I believe Filey made a decent point in that CTWD, as a name, is an impediment to some (perhaps many) supporting the trust and it's objectives. Will the committee consider a name-change (sic), perhaps retaining the 'city till we die' phrase as a Trust strapline? Perhaps something short and punchy such as 'Hull City Trust'? I can understand why folk would like to see some form of accountability when CTWD (or any other supporters group) claim to be representative, so is it possible for someone in the know to list all such Hull City related groups, giving some indication of how many members they represent? As far as I am able to discern, there is, currently, only one invited channel where any supporters are being asked to offer their opinion to the club, this being the Fans Group Meetings (I think). I have picked up that these are attended on a random basis and no-one seems to have any particular handle on their past or future. Is the representation of CTWD at these meetings a deliberate invitation to the group or a coincidental invitation to an individual? Is it now reasonable to assume that CTWD has a recognised communication conduit to the Club board? Does any other group have such a communication conduit?
The name will be revisited again ahead of the trust being formed, we are obviously aware that it will alienate some fans and it's important that a supporters trust is an inclusive as possible. It's something that we will consult on via threads like this and our social media sites ahead of a decision being made. The way the fan group came about, individuals were asked to contact the club if they were interested in being involved and that's what's happened, as far as I'm aware groups were not approached to put someone forward to represent them. Obviously James Mooney will be aware of certain people being involved in certain organisations and that may have shaped who got invited to a point, but as far as I know everyone applied as individuals. CTWD currently have 1855 members, the OSC have less(I'm sure someone on here will know the actual number), then there's the Senior Tigers, the HC Southern Supporters, the Ulltras and possibly others with smaller memberships, though many of these will be members of one/both of the two main organisations. I'd think that all of the above mentioned groups will have direct contact with the club to some degree.
Are the ultras a group? I just thought it was a that small collection of people at the back of E2 that's now in N2? What defines a group over a collection of mates that travel together? I'd have thought there were a larger number of Dutch lads that could do to be represented on there.
I was asked, but as my earlier offers to help others during the evictions was met as it was, I'm waiting to see what transpires before deciding.
I'm just saying (and agreeing with a few on here) that the only way this will work and the only way you'll maintain credibility and backing, is if you take great care ( or at least a lot more than AA) in making sure you genuinely have the majority's voice represented. This may not be achieved in memberships but through thorough referendums or surveys. Personally, if I read that the Supporter's trust are pushing for something "in the name of the majority" , I expect it to have indeed come up with an easy way to collate those opinions and to have genuine feedback, including mine. If world politics is anything to go by, we should all know by now how much power corrupts the mind. And what starts as a lovely idea "giving the People a voice" usually ends up as "giving the people at the helm's agenda a voice". If you're going to go up against someone like AA who likes to throw words about like "silent majority" and other random estimates to back his argument, make sure not to play that same game or you will lose credibility. Or at least my trust and I'm sure many others' who will then see it as your everyday political bullshit back and forth where both sides are culpable of the same things. If you ensure there are things in place to prevent such corruption then I think it'll go down well within the masses.
There's a couple of hundred of them as far as I'm aware and I know they've had some conversations with the club regarding standing, banners, flares etc, though as far as I'm aware they've only discussed things that involve them directly. Any group of fans could effectively be considered a fan group.
A couple of hundred? They've increased a lot in the last year, there only used to be a few dozen at most that regularly sat together. It looked to be the same amount at the back of N2. Hay ho, if the club are now listening to groups of fans, maybe cloggy will have more luck getting tickets in a block for the Dutch lads that have been coming for years.
