Isnt it about time.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
I think The Omega Man's suggestion was that CTWD (or the new supporters' trust) formally meet with the OSC to discuss the best way of representing supporters. I understand that whilst the Ulltras support CTWD they are a separate body and discuss matters such as getting tickets for away games separately.

Then there are the non-aligned people who volunteered for the new fans consultation committee, who may be willing to participate in a fans federation.

Personally I see no problem with The Omega Man's suggestion, as long as the new body is accountable to the wider body of supporters.
 
The Omega Man said:
It is my sincere hope that all of the supporters groups can start to work together. Forget the past and move on.
There are bound to be issues that are not agreed on and trains of thought that differ, but the common bond of supporting Hull City should overcome the differences.
It's about time that we had a Hull City supporter group federation.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. As I mentioned in another thread, there have been past frictions in regards to the name change that have resulted in poor working relationships between different sections of the supporter base.

Curiously, I thought the intention of CTWD was to disband once the name change issue was resolved. Interesting that they're now presuming to speak for all City supporters.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
Agree with this. As I mentioned in another thread, there have been past frictions in regards to the name change that have resulted in poor working relationships between different sections of the supporter base.

Curiously, I thought the intention of CTWD was to disband once the name change issue was resolved. Interesting that they're now presuming to speak for all City supporters.
Click to expand...

CTWD do not claim to speak for all City supporters, they can only speak on behalf of their members.

Their members voted overwhelmingly to become a supporters trust and that's what will hopefully happen in a couple of months. The No To Hull Tigers campaign has ceased, at least it has until any other application goes in.

Following the lack of consultation with the fans over several issues in the past year, there are a great many fans who think that the fans need a stronger voice at the club, that was a role the OSC was never going to take up, so we shall.

As for the suggestion in the OP, CTWD have met with the OSC to discuss working together, but the OSC risk losing all their benefits if they get involved with us, so won't do so. Obviously I know PLT, along with others involved in the running of the OSC and we're happy to talk to them, but it's unlikely to go anywhere.
 
originallambrettaman said:
CTWD do not claim to speak for all City supporters, they can only speak on behalf of their members.

Their members voted overwhelmingly to become a supporters trust and that's what will hopefully happen in a couple of months. The No To Hull Tigers campaign has ceased, at least it has until any other application goes in.

Following the lack of consultation with the fans over several issues in the past year, there are a great many fans who think that the fans need a stronger voice at the club, that was a role the OSC was never going to take up, so we shall.

As for the suggestion in the OP, CTWD have met with the OSC to discuss working together, but the OSC risk losing all their benefits if they get involved with us, so won't do so. Obviously I know PLT, along with others involved in the running of the OSC and we're happy to talk to them, but it's unlikely to go anywhere.
Click to expand...

I missed it at the time, what were the numbers in the end? ie how many voted, how many for, how many against?
 
originallambrettaman said:
There is a single supporters group, it's called City Till We Die and it's not at all unclear about it's role, it's merely undergoing a transition from being a campaign group to being a supporters trust.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call CTWD a supporters trust. I have a bitter taste in my mouth with all the s**t they spouted during the name change.
 
originallambrettaman said:
I haven't got the exact numbers to hand, but from memory 5-600 members voted and only 2 voted against.
Click to expand...


Cheers. I'd question your previous wording of 'overwhelming' but as there still seems to be some confusion over what CTWD now is, is there a link to show what people were voting on? ie, what are the implications of becoming a trust, who is represented and on what sort of issues?
 
Hull City AFC (DMD) said:
Cheers. I'd question your previous wording of 'overwhelming' but as there still seems to be some confusion over what CTWD now is, is there a link to show what people were voting on? ie, what are the implications of becoming a trust, who is represented and on what sort of issues?
Click to expand...

I thought you were a member, didn't you get the email?

I'll see if I can find it when I get to my office.

I'd say less than 1% voting against was fairly overwhelming.
 
originallambrettaman said:
CTWD do not claim to speak for all City supporters, they can only speak on behalf of their members.

Their members voted overwhelmingly to become a supporters trust and that's what will hopefully happen in a couple of months. The No To Hull Tigers campaign has ceased, at least it has until any other application goes in.

