Actually there is an argument that Hull Tigers could attract 11m this month and Hull City AFC could lose that investment. One thing that keeps getting forgotten is that the one investor any business always needs to keep on the right side of is the one whose already has put his hands in his pocket. Will Hull Tigers attract new investors, I doubt it. Will Hull Tigers increase global awareness of the club, I doubt that in the long or middle term that it will. But if Hull Tigers means that Assem Allam commits more money into the club, I am afraid that too many will still buy tickets and in doing so they will support the change indirectly.
Assem Allam has to weigh up whether buying a new striker will keep Hull City up against the probability of not buying a striker and watching us get relegated. His investment is dependant upon us remaining a Premier League team. I would suggest that in the eyes of Assem Allam that is a more important consideration than what we are called. Unless of course he can afford to see us relegated. The FA's decision will come after the close of the transfer window so he has to decide now whether to twist or stick.
Obi has it right, if we were to get relegated, then AA's plans all go out the window, he has absolutely banked on staying up(literally).
But you are wrong. The reason is simply this. Everyone on the list of possible voters can be named and verified as members of the official supporters club. There can be no argument that these are genuine supporters of the club. Assem Allam cannot say that they are just outsiders who are making trouble for instance. He has to accept that the OSC membership is made up of Hull City supporters. If you want to be clever about the 10% thats fine, but it is the accepted return on supporter involvement. How many of the gate are in CTWD 10%? How many of the gate are in the OSC 10%. One of the posts has the results of the HDM poll. Circulation of the HDM 38309, number of responses to their poll 3671 So only having a 10% response is fine isnt it really?
A 10% return on a topic like this is fairly pathetic and the HDM analogy doesn't work, as many of the 38k circulation of the HDM aren't City fans, so the percentage of City fans who voted is much higher. All of which is bollocks anyway, as there will not be a definitive answer to this until there is a full ballot, let's just hope there is one.
If Assem Allam wants a return on his full investment relegation will lead to problems, but there is a possibility that financially he would not be any worse off if he took his money out of the tv rights payments every season and left the club to rot. I haven't done the full figures, but I do think it could be a close run thing. The bottom line is dependent on where the money has actually come from. As for the FA, well lets see.
So by your count 10% of the any measure is poor. How does that stand against CTWD having less than 10% of the home gate? Yes its bollocks, and the point is that it is just that sort of bollocks that we (yes we) are up against.
I have a low opinion of the powers that be, but even I doubt they'd have such **** statisticians offering advice to accept crap like that.
Some snapshot thoughts: A return of 10% of membership, of a so-called focussed and elite official group, on such a critical vote would deeply concern me as an executive member of that group. I would wonder if I were doing no more than working to represent a bunch of no-mark freeloaders. I would think that the best place to take a straw poll (that's all we have really had so far) is amongst the supporters; if anyone can show me (or CTWD) a better way to progress to where the FA wish to be, then I am sure we are all ears. Happy Tiger, this is an opportunity for you to give input, rather than endless, mischievous criticism. Anyone who thinks Allam can afford to do anything other than invest in a striker, really should go and watch a different sport that they will, equally, never truely understand. Too much positioning on worthless points of poll protocol, finance and membership issues. This is about Hull City AFC, that is why I take the trouble to debate this fundamentally obnoxious move by Allam. I listen to it all and I fully understand none of us are perfect, but I am still firmly in the CTWD camp. Has someone got a pair of tweezers? Ricardo has been sat on the fence so long, his arse needs a bit of attention! be kind
I think you'll find I've said that as things stand I'm on the CTWD side of things. Remaining open to the possibility of other ideas whilst debunking bollocks put forward by either side isn't sitting on the fence, it's wanting to have reliable information for people to base their decisions on.
It was a bit of a jest, but nonetheless, do you wish to see a name-change and if you baulk at that, can you give me one single, worthwhile advantage of making one happen. Unless you can offer a positive answer, one way or the other, to the first question and then give us one substantial answer to the second (surely it must be extremely substantial to validate the massive furore it has created - far beyond the boundaries of Hull and these sorry threads), then the tweezers will be employed to reduce your long-term embarrassment.
I'm still waiting for Happy Tigers' "evidence" that has been revealed to him personally on Mount Sinai and which presumably bore the stamp 'For your eyes only'..
I don't know what you're wanting. I've already said I'm not in favour of the change, and that the reason for that is that I can't see any benefits to it. How is that not a positive answer saying that I'm against the name change? And how am I meant to give a benefit of the name change when I'm one of the ones saying I can't see any benefits?
Like I said, it was mostly in jest, but indignation always gets a response. You have no right to question either side. If I understand your words correctly you are saying that you will pick your side when the fight is done; you have no emotional connection to the name so you feel detached and able to be intellectual. In the words of Catherine Tate's Nan: What a ****ing ****er Like I said, it was principally in jest, but it became necessary to look at the detail.
It indicates that I'm looking for a question that fits with the evidence that has been made available. There's no evidence saying he has got the money to keep financing us beyond this season, but there is evidence of him justifying his decision by saying he hasn't. You're right, there's nothing wrong with having finance in there, providing the finance element of the question is consistent with everything else. If the owner has said he's run out of money for beyond this season he shouldn't then include his future funding of the club as an element of the question. Otherwise you might as well say "if the name doesn't change the owner won't sign Cristiano Ronaldo, do you support him?". Of course nearly every ****er would support him, but if it's not going to happen even if they support him then the question is just wrong and misleading. Again, formulate a question and survey method that neither side could have an issue with. CTWD want a survey of all season ticket holders. Find a more effective way of meeting that criteria, that maximisies participation, and doesn't involve the club having to do anything extra? The mentioning of the FA schedule is because our typical renewal time is one that fits in with the timing of their schedule, so that method of consultation is a reasonable one to suggest to them as a method that allows them to meet their requirements. Not really. Those at the meeting are saying there's a set of minutes that the club wants things removing from. The posters in question have several times asked for a set of the minutes with personal links and sensitive information about the club redacted so they can see what was discussed beyond what has already been said in public. Given their previous postings on the subject my opinion is that if redacted minutes were published those publishing them would just be accused of fabricating them or of redacting more things that just didn't suit their side of the debate. It makes the whole process of publishing them without the club's agreement a completely pointless exercise. Then you've misunderstood my words. I'm anti-name change until someone can show me good reason for it. If someone can show me good reasons for it then I'll consider my position. There's no picking the winning side on it, if the name is changed and nothing about the evidence available to us changes then I'll still be saying it was wrong. If someone comes along and produces overwhelming evidence that convinces me it would be a good idea but the FA blocks it then I'll be saying it was a good idea. EDIT: And I'm questioning both sides because if I don't agree with something that someone on my side is saying I want to know why they're saying it, that way if I'm asked about it elsewhere by someone I can explain it to them. I don't like to be on the winning side if the argument behind it doesn't make sense, it feels like you've cheated the other side that way.
Yes he could take his money out, how much would be dependant upon his wage commitments and whether he could sell players. He could leave us to rot, but his gift was saving our club and as long as we are not in liquidation I wouldn't begrudge him the return of his money. I personally think him and his family are entitled to as much of their investment as they want. The FA will make their decision in due course. All we as CTWD can do is make the best presentation we can. As to the OSC. I don't see us in competition. They have held 3 consultation exercises all of which show a majority for keeping Hull City and a minority for Hull Tigers FC.
What information do you need, when by and in what bloody language. Braille can be arranged where appropriate. How many more lies does he have to tell before you join his 'Truely-Insincere Club'?
