I'm having a real problem following your logic; I think you overcomplicate the situation unnecessarily - this is about name-change, that is what has been applied for to the FA, so why don't we stick to that - all of the ownership conversations are a distraction and unsubstantial in every way. Any ballot or consulting will be given direction by the FA, as they are the ones saying it is necessary, so they must make the necessary parameters clear to all concerned. If you have heard nothing formal then you, just like me, are ****ing clueless, so why not leave it until something is issued formally? I'll tell you what is ideal, Hull City AFC; it has got us to 10th position in the country's football league and it has adorned our badges, stationary, scarfs and hearts for well over 100 years - you compromise if it floats your boat, I'm not going to - and I'm not even ****ing Egyptian!!
Just to explain the edit I've done on Fez's post above (#260). Because the replies are included in the quote from me, to be able to reply to his posts I've been using the edit post mode, writing my post in his and copying it, then cancelling the edit mode and pasting my post into a new post. On that one I did the editing and then hit the save button thinking I'd already posted it and was editing my own post. I've since restored the post to how it was when Fez posted it but it obviously still displays the fact I've edited it. The future situation is some unknown and unpredictable event that may change my opinion. It doesn't need to involve AA or anybody currently at the club, it could be a completely unrelated situation. To go to an extreme, let's say Tiger Beer for example came along in 6 months and wanted to sponsor the club to the tune of £100M a year, dependent on our name being changed for the duration of the 3 year contract, at which time it would revert back. I might at that point think that a deal that clears the club's debt and provides financial security for several years beyond it is worth a temporary change. If the majority of CTWD were against that deal I wouldn't want to be a member as I would then feel I was having to campaign against something I felt was the right thing to do. There will be less extreme, and more likely situations that could occur where I might want to take a different stance to the one CTWD did. It is nothing to do with this situation, where I've already said I'm against the name change, and more to do with not tieing my position to others in the event of future situations. How can they be taking me for a fool when they're not actually telling me anything and I'm not in their side? I've already said I'm against the decision unless someone can show a benefit. I really didn't think it was that difficult to understand the difference between someone being against the decision and sticking their fingers in their ears whilst going "la la la I'm not going to believe you what ever you say you're wrong and you're lieing", and someone being against the decision going "if you think it's a good idea, then show us and convince us as to why". Both are against the decision, but only the second is actually challenging AA's move in a way that undecided people will engage with, when he's unable to show benefits people will question the point of the change and be against it. If he's able to show benefits then people can challenge those. Two sides slagging each other off just creates apathy as the undecided look at it like a bunch of school kids arguing in the playground.
My apologies, I missed this one - things look no differently from Kilmarnock! My point has as much to do with the mistakes made over the minutes of the first meeting, as it does with not making the same mistake again, should there ever be another meeting. I read not606 so all of my comment is related to what I read on here (or brought to my attention, via it). There has been a little juxtaposition over what was actually referred to in the statements/press releases and (please correct me if I am wrong) and I think we have eventually cleared that one up - it was consult that was released, not ballot - which had been removed at the behest of Allam. I believe that was a poor decision, especially when I consider it is now in the public domain. If you keep saying Boo! I am not necessarily going to jump; repetition is simply that, not a virtue of correctness. I agree with you, it was always said full minutes would be released, even after the meeting, and then it changed - was that a unanimous decision within CTWD? Whatever the case, subsequent events lead me to believe that those reasons (not to publish) were poor and a betrayal of the trust owed to the CTWD membership; that trust was transferred to the man who lied, deceived and manipulated us.
What absolute nonsense. You are talking about a fictitious deal for a ludicrous amount of money, that will be made after the name is changed. You say it would be changed back, but to what, as it would already be Hull Tigers. Do you not think that the most unimaginative marketing person could conjure up a similar association by maximising our nickname? You are clutching at very thin straws and to be honest, it's embarrassing. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but if the name-change would be acceptable in six months, after it's change, then it cannot be unacceptable now; in which case someone holding that view is not against the name-change, surely. I call it sitting on the fence with no real conviction, which is fine, but not if you claim to have some! They have told you lots, but you are not listening - listen to the interviews again; read the newspaper articles that ridicule what they have told you. Ricardo, this is hard work, just go back read and listen again and then come back and tell me then he (Allam) has told us nothing. 'la la la'; you're having a laugh aren't you? We have tried to get sense and honesty for months, we have had no success - he won't even talk to us, he prefers talking at us. You have a very self-righteous opinion of your position and you have not been able to show me one single fact that justifies that. Read those interview transcripts or listen to them; check back on the chronology of his lies and deceit, then, if you are still of the same mind when confronted by his deafening silence, make yourself comfortable on that fence, it could be a long wait. There's none so blind as those who will not see.