Following the lack of consultation with the fans over several issues in the past year, there are a great many fans who think that the fans need a stronger voice at the club, that was a role the OSC was never going to take up, so we shall.

As for the suggestion in the OP, CTWD have met with the OSC to discuss working together, but the OSC risk losing all their benefits if they get involved with us, so won't do so. Obviously I know PLT, along with others involved in the running of the OSC and we're happy to talk to them, but it's unlikely to go anywhere.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Didn't intend to come off snarky - which reading back my post it did a bit (was sat in a Tax Law lecture at 9am so maybe I was a bit grumpy).

I completely agree with the notion of getting a unified supporters trust with everyone's views recognised as practically as possible. I think at the end of the day we all have the best interests of the club at heart, even if we have different views on what that means. But that doesn't make anyone's views less important.
 
originallambrettaman said:
I thought you were a member, didn't you get the email?

I'll see if I can find it when I get to my office.

I'd say less than 1% voting against was fairly overwhelming.
Click to expand...

1% of those that voted. In pure member numbers, it wasn't overwhelming, which was your claim. I don't recall the options to vote for either. What were the implications of a 'no' vote?

I've seen the email, but based on replies since, it's far from clear what CTWD aims to be, or even who will be influencing it and who will be running it.

Are you still anything to do with it?
 
Come on then HullCityAFC, what bollocks did CTWD come out with? Put up or shut up.

There's far too much unsubstantiated bollocks aimed at CTWD online. Unlike the club, they've been honest throughout and their stance has always made perfect sense and been completely consistent. It's ****ing embarrassing how many people on the Internet claim to support Hull City, but want to change it and oppose those who like it as it is without any proper argument. Do other clubs have people like this?

If you want to support Hull Tigers then go and form that club.
 
Hull City AFC (DMD) said:
1% of those that voted. In pure member numbers, it wasn't overwhelming, which was your claim. I don't recall the options to vote for either. What were the implications of a 'no' vote?

I've seen the email, but based on replies since, it's far from clear what CTWD aims to be, or even who will be influencing it and who will be running it.

Are you still anything to do with it?
Click to expand...

It was .003-.004% of those who voted and as with any vote, only those who bother to vote who have a say. It's disappointing that more people didn't take the opportunity to vote, but the email system we use registers what happens after the emails have gone out and about a quarter of those who received them didn't even bother to open them.

If our members had voted against us becoming a supporters trust, we obviously wouldn't have become one, we'd have just ceased to do anything, unless another name change application went in.

As Fez has said, details of our meetings are available on our website and all those who were voted in at the FGM are detailed here - http://citytillwedie.com/files/CTWD-FGM-Notes-190414.pdf

More detailed information on what our long and short terms will be, will go up on our new website which will launch shortly. We have charged no additional membership fees since CTWD was launched and we will not do so until the trust is launched, at that point, existing members and new members can decide if they want to join or not.
 
Fez said:
http:// http://notohulltigers.tumblr.com/

You can only act on those who make the effort, or are able to vote, so the outcome was overwhelming, no doubt about that.

Google ctwd and read the minutes of the meeting for who does what, it's not a secret.
Click to expand...

The statement was that an 'overwhelming' number of members voted in favour. Pedantic perhaps, but that's not accurate.

I never thought the minutes were secret, I was more interested in the current situation, which seems fluid, as OLM has just confirmed in his previous reply.
 
Hull City AFC (DMD) said:
The statement was that an 'overwhelming' number of members voted in favour. Pedantic perhaps, but that's not accurate.

I never thought the minutes were secret, I was more interested in the current situation, which seems fluid, as OLM has just confirmed in his previous reply.
Click to expand...

<laugh> Very pedantic. 99.997% of those who voted, voted yes, that's fairly conclusive.

There's nothing fluid about anything, when we're ready we'll release our aims, but there's no rush, it's going to take at least another two months before the trust can be set up anyway.
 
originallambrettaman said:
<laugh> Very pedantic. 99.997% of those who voted, voted yes, that's fairly conclusive.

There's nothing fluid about anything, when we're ready we'll release our aims, but there's no rush, it's going to take at least another two months before the trust can be set up anyway.
Click to expand...

<laugh> ???

All true, but that wasn't your claim. <doh>

As for fluid, I can only speak as it seems based on your words, either as a poster or member.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back