All quite correct, you'll have to go and have another wash, maybe even a bath, because I'm in complete agreement with you. The ballot was to gauge support for Hull Tigers and there is no overwhelming desire for the name change. That is the only thing the FA will look at. A majority of less than 50 means they can say no and face no backlash from outraged Hull Tigers fans. The way the ballot was conducted makes it even easier because of the threat to walk away.
Sorry PLT, a poor post from me. Out of the three choices the majority vote was for the name change. The yes vote won. The no vote lost The I dont care vote is a nonsense. As for the 10-15 polls, come on PLT. Out of those polls how many different voters were there? Who knows? OSC, HCSS and a season passholder ballot. How many season pass holders are members of one or both and that means some like me could have had 3 votes. We had one postal vote (OSC) one email vote (HCSS) and one warped and complicated vote. But the fact is that too many did not bother in the last vote.
"History and tradition for me is taking my kids to the football and meeting up with like minded people. Just like I used to with my dad. Recently, all we've talked about is this stupid name change, not our performances, league position, cup run, potential transfers or results. I've waited 15 years to be able to celebrate this level of success, my dad waited longer (my kids not as long!), but I'm disagreeing and arguing with people who are supposed to share my hopes and dreams. It f**king stinks." Blame the cantankerous old loser who is determined to inflict this ****e on everyone. Your history and tradition is taking your kids to the football and meeting up with like minded people. That sounds like any game, preferably the nearest one of a high standard will do. For other people, it's a lot more important than that. In my family we have a chain of support going back to the 1920s - that is supporting HULL CITY, not just any old team. My grandfather was at Elland Rd in March 1930 to see us get conned by the Arsenal. I'm delighted to say that 84 years later several family members will be supporting our team, the city's team, the family's team, the region's team, my mates' team in the SF again after 84 years of trying. It's not just a leisure option for many of us. The people to whom this is just a leisure option are the spineless sycophants who have latched onto our club in recent years and who soon ****ed off in 2010 when we went down again. These parasites and 'nu fans' cannot be allowed to eradicate our long history and heritage just because some thin-skinned old man holds a grudge against a councillor.
Calamty Jane; one of the few people in Hull who manages to make us look even dafter than Allam does...
Hang on. Less than 10% of the average crowd joined CTWD after months of campaigning? Why? This isnt me having a go at CTWD, its me having a go at a poor argument.
Probably the club's as you're getting at. You really think that's the reason for the big difference in votes? That the 10-15 independent polls all just happened to attract an unrepresentative sample? Do I need to go through the maths of this again? The odds of that happening are something similar to winning the lottery 15 times in a row. The key difference between this poll and the others, as you and I both know, is that the club arranged this one and worded it how they wanted. It's no more valid than me saying that the results of my dissertation survey were 25,000 against the name change, regardless of the fact I've only got 200 responses and the survey isn't about the name change. I don't even know what this post is about. The issue I have is the legitimacy of the poll, so everything you've said in interpretation of it is irrelevant. As I've said to Chazz above, the odds of this one poll picking up such a different result to the others being down to purely coincidence is simply far, far too great to consider. It's not a coincidence. It's because this poll is significantly different to the others. The question wasn't just about the name change, so how can we read into it people's views on the name change? The 9k can't be looked into in any context. In research you can't ever attribute any views to people who don't choose to give them. They are simply represented by those who do give their views. Their reasons for not voting could be as much to do with not caring that much about the club as caring about its name. We simply don't know, nor should we if they didn't want to give their views. The media angle is something I've been moaning about for weeks. Not one of them has attacked AA properly and highlighted all the **** he's done. Completely separate set of people, completely different issue. Ownership situation went to court, this one can't go the same way. The one which you prefer (wonder why) is the one which didn't ask the question. It didn't specifically ask any question in fact, hence why the answers had to be so long. Three answers were given and you had to pick which one suited you most. This is not a valid poll. If I tried to use it for academic or business purposes it'd be thrown out for the wording of the answers. I have no idea how many different votes there were, we can't know for sure, so we can't read into this. The polls can only be looked at independently. The club's poll is the least valid because the wording was so poor. That's the most important thing in any research.
the clubs vote is the only one an independent panel will look at .. do you think the allams are still appealing to the FA ... they have moved on from that mate .. and this is part of it and yes .. first port of call before courts is an independent panel .. .. try looking into it ..
I agree that they won't look at any others but they certainly won't look at the club's. No serious organisation would look at this poll and attempt to make any conclusions from it. It fails to meet several basic standards a piece of research should aim for.
A lot of this was about some little people wanting to be big people.They never had the mandate they claimed and loved the attention with people signing their flag etc.I tried to mention on numerous occasions that I know many people who were anti ctwd or indifferent.These were people who were there in the 3,000 days and yet olm and his mates tried to imply otherwise.
I don't think that any serious use will be made of this ballot. It was undertaken to show one man that he still had the support of season pass holders. Nick Thomson's breakdown of how the clubs supporter base is made up is not far from being right. What this ballot does show is that the only winner is apathy.
Actually the FA have already said this vote will have no impact, since it wasn't in City's 2nd submission after the FA panel unanimously rejected it first time round. There's no way this can go to "court", it's a FIFA rule that you can't take your parent FA to court, only arbiration like CAS. Any lawyer would drive a train through this poorly worded, loaded, and ultimately pointless ballot if they had to. The FSF do have a bit of say in this, and they're already showing their intense displeasure. It's getting to the point where I'd rather see Allam clear off, rather than having him and this dragging on and poisoning next season too. What a petty old man.