Obi I will reply to your post. 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 I don't know if the FA look at the numbers, looking at the the evidence submitted to the Parliamentary commission and other there are few references to numbers anywhere, there is a tendency to use terms such as "overwhelming". It is right for CTWD to be able to present the case against name change and I am sure that the people putting it together will do a good job. 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. The FA is as much to blame as it hasn't defined what it considers wide ranging consultation. Assem Allam doesn't want to lose face by having a ballot that goes against him out of his own pocket 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. The rumours are true. It really does depend on the outcome of the meeting. There will be leaks its the nature of these things but I expect that nothing will be certain. You are right, no one even Assam Allam knows if there will be a press statement. I've posted stuff that was wrong and put my hands up. I'm not whiter than white, ask Chazz. Havent we all, join the club, well perhaps not club Chaz 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. I havent found much wrong with the campaign, just what gets posted on here.
I understood why the post was a little strange and have no problem - it's probably down to my lack of page skills.
Fez it is complicated and illogical. One last point. The HDM poll. 61% of those polled stated that they will still attend matches if the team is called Hull Tigers.
Really, so a minimum of a 30% drop in attendance if the name changes? Maybe that's the income the name change will bring? The money saved from not building the now un-needed extension.
I like to think I'm usually up-to-date with these happenings but I'm clearly missing something: What's significant about Friday? And what are the rumours?
You're choosing to ignore the fact I'm against this name change. What I'm doing is supporting the campaign against this name change whilst maintaining my ability to support a different name change proposal in future if there's one that I feel is in the best interests of the club. There is no "after the name has changed" element to it, because I'm talking about it changing from the current name in both cases. You're wrong. If they announced tomorrow they were selling the training ground I'd be against it. If they announced in 6 months time that they were going to build a new training ground and to help fund the acquisition of the land they were going to sell the current training ground I'd be in favour of selling it. It's unacceptable to sell it now with no benefit to the club (beyond the sale price), but I wouldn't go joining a protest group demanding we keep the training ground forever, because it would be acceptable in 6 months time when the situation being proposed was different and there were benefits that would come about as a result of the sale. The purpose of challenging the position isn't to get him to listen, it's to get those who are undecided to listen to the issues and look at the situation by not presenting the anti-name change side in the same way AA is presenting himself. When they see reasonable questions being asked and no answers being given they're much more likely to be against the name change than they are if they see people going round just slagging AA off.
Highly unlikely the FA fella will be dressed casually and ignore Dr Allam while fooking around with his iPad.
Maybe not, but they might do whatever it was CTWD did to piss him off so much. Unless they treat him with the god-like respect he thinks he deserves, it could be interesting.
I should think he'll meet an FA committee (or representatives of the Council) and make his presentation. They ask him some questions and let him know when the decision will be made. The meeting will end and they'll move on to hearing the other submissions. I should think it will be all above board to cut off any possibility of legal action.
Interesting. How many extra Hull Tigers shirts will need to be sold to make up for 7 thousand fewer paying to watch? Back of envelope Allam will need to sell an extra 60 thousand team shirts.
It won't be that many though. There'll be some that are saying they won't go that will still go if it happens. Plus, I know we've had the bigger clubs recently but we're selling out the home end for games. If we did it for Fulham as well then it means we're turning away some sales that we won't need to in future.
Currently the demand is high, but like all clubs the PL novelty will wear off if we stay up for any length of time. If we don't then obviously it's even worse. We really can't just rest on our laurels when it comes to attendances. We simply don't have enough permanent fans.
Good for them; I argue my point of view, not theirs. I wonder how many will attend without PL success. The name is not debatable, it is sacrosanct, their is not a good enough reason to change it; not in my book.
