It does not say that there can only be one trust only that it (supporters direct) will not recognise and therefore will not support more than one trust.
Some people on this make me despair about the mental acuity of City fans CTWD was a single policy pressure group, the only agenda was to fight the name change, if you didn't agree with that agenda then you didn't join, simple A supporters trust is a different animal completely, it is there to try to strengthen ties between fans & clubs working in the best interest of it's members. In theory every member of that trust would then have an equal say in the policies they adopted, this would normally be canvassed by a member vote. The trust would never claim to represent all the fans of City, simply those who were members of the trust. If you want a say in those policies then you join the trust. The trust would have no reason to canvass the views of fans who are not members nor have any need to try to raise any issues of non members. Clubs are not limited to only having one supporters trust, any group of fans can set one up to aim to achieve their own policies, nobody is under any obligation to join a supporters trust.
thats what Ive been trying to say, The ****ers who have supported have given the group a ban name edit: obviously not all ****ers, just the ****ers who try and be ****ers
But wasn't criticism aimed at HCOSC for suggesting that it had to represent the views of its membership? Both for and against the name change?
Surely that is the case with any group ? Just look at politics !! Some Tories are racists, but that does not make the Tories a racist party Some CTWD followers are W**kers, but that does not make CTWD all w**kers or even that any of it's founders or members are
The problem with HCOSC was that it was affiliated to the club & the club therefore had undue influence over it Most trusts work on a majority view where policies are concerned, it is impossible to find a group where every member agrees with every policy, and it becomes farcical if when you put forward a policy you then say...this is the view of 60% of our members, while 25% had no view & the other 15% disagreed
According to the governments consultation papers, the trusts representation on the board of clubs is a very difficult issue and that is my point. A trust member gets voted on to the board and he/she is bound by the decisions made. The ties between club and trust are stronger than those between say Hull City and HCOSC. That is the reason why Supporters Direct does not fully support protest groups, it makes for difficult days ahead.
Why is that? Surely the best supporters trust would have members of all walks holding all opinions, the broader the scope it represents the better. Yes that would mean having pro allamists in it. Remember, this whole situation is a matter of opinion and personal preference. No one is right or wrong with these things, sure lies and bullshit have been spread by people on both sides and some people probably hold the opinion they do for all the wrong reasons. But much like tv, films, books or music, it's down to each persons opinion, there's neither a wrong way nor a right way. So just why would a supporters trust be better off without these people?
Ok so far what I've got from this is: 1. Ben is a whiny ****. 2. Anyone who thought Ben's post was clever, or even accurate is a jizz head. 3. The main faces of CTWD membership wise seem to fall under points one and two above, and is why CTWD will never have major support in Hull. 4. There's a small group of ******ed tits who still fail to realise & comprehend that all our current success has been achieved because of the fine job and investment made by the Allams. 5. There's no reason whatsoever for the merger other than to ensure the new supporters trust, called CTWD, will be the only Supporters Trust, and by virtue of it being the only one, and also be downto the sleight of hand involving the merger, means SD and FSF will instantly recognise it. Nice hatchet job on them. Oh wait, no, they agreed. They're all supporters of CTWD, yet they all couldn't be arsed with the supporters trust thing, so, you're doing them, and all true quality fans of Hull City AFC a huge favour aintcha? 6. No explanation of keeping the CTWD name, I will guess this is done knowing the Allams are highly unlikely to want to deal with them all so they can still play the victim card with the sugary sweet self pity filled blogs and press releases 7. CTWD will continue to be the self appointed voice of the fans, regardless of membership numbers, and regardless of the apathy within their own current ranks. I think that pretty much covers it.
You know what I meant. I purposefully didn't say pro name changers because barring a few winder uppers, I don't think anyone seriously would rather be called hull tigers. But there are those (actually, and surprisingly, a considerable number) that do genuinely believe that Allam should have his chance to do his thing, for a few different few reasons, those are the types I was referring to as 'pro allamists'.
There is nothing to suggest that CTWD Trust would be a protest group, it would be a supporters trust with a name which is part of one of our chants. HCOSC was too beholden to the club for it's existence is my point, they rely on the club supplying players for events etc, something that can be withdrawn if they upset the owners
Usual crock of ****. CTWD already has more supporters than most Supporters Trusts, including in the Premier League, so we're off to a good start, before we've even started. It's also bollocks about the reason for keeping our name, we're proud if what we've achieved so far and as you're probably aware, we're not big on name changes. We do expect the club will talk to us, our chairman was invited to the first fan group meeting and I've been invited to the second, our input is being sought.
