Ah right, so you've misunderstood what I was suggesting. I was suggesting it would be a good idea for a thread ahead of the AGM where CTWD members could put forward questions they wanted answers to, or to express an opinion on what direction they would like the group to go, without it becoming about what people who aren't part of the group think the existing committee who are about to be replaced want. I also said the same would be given to the Yes campaign if they had a group needing a meeting like that. This would be providing both groups with the ability to see what their members who were unable to attend their meeting wanted. We know CTWD have their own site they could do it on, but I don't know whether the YestoHullTigers group does and we couldn't offer them that facility without also allowing CTWD to have one could we. It only came up on a CTWD thread because this is the first time either side has had an AGM for it to be proposed. Just as a point to Happy about potentially pruning the comments this one would be a prime example. A member questioning how the member votes are held on the AGM thread would be fine, as it would be their place to do it there as the thread would be there for them to hold accountable the committee. The same criticism from a non-member is something I'd see being better on the general name change thread. If the members were happy with it being done that way then that's up to them, but it would be a relevent point to be brought up in the overall debate. Remember, the same provisions would be made for the Yes side, we wouldn't be allowing CTWD members to be criticising the running of the Yes side on a thread that existed for the leaders of that group to get feedback from their members, so there's no double standard to it. No stifling of debate, just allowing the members of each group to determine what they want amongst themselves in a way that is open to everyone to see, with the commenting/debating between the two sides on a separate thread. Who knows, you leave the CTWD members to it Happy and they might just go and decide something so stupid amongst themselves that it proves what ever point it is you want to make at the time. PS: If I was a member of CTWD I'd be raising the same question/contradiction Chazz has and putting it on the thread (if we had one). As I'm not I would leave the thread and would raise it as a point when I was explaining why I favour the inclusion of the Don't Care option in order to maximise participation.
I feel like a 1 legged duck... no matter what arguments are put forward, this whole argument ends up going round and round in circles. I am not sure just what CTWD will end up doing (if owt), I have a feeling that when the FA reject the name change, the group will disband because in that case, AA will walk (like he promises), and the group won't want to take on the financial responsability of owning a club. To be totally honest, I'd prefer some business men to take care of my club compared to some emotional knee jerkers.
I've just had a great idea.... ctwd membership should be increased to £50,000, then with all 2000 members they can buy AA out!
I've heard it a few times now*. It is interesting how many times he refers to himself as a singular owner, there's a lot of "I've thought" and "I was surprised by" kind of comments when talking about the running of the club. He obviously refers to them both together as "we" when he's talking about things as well, but I thought it was odd that the singular things weren't just restricted to things like talking about how he saw the McCoys advert, which would be a natural "I" in the context. It could be that there's been disagreements about things, or just that they've been dealing with different parts of the club so there isn't a "we" view because it's part of Ehab's area not a mutual one. Just an observation. *Due to some updating of computers in convoluted ways this week I've had my laptop playing it on a loop in my kitchen whilst it's been acting as a wifi adaptor for an old computer. If I don't have a media file or something playing the laptop turns off and then the other computer loses it's wifi. But that's meant when I've been going into the kitchen for food and drinks I've heard bits of it again.
Aha, in that case Ricardo, I offer my unreserved apologies. It wasn't that obvious, if it was, others would have pointed it out, but ok, I get it now and yeah, that type of thread is fine, although why they need to use this site to do that I find quite strange. The Yes and supporters of our owners don't need a FGM or AGM or whatever, we've placed our trust in the people who actually put their money where their mouths are and they run the club, not a committee. Thanks for the offer and consideration though, it really shows your evenhandedness, as Im sure any churlish or stupid comments even from CTWD supporters would be removed from a CTWD FGM thread. Just to clarify something, you can "support" CTWD without being an actual member. Thats allegedly quite popular. Of course you can't vote in the FGM, and they think you're irrelevant but you can still help them out.
They might have done so, but for both your eternal pointless wittering and the fear of getting locked in one of your infamous circular arguments. ...and you're off again, despite your "but ok, I get it now..."
Unless I'm mistaken, we're the biggest site for Hull City fans that isn't directly connected to either side on the admin side. It would seem a good place to have them if we wanted the two sides back-to-back on a site somewhere (on the basis the Yes side didn't have their own site to have one on). Plus, as much as I can type away for hours on end I can be a lazy sod at times, I'd just prefer them to be discussing anything I might be interested in hearing on here so that I don't have to go elsewhere to get a feel for who's in each group. EDIT: Forgot to say, apology accepted.
