Those games played by the club have led to a vote on a form of concessions and a written commitment to reviewing the use of the club’s name and a review of the club crest. Do you accept that? And do you think those are things that would have happened if supporters refused to attend any of the meetings?
Sadly, we can't even get over 150 people to attend a protest march, when over 10,000 of them are just a couple of hundred yards away.
If you want people to vote for something, you don't set something up that gives them a reason not to vote for it.
I know what you mean but the scheme has been 'allam'd' like everything else. I feel dirty for wanting to vote for this thing when I can see so many slimy problems with it.
This post is exactly why I made one post on my views and never viewed the thread again. We all have differing views on the topic, it's fine to debate them and even disagree. However, insults, swearing etc... is unnecessary as is calling someone's area of expertise as nonsense. A ridiculous amount of threads diverge from the original topic and turn into rubbish when a civilised and sensible debate might actually achieve something!
Obviously I understand why people are uncomfortable voting in favour of something they're not completely in favour of, I just think it is, and always was, the only realistic option to bring about any change.
I think it's all smoke and mirrors and have been consistent in saying that from the outset. The concessions are imperfect to the point of taking the piss, the vote is inadequate to purpose, so I see no real advancement here, just a re positioning of everyone's stance to gain time and favour - a divisive gain from the meetings, IMO. We know what the club's name is, they were never allowed to change it. Returning it to how it was would take a few hours of a capable person's time - it hasn't happened - it should have been a condition of sitting down with them, as that shows intent on both parts. I always thought such a sign was a prerequisite in many posters opinions. The club crest is not a major issue for everyone. Some like the new one (I include myself in that), some don't and want the old one (I'm ambivalent), whilst some are happy to get on a with a re-design. It's a throwaway point for the club. I accept their commitment but think it is insincere and too contrived to call any of them some sort of positive gain from the meetings. If, as seems to be the common belief of the attenders and many posters, the club needed to speak with supporters to stop the protests, then yes, I believe they might all of been achieved by protest, without the meetings. Let's face it, the meetings have been manipulated and abused beyond reasonable expectation. Personally I don't think the owners give a **** and are just playing everyone with time wasting activities while they get on with their real strategy.
The Trust have already said that this vote is not going to be the end of things and as soon as they've (hopefully) won the vote to get concessions reinstated, they'll start work on getting the daft restrictions removed. Some consultation on what people would like to see happen next wouldn't be a bad idea.
I said earlier the next battle will be in the media when the result is announced. The Trust need to be on the ball and start work on a response to either outcome now.
Does anyone really believe the result will be an honest reflection of the vote - I'm struggling to find one example of when the Allams said something and then did it - I can't believe this will be any different
Which majority? The majority if those who vote? Or those eligible to vote? With only 5,000 being arsed to vote on the name of the club being changed how many will vote on this?
They count as being on the side you are on. Which means even when beaten you would have won as you claim they would all have voted the way you did.
