We aren't in competition. I'm involved with the OSC and everyone else that I'm aware of being involved supports CTWD. The only thing about the OSC is the need to be neutral for obvious reasons, but the people who make it up are very much anti name change, like everyone in the real world is.
And if he said that I would support him in his ownership, that doesn't mean supporting every decision without question. I don't think saying he won't provide any more money if the decision isn't supported though is a fair question when he's already said he doesn't have any money to provide anyway. It's a leading question suggesting he will if the change goes ahead, which contradicts his previous statements about there not being any money available to do that. If the FA want consultation, which they are organising, then what's wrong with suggesting a simple way to do it and get a big sample involved? It can even be used separately to the consultation if they want, just to stop the bitching going each way about who really has the majority behind them over this decision. Neither side should object to the manner as they both claim a majority supports them, so the bigger the sample the more likely they'll get the correct result. The refund option was purely because in order for it to settle the argument as to which side has the majority you need to eliminate the potential for people to say "I'd have voted against it but to do so I'd have to buy a ticket and I'm not buying a ticket if it's going to change". It would make it much more acceptable to AA if in the event of a Yes vote there were no excuses for CTWD to hide behind, likewise the size of the sample would mean neither side was likely to be able to talk about non participating majorities. Right, now I get it, we're not actually talking about them in the same context. My point is that because the minutes will be published by the same people who are making the claim about the promise of a referendum the publication of them without the club's agreement will prove nothing. The same people who are saying they're making up the promise will just say the club isn't agreeing with them because the minutes have been fabricated or edited to suit those individuals needs now they've been pressured into making them public. The people who trust the comments of the people who were there will still trust them to be telling the truth, the people who don't still won't. However, as we're being told the reason they're not being published is it could harm the club, to publish them could see the people responsible lose support of people who do support them as they'll no longer be able to claim to be acting with the best interests of the club at heart. As a general thing I would like to see the minutes of the meeting published for the transparency, I just don't think it will accomplish anything in terms of changing people's opinions one way or the other. How am I meant to know what evidence I need when I've yet to even be told what the benefits are meant to be? If it's a case of sponsors only signing up in the event of a name change lets say so, and lets say what these sponsorship deals are worth. We can always sign contracts where one of our obligations is to change the name, then if the FA says no to the change it just voids the contract as it's no longer possible for both sides to honour it through no fault of their own. If it's a case of expecting fans in the far east to be attracted by the name then lets see figures comparing the followings of other teams from other leagues where some have americanised names and others don't, or compare ones using tigers with ones using other animals that are less popular despite the team being more successful. If it's some other thing then some evidence that supports the claim being made, it's clearly going to vary in it's nature based on what the claimed benefit is. And it's not that if I'm shown benefits I automatically change side, I need to weigh up what the benefit is, the size of it, the reliability of the evidence, etc, and then decide what I think the best decision would be. So until I'm shown some I can't say what my decision would be in each case, I can only say that as things stand I'm against the change.
I fully endorse what you have posted. Assem Allam knows the results of the ballots. I posted this on 06/10 and not enough has changed. The 1904 chant does now appear, but not in great numbers and more of the OSC do join in, but around me, it's still blank. " Losing the plot I am sorry to say this and I really mean sorry on so many levels, but the 1904 campaign yesterday demonstrated one thing and that was the complete and utter apathetic nature of the majority of Hull City supporters. My view has now changed. At 1904 for the vast majority of people (I cannot bring myself to say supporters) did not bat an eye lid. Not one single voice in around the 1000 or so sat in and around me. Including from what I could see, leading lights in the OSC. This is a disaster in terms of the "City till I die" campaign. If it is not reaching the flat cap brigade, the whole thing will fail to produce reall and tangible support in the population of Hull. Now some may wonder that perhaps I think I can do better, well I don't think I can. Some may think that I think that the group has got it wrong, I don't. When I was stood in the Brickies yesterday and a bloke came round with leaflets, he approached several villa fans starting to explain what was going on, I told him to leave it to me and I stood there for ten minutes talking to them and they said that they supported the anti change view , etc. I now believe that the message is wasted on our own fan base. They could not give a fig about anything that happens, they don't care what the club is called, who owns the club, who the manager is, what formation we adopt or the shirt colours. They only care that the routine that they have is not interrupted. They are not bothered about the bloke sat next to them as long as he does nothing to disrupt their Saturday. If you ask some of them why they stand up when a goal is scored they will say its to see what's going on, not to celebrate. They only want to do the same routine week in week out and nothing must step in the way. This is a group who know what is going on, but would not waste time on reading a leaflet, you could land a hot air ballon on the pitch at half time and they wouldn't look up from poring their tea out. The thing is that they are no worse than any other clubs supporters. So I am sorry but I cannot support trying to get the message out to our fans, they don't care enough. The ones who do have joined in. I'm sorry but I now believe that if the campaign does not evolve it something that captures the imagination of the majority, it will fail. I'm even more sorry to say that I don't think that I can see the answer either. But my biggest regret is that now I can only see that Assen Allam will get on his way and even if I stop buying a season pass, he will not miss me or anyone else who does the same."
