My concern is who is going to oversee this vote, will there be any independent oversight ? And following on from that what protection will those of us that vote against the name change have in future dealings with the club i.e. bottom of the pile for away tickets etc.
It would make sense if the voting papers were sent out from the Electoral Reform Society and the completed papers were sent back to them but I can't see it happening.
That's how I read it. He believes the fans shouldn't have had any say in the matter. CTWD made it clear from the start that supporter consultation was not a requisite with the FA although it was with the PL. I'd guess as a major stakeholder the PL would have insisted on the FA consulting with supporters when assessing the name change application so as to avoid a challenge from supporters at a later date.
Another well done to the guys at CTWD - good clear communication and straight to the point with no hidden agenda - well done guys! A two questioned vote is the only way to go. A two question vote would also give the Allams the perfect platform to save face and not put the club up for sale. Surely pro-Allam will at least be at least 75% i'd imagine, separating the Allams from the name change would also show an accurate representation of people who wish the club to remain Hull City. I know a number of people who are against the name change but are pro Allam who aren't vocal in fear of upsetting our owners, so it's the only fair ballot to have.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_div_1/2791159.stm How it's done please log in to view this image
Anyway, back onto less dickish matters - CTWD showing good intentions, no agendas and no insulting of fans, quite the opposite of our 'glorious' owner.
Like AA would ever do that. He'd probably purposely not give any cards to the East stand, where most of CTWD reside.
If the name change could lead to substantial increased revenues I would think the FA and more City fans would accept it but I think the FA wanted to retain the traditions of football in this country rather than encourage short term comedy names for no discernible advantage.
I find the approach of CTWD totally understandable in wanting two votes, so they can maintain a no against the name-change whilst offering their confidence (trust?) in the owners. But of course the club, who will pay for and organise the ballot cannot be entrusted with conducting it. I do think there is a certain comedy value to the way in which folk will take the Judas coin from these owners. All a means to an end I suppose.
Unless there is a very rich buyer who is prepared to invest in the long term then this is nothing more than comedy gold; whichever way, it is no 'big problem', simply distasteful.
With regard to this release, it just means we have always campaigned against the name change and not against the owners.
Some absolutely comical replies to this news on the HDM My favourite ScarfNZ | Wednesday, March 19 2014, 6:30PM The CTWI group are not fans .... they are jihadists! They are doing so much damage to my city of Hull. I wish every success to the Allams and the Hull Tigers.
RH is on top form tonight, the usuals ringing up. Andy Dalton from CTWD was on and explained the two questions pretty clearly, yet the text straight after suggested the regulars were just ignoring it.
I like a bit of honesty thats all. "For £2, supporters can become a CTWD member, and do their bit to help protect the name of Hull City AFC, while supporting the Tigers on the pitch. At the same time, CTWD announces that it will form a Supporters’ Trust in the New Year with the intention of taking a stake in ownership of the club and the KC Stadium. Its rich accusing the Allams of lies and manipulation and then do it yourself.
It probably should have been a question when we signed up for the membership. A little late though. You could probably assume all of us with foreign addresses are not season ticket holders. Not sure how many of us signed up.
