Wonderful player. If my memory serves me, he had one of the longest throw ins I've ever seen - even more impressive considering the weight of the ball in that era. He may even have been the first to introduce the long throw as an attacking tactic. One of 3 "Double B's" that made that era enjoyable....Brian Bulless, Bill Bradbury and Billy Bly....memories flooding back..
That's excellent. Did SAFC supporters make any sort of representation to the FA in support of the CTWD campaign? I recall seeing an impressive list, but they were not included - did that change? Not that it is of any great importance as I know first-hand the level of support from supporters of Sunderland, Newcastle, Boro, Darlo, Gateshead and Hartlepool is strong.
I am involved with the OSC and I have no problem with the other officers and directors, some of whom I know very well in fact. However I do find it hard to defend some things they do and say. I can see why they have to do as they're told, but I think it's a pretty weak and almost pointless position as a result.
As I am new to the OSC, I have limited knowledge of the who's who and whys of it. I have said that in the few dealing sthat I have had, there does need to be change. But that change has to come from within at first, and not from outsiders like me. I would personally have preferred the OSC to not have become involved at all in the name change debate. My reasoning is that it could never please either side. Bridges will need to be rebuilt, between the membership present and past as well as within the club. All supporter groups should work together, with co operation and trust. Old differences have from what I have seen prevented this. Once the CTWD has a formal structure, perhaps both groups could work alongside each other.
This is exactly where I think you get it wrong. This club and it's supporters are the official supporters club of Hull City AFC. They should be passionate and reasoned, not political and cold. If they should not hold an opinion (they are majority against), then who the bloody hell should, then? If it means the football 'club' (I would rather everyone said Allam) will act against the supporters club, then so-be-it, let everyone see the nature of the beast. CTWD have more than demonstrated what can be achieved by a group of people with a common belief and a single-minded determination. Far be it from me to tell others what to do (arf), but I would suggest to the board and members of the OSC that they owe it to themselves to follow their own judgment and conscience, but do not try to please anyone but themselves - this, my friend, is (in the words of Michael Miles) the Yes or No Interlude; maybes are no good to anyone.
Fez, you are wrong. The OSC is NOT a campaign group, it is also NOT a political group. It seems to me you expect the OSC to be the Offical Ulltra's. Thats not what they are. They are a social group that gives fans access to players and some behind the scenes type exclusives, discounts on stuff etc. They don't need to be passionate because they're not that type of group. CTWD (allegedly) have a single aim (ok we know that aint true but I'll go with it) and were formed with that single aim solely at their core. Of course they're going to be passionate about that. Its why they exist. OSC is not a single issue campaign. Accusing the OSC of not being passionate, of sitting on the fence is missing the point. Not sure how else I can explain this, just find it frustrating that people seem to misunderstand what the OSC is, and what it's meant to be.
Official Ultras my arse - utter nonsense. The OSC is a club of football supporters, so I would expect them to have some measure of passion about the game and their team. If, as you say, the club exists primarily to offer access to players (and perks) then I would expect that these player-accessing supporters would, in fact, be even more passionate about their teams than the average supporter. You are talking about what you believe the club is set up for (I think you are wrong), I am talking about the members, the individuals who go out of their way to gain membership. I have never said the OSC is a campaign group, but it's members have views and it is clear that the majority are against the name-change. There is nothing to stop this non- campaign group making it's position known in the strongest possible terms. The only reason I have seen offered, as to why they can't is that Allam (the club) would remove their privileges; as individuals they should decide if that is an acceptable situation. If I were a member and I had voted FOR the name-change I would still have resigned my membership if the club behaved in this way. The Official Supporters Club must be burdened with some political mandate in allegiance to the club, which is exactly why it is said they are not free to act without penalty - the figurative three-line-whip; your view that they are not is naive. What I am saying is that members can vote with their feet, or the club can resist the political constraints and take a full and unequivocal stance as their voted mandate demands - and sod the predicted repercussions. Relationships can be rebuilt, as the club needs the supporters, too. CTWD has made it very clear that fighting the name-change is their primary objective. Omitting that from your argument achieves nothing.
I'm afraid well written and logical discourse will get you nowhere. Try superficial analysis, recycled lies and use punchy emotive untruths that a three year old could digest. Then, my friend, you may turn some heads in the pro-crowd.
That hasn't worked so far. Maybe try sadder music and see if you can find someone else with an X Factor style sob story. No, wait, that won't work either. In any case, just avoid properly constructed business cases, and properly researched business plans, just make stuff up while you're sat in the pub as they always seem like good ideas at the time and stick with tugging heart strings, anything else will just highlight the inadequacies in the anti argument. Your turn.
This has been done to death. Your hero's business plan is to change the name and it'll make money; the reasoning being that he read one page of an article on a different subject which didn't even support the claim. There are no business plans involved here. If Allam was doing something which people didn't like for emotive reasons but which was likely to make money, you'd have a point. But he isn't and you don't. He's a mad **** and trying to defend him on the grounds of 'business plans' is as ridiculous as all the other angles you switch between.
The one thing I dislike above all others is a ****-stirrer. Especially when they are anonymous and unaccountable.
Well, I'll be watching my beloved "Tigers" through my 'just arrived' TV Viewing Glasses - so there! please log in to view this image
