I've always been impressed with him from personal experience. But there is definitely a culture at the club of contempt for fans and unfortunately some of it seems to filter down to the likes of Lord and other good people too. I've heard him and others say certain things which sound like someone who's listened to Allam for too long.
So I am biased because I say there is no proof of who took the decision, whist you, without any proof, are not biased when you declare it must have been Assem Allam. Have a word with yourself, son, before your Mam reads this.
As I keep saying, it's blindingly obvious. Flags are never normally a problem. It doesn't take a dossier of evidence to work out why this one was stopped. That you seem to be suggesting it was all some massive coincidence is why I'm suggesting bias.
That was because we wanted to show Allam that his theory that the support for the CTWD is not the minority but the majority. I am certain Allam was responsible for the tug of war with the banner. The old git should remember that he was given shelter from such anti freedom of speech 40 years ago. In other words he was welcomed with open arms and given the opportunity to earn his forture and now he is slapping us in the face.
Sigh. Okay, if it was all a health and safety thing, how come it wasn't immediately a problem and only after a minute or two did they wade in and take the flag? They will know the rules. If it was just policy they'd have stopped it as soon as they came down the steps of E1. The fact it took just long enough for Allam to get a message across all seems a bit suspicious for it to just be a big coincidence.
In fairness - you only have to look around this board the position some people can take, not for or against - just about not offending anyone. The banner went from South to North, facing the East Stand - the stewards stepped in when they attempted to turn around and go North to South, facing the West Stand. I would say it's more likely that it was someone lower down wanting to "protect" Mr Allam from the quite outrageous statement that we are Hull City. It's fair to say, that was an ill-advised decision.
Bear with me because i've come in at the back end of the story, but was the flag actually taken away by the stewards in the end?
I'm I'm E1 near the front..…my opinion is was a couple of stewards who wanted to stop the flag going around ...the rest of the stewards didn't seem interested at first. No proof at all it was orders from the Allams If that was the case ALL the stewards would have been told and stopped the flag when it appeared. Stewards to blame And though I'm not to bothered by the name change I was overcome with desire to help keep the flag with the fans..... I do hope in future the demos and protests are outside the stadium. To many taking eyes and minds off the game . Did it effect the players.....hard to say....it shouldn't have but who knows
Did it bollocks affect the players, I've been at games where massive battles are going on and the players carried on, remember Bradford at BP or even Millwall at the KC in the cup.
My stream was a bit naff today. Am I right in thinking I heard (presumably the Palace fans) singing: #City till you're **** You're city till you're **** You know you are you're sure you are You're city till you're **** ?
Didn't hear that one. They teased us with the usual "You're not City any more" and also the inevitable "City of culture? You're having a laugh."
Were did I say it did ? I said did it ... Iv been to games with battles going on loads of times Pitch invasions ...teams been took off etc Me been thrown out ( the good old days ) Times have changed... Strange game today....
It was a good job the stewards backed off when they did. Had they not, the incident would have turned ugly and a few dozen supporters would now be facing bans. Not quite sure they would have thought about that prospect when they rushed the stewards but that could have easily of happened, and the Hull Daily Mail headline thing morning would be about Hooliganism rather than protest.
Was that possibly part of the plan? Is it also possible that the 2 stewards only reacted after they'd received a radio message on the owners instructions ....... that would explain why they just stood and watched at first. Or is the position of the TV cameras relevant perhaps, nothing worse than a fight in the background on MOTD to harm the club's image or highlight the feelings of the Hull supporters. Would a demonstration on the road that the owner takes to the match be better? No chance of distracting the players, 'upsetting other supporters' in the ground and less chance of police action. Plus the owner wouldn't be able to ignore it.
No it's not. It could have been any number of people give that order. Most likely chief steward on a power trip, I think if anyone carried in like that with any flag they'd come after it.