Omega, I really can't grasp the point you're trying to make. It just comes across as total negativity with no solution offered. Yes, things may not go the way many of us would like, all we can do is everything we can to tip the scales in our favour. Trying to look for negatives without offering solutions as you're doing doesn't really add much to the discussion. Sorry if I've got it wrong, but you seem to be really struggling to put over whatever message it is you have. Earlier posts read as though you wanted to offer an alternative to CTWD, then you seemed to want to be an alternative to HCSS. Why not just colaberate with the main group if you want to be involved or reassured?
Ricardo: A combination of the information already out there, the disinformation already out there and the expert views of sport and marketing professionals, coupled with your own judgment really should have given you enough direction to jump down off that fence and fully support CTWD or not - you with-hold membership, why? The only decision, of Allam's, that I object to, is the one he made change the club's name to Hull Tigers; using lies, deceit and manipulation as his process. The FA will make sure that any consultation covers their backsides; it's a moot point and a distraction. Just get some version of the minutes out there and don't worry about the initial response; if you do you will never do anything. The club (Allam) will look after itself, not us, the customers/supporters; I believe any damage is hugely overstated. The reason you have not been told what the benefits are is because there aren't any!! Some may be conjured up as a result of name-change, but I believe it will be hogwash aimed at the easily fooled. Omega Man: From a point you made earlier If he has put all of his money in (as Adam Pearson did and Allam says he has) then your focus is principle should be on the next investor; also remember the old marketing maxim that it is far cheaper and better to retain your current customer base than spend a fortune replacing them with another, unproven one.
Omega was better when he was MelU. I don't think it's as doom and gloom as he says. I suppose it makes the decision to be apathetic easier though if you insist on looking at it like that. Mel, don't worry what personality devoid flat cappers might or might not think, just follow what you think. And stop talking soft.
DMD, The HCSS thing is nothing to do with the name change. It's to do with watching Hull City play whilst living down South. No competition, most of those who are involved already will be members of both anyway. As for CTWD, I challenge what is posted on here if its not quite right it should be. No one can claim that the majority of Hull City fans are against the name change and support that with figures. Of those who respond the majority are against the change. The call for season pass holders to vote would be the same result. Only 10% would respond and the problem is that the 90% who do not vote will be hijacked by Assem Allam who will say that they do not care enough to vote and so they do not care about the name change. This problem of apathy is well known in the football world. Overcoming it and getting supporter involvement is very difficult. If I wasn't bothered about retaining the name, I wouldn't bother finding fault with what gets posted. You can be certain that every post on every forum is read by someone in Allamhouse. Every mis leading post is noted and recorded. I do have what I think is a solution or possible solution, but I doubt that either CTWD or Assem Allam will accept it. Hull City Tigers A compromise. Keep City and add Tigers. It's not ideal but what is?
Omega, we're almost all aware of the points you raise, personalley, I expect the people reviewing the decision to be aware of it too, it's hardly unique as most surveys need consideration of the sample size. Labouring the point doesn't achieve anything at all in my view. I also think the number's game is a red herring. Popular support or opposition is a factor, but if it's weight of numbers, the pro name change group has one vote so far, the apathetic should be treat with caution as it's arguable if they'll hang about in the future. (not saying they won't only that it's arguable) The key decisions will be based on rules and points of football law and what the other football clubs think of the change of tradition v Clubs being free to make business decisions. Oh, and you can ram Hull City Tigers. If the issue is "The Tigers" we've got that ready and available to use. Changing it to that is as daft and pointless as Hull Tigers is. Most are happy with Hull City AFC "The Tigers", it's what we're watching so why **** about?