A better thing to post would be your preferred alternative method. Otherwise it just seems like another forced dig at CTWD. I'm sure there is some better way of doing it. But surely you can't really think this is comparable to the deliberately loaded ballot the owners have produced and then when questioned about it, point blank refused to answer any of the issues raised surrounding it. Regardless of all the other evidence, this is what incriminates the owners most for me. They never even attempt to explain their actions when they come under scrutiny, they just respond with an autocratic "We'll do what we want and you'll appreciate it" type of response. That's the kind of thing school-kids say to each other: "I know X, Y and Z but I'm not telling you." It'll of course be convenient for people like Happy (and maybe yourself Chazz, but hopefully not) to say that the owners don't have to answer to anyone, they've got the money etc. Which is of course legally true but it isn't a legal matter and when the fans have serious concerns they should be answered fully and when they aren't answered it will naturally lead to further suspicion, mistrust, etc. I'm firmly of the belief that if they had any case to change the name they'd have made it by now instead of claiming clubs getting good sponsorship deals who haven't changed their name as 'evidence' and if the poll wasn't a ludicrously bent one, they'd have answered those questions. The only reason not to answer them is that they didn't have a suitable answer, because the real truth is that they're being dirty, cheating bastards as ever.
Who are you then to know this unpublished but sound evidence? AAâs personal confidant? His butler? His biographer? His personal bather? Sorry, I just asked, forgetting that you couldnât divulge this âtop secretâ information. Sadly, away from your secret agent gang, you canât actually tell me, or anyone else, the facts because you know absolutely nothing more about it than that's already been in the public domain. Perhaps you feel that some people might be impressed: âgosh, HE'S in the knowâ but in reality, in this case at least, youâve just proved yourself to be a sad and self important fantasist.
Chazz raises a good point there. Your response is...vapour. Don't even want to attempt to justify how a room full of people represents 1800ish members? I thought it was dead easy to organise a poll of people, you have all their details, why the reluctance? Don't you trust them to make the right decision? Irony in its purest form. Of course they're not the same, one group asked, and allowed every person eligible for their opinion, the other group plans to ask a handful of people in a room before a game. Actually, I get that, CTWD has from day one been all about the CI lot, this way the mugs who handed over 2 quid can be treated as irrelevant as any of the non members, because ultimately the room will be controlled by, and the decisions made by the CI lot. Well done fellas, its actually quite clever. No need to have a bent poll is there when you essentially have almost the entire room in your pocket. Brilliant really. I guess us saying we trust the Allams to do the right thing isn't the same as the bulk of CTWD trusting CI to do the right thing? Seems you lot like one set of rules for you, and one for everyone else. I'm firmly of the belief that CTWD is a self serving group being run by a bunch of people who really do not give one **** about the majority of the fans, they think they're the best fans, the only real ones, and that their opinions are the only ones that matter. I feel sorry for the people being mugged off by them.
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately stupid and I really shouldn't bother responding to your bitter nonsense anymore, but what the hell. A group with paying members is legally obliged to have a constitution and an AGM, the 'M' stands for meeting, sending out an email doesn't qualify. As with any other AGM, the shareholders are all invited to attend and vote, it's entirely up to them if they want to do so. Immediately before a game against one the biggest teams in the league is obviously ideal, as the majority of our members will be in the area. In addition, if there are several candidates standing for each role, then it's obviously useful to hear what they have to say, before you decide which one to vote for, as is standard practice at an AGM. I'm not quite sure who the 'CI lot' are, but I expect that there will be more not606 posters at the meeting than CI ones i suspect that the people you are assuming will be running things, are not even standing for officer roles.
Crickey, you do get carried away don't you Leon. And you accuse me of being a fantasist!! Believe what you want mate.
You have said that it was a fact. I asked you to prove it. You said you “can’t/won’t tell me” insinuating you have non public domain proof. The hackneyed strategy of a bad bullshitter.
I'm thinking a perfectly normal membership process should be allowed to proceed and then, when completed, views should be offered on the outcome and any resultant actions determined. Of course, whatever the outcome, there will be groups of likeminded people; some will unite to move their position forward, just as CTWD have over the name-change and then there will be the fencesitters skirting the issues with fawned but fragile support and then, of course, there will be the Imps, Pimps and Banjo-players of this world who use intelligence as a means to make pointless argument, sniping for the sake of it. The only point I would make is that an email ballot could have been arranged, as it's open voting compromises no one. A simple yes/no vote, by each question/choice, could be listed by name - it is not so far away from the open vote planned. I would be quite happy for my name to be shown with my voting choices - why not?
If the decision is made to merge the membership with that of the Tigers Co-op, then that will have to go to a full vote of the memberships of both CTWD and the Tigers Co-op, that will be a full ballot of all members by email/letter, it won't be done by a show of hands at the AGM. I'll post more details of what will happen at the AGM next week.
Of course, I can understand why you say that. I do get (very) occasional insights, as good as from the horse's mouth. Absolutely nothing special about that. I know it's the same for at least a couple of others who post. I'm just pointing out what I know is wrong. But as said, choose to believe what you want. Refreshing at least that there can be discussion, questioning, etc without resorting to flinging abusive childish personal insults (at least so far)
