He was a spent force at that point in his career.I accept he had been a player who could have played with a much bigger club. Unfortunately he lacked self control and would engage mouth before brain.I think his final "interview" at Sunderland when he told the hierarchy of the club he would not change probably summed up his limitations. My Italian team is Ascoli Calcio who I watched in Serie B with very small crowds and then incredibly in Serie A(you can guess what happened to the crowds).If you look on you tube-best Italian Football Fans- 1 you will see the crowd in action.Not bad for a town with a vary small population.The KC would seem like Galatasaray if we could replicate that and have the same proportion of the locals turning up.
Just saw very unpleasant flares and smoke bombs. Not the type of thing we want at the KC. It could cause respiratory problems and replica shirt inferno firestorm.
Refreshing, if I may say, in the fact you’re one of a few, who I’ve come across, who supports a foreign team who are not a big club: Juve, Real, Barca, Inter, Milan are ,from my experience, the usual clubs of choice for insecure latchers on. Surely, glory hunting is glory hunting wherever?
Itâs a like a curse with City. There always has to be something, some ****ing catch or trade off to check our happiness.
shame we canny get the kc like this [video=youtube;lcYE0eXQGaE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcYE0eXQGaE[/video] just typical english for you though ain't it.. up at the kc
This is where my issue with it comes from. I'm more bothered about what the club is than what it's called, but to decide to change the name on what is effectively a hunch is ridiculous when there are so many fans who do care about it. The fans will always call it the same thing, it's like we talk about sitting in the North/South/East/West Stand without using the name we've sold onto them. Even KC as the stadium sponsors right from day 1, I think in Hull or with people from Hull I just refer to it as the stadium, or the new ground depending on the conversation. Only time I seem to use KC is when I'm talking about it with outsiders (which I guess is a bit like what Allam was saying about HCT nationally and HT internationally). As I wasn't really around during the first bit it's hard to say. There maybe is a bit of that, but equally there hasn't been anything misleading posted from our side about the deletions (I've not been involved in any of it, I've just looked over it now). There's nothing wrong with the posts themselves, it appears as said to be just "pruning" using the fact we on here (posters, not mods) know more about the situation than smug to stop the thread having to go over lots of slightly different permutations that are comparisons to unrelated situations. Looking at the posts in question I would say the view taken was that one accurate situation being discussed in detail by everyone is a better/more efficient way to provide him with the understanding he's seeking than explaining to him one situation at a time why his present understanding isn't quite there. You tend to find we do this more on threads about important issues than we do on general threads. So with the name change, the stadium ownership, Barmby being sacked, Pearson going, the Allam's takeover the moderation becomes more about avoiding the wrong impression of events being accidentally given to readers than anything else, where normally it's just about making sure people don't go too far with what they're saying/doing. We also tend to let emotions run a bit higher at those times as we realise it's not a standard debate the team for the next game type of situation (think back to the divide on here after Barmby's sacking). Essentially when the details are being discussed the board becomes more of a news service with comments than a place to discuss hypotheticals, and that's for the benefit of people who use these sites for information. Clearly there's a conflict in that between us letting the Di Canio/facism discussion to occur and it deviate into Italian lower league football, but that's not something that could cause confusion as to what is actually happening on the issue. At least one of the deleted posts was you agreeing with what he'd just said, so posting he was deleting it because he disagreed with it isn't really a fair reflection. If we were going to moderate like that on here we'd delete the criticisms of the moderating as well, but if there's ever been an issue we've been quite happy to explain why we've done what we've done and take on board any changes that the forum as a whole wants us to make if the situation occurs in future. If you read my reply to Mel at the start of this post I think I've explained what's been behind it in a bit more detail than Dutch did earlier. Like I say, I wasn't involved in the deleting of it, and I've not spoken to the other mods about it. I've just come on here, looked at what's been deleted, and thought about why I would remove those posts if I chose to do so. If that hasn't covered it for you, please raise your concerns either by PM or on a new thread so that this can remain on topic (even if that topic has now gone the way of being about Italian lower league football). I would have done the same with this, but I felt I should address the suggestion that was made about why it had been deleted in the same place it was raised, and separating out those posts onto a new thread would have been really untidy. As I've seen on the mod board your forum has different views on whether it is right for a moderator to edit/rename posts to ours I'll inform you now, our forum rules say we can change things to ensure content is acceptable to the forum as a whole. If the discussion is carried on on this thread we will move the posts to a seperate thread and edit them so that it makes sense (content won't be affected, but clearly the opening post at least needs to explain it's come from another thread rather than being random).
This would appear to be true - my Scouse, Mackem, Canaries, Forest, Spurs, M'boro -supporting friends all think it's somewhere along the spectrum from hilarious to tiresome.
Thanks for that, I thought I was going mad. My posts shouldn't be routinely deleted just because they don't always follow the obvious agenda of one of your mods. Claiming that my posts are 'pruned' for the sake of the board, or whatever other lame reason, isn't moderation. As you say there are totally o/t posts while mine have been reasonable and in line with the general theme. I thought that a view from an impartial football supporter would be acknowledged even if not welcomed, some people don't seem to mind. Anyway, back to the thread which I'm trying hard to follow. I hope you don't mind a few questions if you can be bothered. The name seems important, which is understandable, but I don't understand how the owner is in the wrong regarding the stadium. He wants it for the club but the council haven't agreed to a sale/transfer and may never agree, no matter who the owner may be in the future. There seems to be a whole raft of other 'accusations' against the owner but it all seems to be smoke & mirrors without much in the way of hard facts. So, apart from the name change, what are the other main problems?
TBH mate, I think many people looking from the outside, see it as a club, that we all know as the Tigers, having a civil war about being called the Tigers. As you're in the Premier League, which to be fair is quite rare, people wonder why you can't just enjoy it.
It's a complicated situation that's developed to where it is. Many outsiders will tend to take a far too simplistic view of things, which is why they'll struggle to see the issue. CTWD campaign is simply against the name change. The reasons behind the name change are where the complications come.
TBH, it looks to some people that some Hull supporters are looking for complications where there aren't any. There are so many 'my mate who works at the ground/council/library' posts that 'facts' seem to be whatever suits your argument.
That's exactly what I'm saying, but it doesn't help when so few people are being specific. Your response is typically vague. How can people understand when so many posts are based on speculation and gossip? I've yet to see you say what the 'complications' are in clear terms.
Have a read of the web sites and forums. It's not an issue that can be distilled in a short reply. You've said you don't have an issue with the name change, that's your choice, the rest of the issues won't make much sense to you.
That's because no one, including you, seems to be able to state, clearly, what they are ....... the forums are full of contradictory claims and people with totally different opinions. Don't worry if you can't clarify, I'll ask someone who can.
The best way to put this is: If you read only the last page of an imaginary book called "Hull City AFC the name change years" you may not understand the complex story. There must be several hundred posts on this subject and we have all read the book from the start and it's difficult to explain to someone who has only just got the last page. No disrespect but how I have read the situation could be different to the views of several others and we don't have the time to start over again.
Unless you've an idea about local Politics and politics as well as club politics, you'd get a brief summary at best, and someone else could summarise it with a totally different slant, so you'd be no further on. This isn't the place or the thread to spend time explaining to one individual, and it wouldn't move things on for us. We have other things to do at the moment. If you are as interested as you say, it should be no problem to use google to get the information you want.
One of the reasons is because the club's PR is so poor. Hard info is later revealed to be untrue, or there is no info at all- which is why there is so much speculation and assumption.
