Fez,
I had an aspiration, that I would be involved in a Supporters Trust for Hull City AFC. At a push Hull City. I would never aspire to be involved in a Hull Tigers Supporters Trust.
After Supporters Direct informed me that they will only work with Tigers co op, there was no point in progressing.
I was asked for my advice and this still happens. I believed until October that a development partnership could work. I did not join CTWD for the reasons below, but in October a series of events took place that changed the reason. Protest in the ground was associated with CTWD, I was told in no uncertain terms by my co director not to join CTWD.
I was very pleased that supporters would be meeting Assem Allam. It was a move in the right direction for supporter involvement. I have always said that the name change argument has to remain independent from any supporter investment, it cannot be linked either way pro or anti. That doesn't mean that a view cannot be expressed, but that for example CTWD's plans to work with Assem Allam in the future do not square with the actions that were undertaken in the name change debate.
If you look back at the posts about the KC development the figure of £120m kept cropping up. I had calculated that £15m could be raised through a supporters trust, but around October a series of reports came out and it looked that in order to raise enough rental income a development twice the size of the KC site would be needed. Developments were failing, due to increased material costs. The meltdown at the co op bank (the leading supporters trust loan supplier) was the final straw for me.
Ehab stated that the club would not be loss making next season and that he was looking at a shortfall of £10m for the next. That means that a supporters trust does have a chance if that figure is correct. But the very first step is for it to be at least on speaking terms with the club owner.
I challenged posts made on here. You questioned why I did so. I challenged them because they said things that were wrong.
Working with Supporters Direct.....wrong.
Tigers Co op and CTWD already together......wrong.
And you know what Fez, I have to ask these questions. We already have a supporters trust, what have they been doing for all of these years? Where were they when the club was facing administration? Finally why has CTWD maxed out its membership at around 2000?
Your position on Supporters Trusts are of no concern of mine. I have simply held the consistent view that a Supporters Trust would have no impact or benefit in fighting the name-change - my single issue objective! It appears you have come around to that same conclusion; eventually. I also said that anyone looking to enter a minority partnership with the Allams would be totally bonkers; I still think that.
"Protest in the ground was associated with CTWD, I was told in no uncertain terms by my co director not to join CTWD."
I think you will find the protest was associated with anger against the name-change, not CTWD. If my memory serves me well, CTWD made a strong point of distancing themselves from in-ground protest, other than the 19:04 chanting of an old, well established football chant. They made it clear and asked their membership and beyond not to take any part in in-ground, disruptive protests.
I really can't see how your personal membership of CTWD effects your business - unless your business is looking for advantage in that market. In any case, as I said yesterday, your level of posting involvement and what you talk about, under a poorly protected anonymity, kind of compromises any other thoughts of distancing yourself. You really should back off and let it develop.
"but that for example CTWD's plans to work with Assem Allam in the future do not square with the actions that were undertaken in the name change debate"
I don't know what they (CTWD) have to do to stop you posting this nonsense. They have always said in their official statements that they are a single issue campaign group and that single issue is to stop the name-change. They have said they wished to do it whilst working to give Assem Allam their ongoing support and gratitude for his other work with the club and they made it very clear that any other, on-going objectives would be considered only when the name-change campaign was concluded. If you read their statement about the purpose of their next general meeting, I really don't know what else you expect from them. This is nothing more that a very petty point poorly made.
Figures from you, Ehab or anywhere else are best backed up with some form of evidence, as there has been far too much nonsense written and lies told.
All of the points you have picked CTWD up on they have answered. If you believe they have told lies then put it in a post with full supporting evidence.
"And you know what Fez, I have to ask these questions. We already have a supporters trust, what have they been doing for all of these years? Where were they when the club was facing administration? Finally why has CTWD maxed out its membership at around 2000?"
Okay, you had to ask them, so let's try and find an answer for them:
"We already have a supporters trust, what have they been doing for all of these years?" - I don't know; what have you been doing?
"Where were they when the club was facing administration?" - many of them were probably attending games, putting money into buckets and enjoying the football. What were you doing?
"Finally why has CTWD maxed out its membership at around 2000?" - because of the apathy of folk in general. People see that there is a strong group of people who will do the fighting and they let them get on with it. The petition was a different kettle-of-fish. From your earlier comments it might be believed that you did not join because your co-director told you not to, is that right?
I don't want you to answer the three questions I have asked you, just as I think no one needs to answer the three questions you have asked; I really don't know why you think they were worth asking, to be honest.
