meeting and then when asked about it goes all i only speak for myself and not anyone else.
If you have sumat to say, then say it.
Don't know. Does it matter? This should have been sorted at the most recent supporters' committee meeting at the very latest. The idea that they need to check whether fans really want concessions at this stage is a complete joke.
That last line? I don't remember seeing that in the minutes of the meetings.
Edit. found this on the OWS from the meeting 23rd Nov.
The constitution of the Supporters Committee was questioned on the basis that some of the previous groups are no longer represented. EA responded that the current setup of the Committee is consciously designed to represent the established supporter groups (Hull City Supporters Trust, Hull City Official Supporters Club and Senior Tigers) who between them have a declared combined membership of 2,200. The rest of the Committee is made up of supporters who have applied and been chosen at random from a pool of 167 applications. These supporters are equally distributed across all four stands, male/female and various ages represented. It is felt that this is the optimum way to represent the true mix of supporters and that to change the existing group at this stage would be unfair and open to criticism.
The next minutes of the meeting 26th don't mention any changes to those attending the meetings.
Last edited:
This is Ehab we're talking about, it's obviously going to be a skewed vote, we just have to hope that enough people vote with their conscience regardless.
Deciding what exactly?
Ignoring the fact that it is only actually the Allam's who can decide anything anyway, what is it you would like to see the Committee decide if they could?
I certainly wouldn't want them deciding whether concessions were re-introduced or not. Only a few there are democratically elected, and therefore they are the only ones with accountability that can be removed by people if they don't represent their views. So I could accept those people taking a decision, but not those who are there in a random selection process, or there without any democratic mandate. Those people represent no one and can be removed by no one so have no accountability whatsoever
Maybe I've misunderstood what you were saying though?
How dare you, we are not connected to the sewers and so have a septic tank and I object to you connecting it with the KC and the Allams. In keeping with another thread I am treating this as a hate crime!!