The ballot...

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Fez said:
Of course it’s not crazy. Not voting would also suggest that you didn’t like the options given. A ballot isn’t a three-line-whip, there isn’t some thug telling you to do A or B; this is about the individual choosing to subscribe to one idea or the other, or to say no, they’re both a crock of ****, I’m not voting.

Abstainers are only different in that they are not thugs or bullys who insist that someone should vote for a notion they don’t agree with. There’s an odd trend on here and it’s not great.
Click to expand...

I understand your first point (para 1) but not your second (para 2). Care to elaborate?

MoH
 
The Omega Man said:
Sorry edited “I believe”.

As for the OSC stance, there isn’t one, we do not issue statement or press releases about the politics of the club. I have said many times that the OSC does not have a mandate from its membership to do anything other than support Hull City and as far as the current board is concerned, it will not do anything other than attend and take part in the Supporters Committee as being representative of the supporter base, OSC members and supporter groups. The OSC will not make a recommendation, statement or conduct a poll on matters like this. We cannot be the Official supporter group and be seen as fully independent and as such whilst we will take part and be active in the committee, that’s where it ends for us. This may be different in the future, who knows.

This is something that the supporter base has to decide for itself and in reality for the OSC to have a stance it would have to hold a poll of its members and stand by the result.
Click to expand...

Wow and ****ing hell that's some statement.
I don't see any politics it's about the reintroduction of some concessions.
Why does the OSC have a seat on the supporters meetings if you are not representing the views of anyone? That person is no better than the Allam picked ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: juleskaren, TwoWrights and Kempton
originallambrettaman said:
That makes absolutely no sense.

Ehab doesn’t want concessions, he’s been fighting introducing any form of them ever since the membership scheme was launched.

You might not think those concessions go far enough, but they’re certainly concessions.
Click to expand...

As I've said, these are Ehab's 'concessions'.

We haven't won here. Ehab think's he's won. He hasn't succumbed to anyone. He's just moved another chess piece in his ongoing battle with the fans of Hull City.

Concessions is concessions. His version shouldn't be seen as a victory for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kempton
originallambrettaman said:
The majority of people who get a vote simply won’t bother, abstaining simply increases that number, it’s guaranteed to achieve nothing.
Click to expand...

And your point is?

Those who can’t be arsed can’t be arsed, end of, move on. The abstainers we discuss are those who can be arsed, but make a sensible, logical decision not to vote for either option, as they dislike and disagree with both. They don’t wish to be hypocritical, they wish to have the same level of discretion and choice as you, Al and Happy. The key difference seems to be that they don’t criticise or deny anyone else that choice.

You often talk in absolute terms; saying ‘it’s guaranteed to achieve nothing’ totally misses the point - the ballot, on its own, is a travesty, unless someone takes the three options to another level. Stop pointing a finger at abstainers, because there will always be three pointing back at those who attended the manipulated meetings. The Allams have their forum, their conduit for divisive manipulation; they know how to string along well intentioned people and then shaft them. That’s it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trau Morgus
I
Trau Morgus said:
As I've said, these are Ehab's 'concessions'.

We haven't won here. Ehab think's he's won. He hasn't succumbed to anyone. He's just moved another chess piece in his ongoing battle with the fans of Hull City.

Concessions is concessions. His version shouldn't be seen as a victory for us.
Click to expand...
This ^ I really don't understand why this isn't understood by some.
 
Trau Morgus said:
As I've said, these are Ehab's 'concessions'.

We haven't won here. Ehab think's he's won. He hasn't succumbed to anyone. He's just moved another chess piece in his ongoing battle with the fans of Hull City.

Concessions is concessions. His version shouldn't be seen as a victory for us.
Click to expand...

Obviously I disagree, but I think we’ve been round the houses enough on this now.
 
Fez said:
And your point is?

Those who can’t be arsed can’t be arsed, end of, move on. The abstainers we discuss are those who can be arsed, but make a sensible, logical decision not to vote for either option, as they dislike and disagree with both. They don’t wish to be hypocritical, they wish to have the same level of discretion and choice as you, Al and Happy. The key difference seems to be that they don’t criticise or deny anyone else that choice.

