Hang on a bit there matey, he said he didn't know which way to vote fair enough, many have said that if the current proposed concessions win the vote the campaign to get better ones will go on fair enough. Now you are saying the Allams have said that there will be or can be changes to the proposed concessions. 1st I would like to see when and where they said that and 2nd it's hard to believe.
Oh I must have missed that one. Don't worry about being called a **** though. It's just the way we talk on here. In fact it's often affectionate.
The Allams haven't actually said anything, but club representatives have told some of the Supporters Committee (following universal complaints about the restrictions) that they are open to discussing further amendments to improve things if the vote for concessions is successful. Obviously it might be bollocks, but it's what they've said.
I thought you more than most on here would realise that anything that is not written down in crystal clear English is not a fact.
I'm not naive, I know full well what they're like, but are we going to challenge them to change these things or just give up?
If someone put in on the table a meal you neither asked for or like, would you accept it? I don’t see any obligation to accept the voting options. There is plenty to suggest they won’t. I don’t see the relevance of your last paragraph, as I believe all change is proposed to be next season.
[ If I went to the table and only asked to be fed, could I complain that what was on offer lacked seasoning or could I take the next opportunity to ask for some salt and pepper? The call was for concessions, the result was a vote, it might not satisfy the hunger, but it shouldnt be rejected. There has been movement and it was only going to be changes to match day prices this season, so that movement cannot be dismissed. I do not believe that the committee should have a vote and so I support a season membership vote.
How did you arrive at that? The Trust will do what the Trust will do and that has nothing to do with the vote as both possible results are incompatible with their stated objective of bringing back proper concessions. I agree that a no vote would prove difficult for them, as the supporters will have spoken (in the view of the Allan spin camp), which is why a Trust position of not being supportive of the vote and encouraging a no-vote would have been preferable and would allowed them to continue their campaign on concessions.
What? Oh. It's you. Well it's what I've been told. It's also well documented online. They'll maybe switch campaigning to get supporters onboard for concessions if there's a note vote, but after a no vote, that would imo be futile and a waste of energy. Of course you'll disagree. Carry on.