It's not just me labouring the point though is it. The FA want wider consultation by all groups involved. Has the CTWD group polled its members. You see it could be argued that since CTWD has publically stated that it intends to become a supporters trust, some may have joined in order to be involved in that. ****ish I know but when asked if you are a single objective group you say no we have broader aims. That could be used to suggest that not all of your members would be against the name being changed to Hull City Tigers. You don't know because you haven't asked but you have become a group with wider objectives. It's a minefield and I am just a know nowt but **** me when millions of pounds are on the table you can bet that there isn't going to be a stone unturned in finding fault. I will make this my last post on the subject, as it is obvious that for some its you are ether with us or agin us and to be honest as CTWD never post anything wrong on here and are whiter than white what's the point. The biggest forum by a mile isn't represented is it. It is simply being used as a conduit for CTWD. Friday.......... Lets see what happens on Friday eh.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what ever it is you're trying to say simply isn't coming over. There's plenty playing devils advocate, you just sound as though you're trying to be so vague you can say "I told you so" if things don't pan out no matter what the reason.
What if the FA don't care how many members we have? We are of a similar weight to the OSC and may get over 2,000 members by the end of the month. We have the opportunity to present our case the same as the OSC The one person who could have organised an independent ballot of City supporters hasn't. Its unlikely that he will do so but may change his mind after Friday, or he may not. If the rumours are true and Assem Allam presents his case on Friday then we may find out what he says or we may not. I don't expect any leaks from the meeting nor do I expect another round of press interviews, but you never know. I've posted stuff that was wrong and put my hands up. I'm not whiter than white, ask Chazz. I don't think there is that much to find fault with with the campaign. If he does find fault I'm sure someone on the FA committee will ask us about it when we meet them in February.
Nobody is going to be daft enough to claim something that ridiculous. That's simply not true, issues and criticisms raised on here at aired at our meetings, just as those of all the other message boards are.
Keep posting Mel, I always like your posts . Ricardo is a good poster as well I think he needs to know the Facts rather then just peoples opinions before he makes up his mind.
Neither CTWD nor Allam can give a definite figure on support for or against the name change. Like it or lump it, it's not always about how many voices there are on one side of a debate or the other, but which side's voices are being heard the loudest and clearest. Whether you like it or not Omega, the only loud and clear voices that have been heard around the name change matter are those of Allam and CTWD. And to echo what others have said, I struggle to see what point you are making, other than to air some negativity. Sounds like you're pretending to "support" the CTWD campaign by telling us that you do, but secretly you can't wait for the name to change so you can say "I told you so." In its own way, this is all rather "plastic", isn't it?
Because I remain open to the possibility, however remote, that there is information not yet known which may make me believe that it is in the best interests of the club to change the name. That may not apply to this situation, but to one in the future which we've not even seen the start of yet. Likewise, which is why I want to remain open to the potential that there's something we don't know yet. I can see the reasoning behind everything else, even with Barmby I was questioning his media handling long before he finally got himself in trouble with it. If you can see and understand the reasoning behind everything someone has done then you have to assume when they do something you don't understand that there's something you're not being told. Likewise, I don't think there's any benefits at this time, certainly not that are known about by AA rather than just hoped for, I'm just open to being shown that I've missed something if I have. I'd rather approach the situation from an "explain it to me then" position than a "you're definitely wrong" one. The silence is pretty telling though.
Let us go back to when all of this happened; we were all confused to the various events and misleading, or contradictory statements from the club. Nick Thompsom made some statements that were quickly proven to be false by the actions and words coming from the club (Allam) - Thompson has now left the club because of his incompatibility to the working style of Allam and the pointless name-change at the centre of it. Signs have been changed, direction has been given to other clubs and the media to use a name different to the one we currently have, Allam has held interviews and spoken total nonsense about his plans, making it up as he goes along because he thinks he is so superior to the rest of us - he did not even know what the name of the club was. The silence is very telling and you will be waiting a very long time - I wonder if you have someone around you who might discuss, with you, what you have written and show you just how bloody barmy it is.