You often talk in absolute terms; saying ‘it’s guaranteed to achieve nothing’ totally misses the point - the ballot, on its own, is a travesty, unless someone takes the three options to another level. Stop pointing a finger at abstainers, because there will always be three pointing back at those who attended the manipulated meetings. The Allams have their forum, their conduit for divisive manipulation; they know how to string along well intentioned people and then shaft them. That’s it.
Click to expand...

I’ve merely posted my opinion, nobody’s being denied anything, people will ultimately have to make up their own minds and vote/not vote as they see fit.
 
Fez said:
Glad you see the critical point in this, Happy, but the Trust have always had a mandate.

To you both:

Always prepared to take on board other opinion, but is, or should this really be about getting EA to back down and bugger how that is achieved? How does that make us any different to him?

Surely this really should be about the principle of concessions and all of its constituent parts: fairness, inclusivity (young, old, disabled), rewarding those who really have earned their stripes, encouraging the next generation - and this full price paying generation, who want to take their bairns.

We can’t guarantee what the Allams will do, regarding leaving; it’s no secret that I more or less agree with OLM on his prediction, but that shouldn’t cloud our thinking on concessions today - not next year or the year after.

Abstaining has a voice; especially if Trusts and action groups are prepared to recognise that. For instance, through the normal channels (that I have always advocated) encourage abstainers to email the HDM, the FSF, Channel 5 Championsip.., or all of them - even include the club, so they are aware, but not them exclusively. Encourage all voters to do that, if they feel they are caught between the devil and the deep...

These are hard choices, they aren’t political, like a General Election (as, Chazz, has suggested), this is a moral question of trading one section of our support to make a fleeting and dubious win over the owners. I think that’s bollocks and not worthy.
Click to expand...
Actually Chazz didn’t say it was like a General Election, he said the exact opposite
He quoted someone who said that ‘it’s like a General Election you just vote for what’s best for you’ in order to slate that person ...quite rightly
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chazz Rheinhold and originallambrettaman
I will be abstaining, before jumping on my back read why.

If I voted yes to this I am not voting 'yes to the principle of concessions' that is not an option here. Not one of the choices is for the principle of concessions. One is to carry on as we are and one is to vote for Ehabs ludicrous pricing structure. The other is to take a stance and abstain.

I am abstaining because this is not an olive branch this is Ehab taking the piss. Unfortunately I know him through work and I know for a fact he will take this as a win.

The whole we will lobby him for better concessions. That won't happen. He will walk away and paint the picture of the wonderful owner of someone who listened to supporters. He will have a number of that committee on his side!

What we now need to do is up the propaganda up the media campaign, up the twitter campaign. Show the world for who he is really is. Now isnt the time to give into this terrible offer.

My boycott continues. [HASHTAG]#ALLAMSOUT[/HASHTAG]
 
  • Like
Reactions: look_back_in_amber, FILEYseadog, Rigsby and 2 others
I'm really struggling with this - in principle I am happy to pay a little bit more as an adult in the interest of making things cheaper for concessions; but as a Dad taking a 15 year old son I kind of feel that I should be in a category to benefit even for a short period from concessions being brought back in. But actually instead of paying the current £42; my concession will cost me a further £3 (a 7% increase - now £45) then in 3 years I get to pay £54 (a 28.5% increase) whilst my son will still be in full time education. To me this really is a just another mickey take and because of this even though I feel I have to vote for the principles of concessions - these are not concessions, and protests should not be toned down one little bit. This choice will just result in further animosity towards the club - the club loose - pathetic!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: look_back_in_amber, askewshair, Rigsby and 2 others
FILEYseadog said:
People who vote for these concessions will be seen as folk who agree to the ALLAMS idea as been fair and reasonable.

Which they are so not

I wont vote for this bag of ****
Click to expand...

But if you don't vote you could be seen as endorsing Ehab's belief that we are the best run club and nothing needs to change
 
The turkeys are been balloted to see if Christmas should be abolished.
A yes vote means no more Christmases, a no vote means Christmas continues, and abstention also means Christmas continues.

Does this help?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back