CTWD response to the OSC declining a joint statement to the FA

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Allam will be rubbing his hand together, the FA will feel despair that many who call themselves supporters, in the main, are fans.

Transparency should have started with an officially issued version of the minutes of that first meeting. Points thought to be contentious should have been listed in the body, but hidden; they should have been declared as the on going campaign made it reasonably appropriate and necessary.

Allam has you all playing catch-up.
 
The problem with the OSC, is it's being led by a bloke who puts his personal relationship with AA ahead of the views of it's members and that really shouldn't be happening.

The OSC submission to the FA should reflect the views of the OSC members, not the view of AA's mate.
 
The CTWD response does read argumentative and contains far more conjecture.

I can understand CTWD being miffed, but a more simple "Whilst we do not agree, we respect the views etc..." would have been less damaging. By CTWD announcing a fundamental disagreement with a "rival" group, they are effectively highlighting to the FA that fan opinion is divided.

Bit of an own goal tactically.
 
Isn't the "Official" Supporters Club by default part of the club?

If PLT is correct in saying that the OSC basically fears upsetting the club and losing their "official" status (see name change thread) then surely the OSC's opinion counts for nothing as it's actually the club's opinion?

Tell me if I'm missing something.
 
I've heard that the top table of the OSC have been offered personalised flasks and embroidered blankets to tow the party line.

Sickening.
 
****ing hell. Nice bit of bridge burning. Also nice to see you're all about transparency when it suits you.

This is turning farcical, and I reiterate my previously shared views, I do not want ANY of you anywhere near the running of my club.
 
originallambrettaman:5892913 said:
The problem with the OSC, is it's being led by a bloke who puts his personal relationship with AA ahead of the views of it's members and that really shouldn't be happening.

The OSC submission to the FA should reflect the views of the OSC members, not the view of AA's mate.
Click to expand...

Who runs it now?
 
originallambrettaman said:
The problem with the OSC, is it's being led by a bloke who puts his personal relationship with AA ahead of the views of it's members and that really shouldn't be happening.

The OSC submission to the FA should reflect the views of the OSC members, not the view of AA's mate.
Click to expand...

And you are sure you are not doing the same?

After all, you seize every opportunity you get to slag off AA. I've heard it said that CTWD is being steered by people with a personal agenda against Allam, so your accusation could cut both ways.
 
Stuart Blampey said:
I've heard that the top table of the OSC have been offered personalised flasks and embroidered blankets to tow the party line.

Sickening.
Click to expand...

Swings and roundabouts.

Remember when someone cut short the debate by trying to highjack the name 'Hull Tigers', you denied involvement but were quick to start skipping around the playground with delight.
Now you have a set back the personal insults start.

Must join the OSC a group who, along with the Allams, seem more interested in taking the club forward.
 
My opinion of the OSC has ever been very high and I feel it needs a root and branch shake up, so I confess to a bias, however I see nothing contentious from a CTWD perspective regarding the press release. CTWD certainly represent more of the fan base than the OSC ever could.

Not clarifying the positions would lead to the odd few on here whining about CTWD not speaking for all.

As for the publication of the 'minutes' solving anything, that claim's been shown to be bollocks and put to bed several times, but is sod all to do with this release.
 
Hull City AFC (DMD) said:
My opinion of the OSC has ever been very high and I feel it needs a root and branch shake up, so I confess to a bias, however I see nothing contentious from a CTWD perspective regarding the press release. CTWD certainly represent more of the fan base than the OSC ever could.

Not clarifying the positions would lead to the odd few on here whining about CTWD not speaking for all.

As for the publication of the 'minutes' solving anything, that claim's been shown to be bollocks and put to bed several times, but is sod all to do with this release.
Click to expand...

Really how so?
 
John. Walkington. said:
Swings and roundabouts.

Remember when someone cut short the debate by trying to highjack the name 'Hull Tigers', you denied involvement but were quick to start skipping around the playground with delight.
Now you have a set back the personal insults start.

Must join the OSC a group who, along with the Allams, seem more interested in taking the club forward.
Click to expand...

Which club would that be?

He wants to kill City and start a new one to take its place.

Do keep up.
 
Chazz Rheinhold said:
Really how so?
Click to expand...

I'm amazed you feel the need to ask.

I base my opinion on their years of inaction and arse licking (that's not the same as diplomacy) and cowardly refusing to engage in various topics on behalf of the fans. The press statement **** ups and sycophantic comments on the name change are just one tiny example. I know nobody that would even consider joining as few can see what function they serve.

CTWD has engaged with a wider group of fans in a short time than the OSC has in its existence.
 
I read the posts in this thread before reading the attached CTWD e-mail as attached - I expected the worst!
My goodness some people are sensitive - "blinkered, argumentative, not classy, full of conjecture, an own goal"? Really?
I found the CTWD response to be less reliant on conjecture than the OSC letter and basically a fairly reasoned and temperate reiteration of it's position.
Now clearly I am opposed to the name change and we are all capable of seeing what we want to see, but the idea that this puts the CTWD in a catch up role along with the other criticisms in this thread, seems a bit desperate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back