It's a shame this thread headed the way it did, it's a useful way for those of us with issues, and those without but having questions, could ask stuff off CTWD directly and get a response. It's even more disappointing to see that in the main, the derailing has been by supposed CTWD supporters and even a mod. My suggestion would be to explicitly state the purpose of the thread, I.E. Q&A, that people can create their own threads for sounding off and to prune any of the attention seeking noise. Back to this thread, in the hubbub and general noise, it seems a number of questions were missed, and I have a couple more, so in the interests of openness and interaction, I've reproduced them below; 1. Hipflaskgate. As has been seen, a number of people have broached this, and it's caused quite a bit of debate. Can we have a statement from Mark about it please as it affects his integrity and the integrity of the group as a whole, especially in relation to dealings with the subject of said hipflask. 2. Don't you think that you should know exactly where your members are from, and if they are pass holders, or how many games they go to? Or don't you think that's important? Personally I think if you claim to have 1800 members or whatever, you should be able to explain exactly what section of fans those members make up. 3. I'm pleased to see you're taking my advice from some time ago about contiuning to use the name CTWD for a trust. A number of us would love to be part of a trust but would rather not if it went with the CTWD monicker. Why the sudden about face on this? You've, until now, seemed quite set of retaining CTWD and seemed quite passionate about it. Have you finally realised just how unpopular CTWD is with the people you'd need in a Trust, i.e. the majority of people who sit in the ground every other week? (soz, few questions in there, all related mind!) 3.1 Small follow-up on that: If you do change your name, because you think it will make you more popular, despite previously claiming CTWD is a perfect name for a trust, don't you think that's slightly ironic? 4. Is anyone at the FWG going specifically as a CTWD rep, and have they been invited as such, or is it rather than they've been invited and are going to claim they're there on behalf of CTWD afterwards? Subtle difference for some that... 5. Is it now reasonable to assume that CTWD has a recognised communication conduit to the Club board? Does any other group have such a communication conduit? 6. Why do you think CTWD will be able to forge a relationship between the Club and HCC and even local businesses like Siemen? If you've had it in your grasp previously to help the Owner v HCC argument why haven't you? 7. Is this the only thread of its type in existence? I note there isn't anything on CI (If there is, apologies, I couldn't see it). I thought you were going to try and engage with various sites? Where else have you done this? That'll do for the mo, thanks for reading and responding.
The purpose of this thread is for people to ask questions of CTWD and it's intention to become a trust, it is not here to discuss what any individual member posts on a message board, or social media, as it's not a CTWD position. The name isn't a new issue, it's something we've been concerned about since the new committee was formed, to be honest, I was surprised so many members at the FGM wanted to retain it. There was a problem with the login on CI, but it's been sorted today and the aims are being posted tonight. Threads like this will appear on all the main boards and social media. If you flick back, you'll see some of your other questions have been answered already.
When you consider that changes to season pass prices, making buying a pass make much less sense if you are skint and more interested in seeing the games that will actually matter to us rather than the games against the top four that won't matter, combined with giving those in e1 - e3 a couple of weeks to move seats etc and pay a 30% increase in prices, the whole season pass holder only thing really is not particularly relevant any more. What I mean is that it seems very clear that Mr Allam intentionally looked to gerrymander the season pass owner demographic in order to get rid of those that were most vocal in their desire to protect the integrity of the club. Any future ballot should go to everybody that has bought a ticket this season.
I missed the membership question. Obviously we know where all our members are from already, we might ask them if they're season ticket holders when we do the trust memberships, but I'm really not sure it matters. Nobody who isn't a Hull City fan is going to pay to join a Hull City supporters trust and how many games they attend is not really relevant to how big a fan they are(there could be many reasons why some members attend more games than others).
That is what we call a straw man argument, ie you are misrepresenting Lambrettamans argument. He said theere are many reasons why one supporter attends less than others, not that every supporter has the same degree of passion for the club. £50 to see Man City sums up why people won't go to every game, or buy a pass this year.
I can follow your reasoning and it will be true for many, but you have explained it logically and seem to understand the difficulties and reasoning, so why would you remove your trust? It is inevitable (as has been said) that a broad statement of 'supporting the fan's views' will never be totally verified - I think we need to remember that we are talking about a fan's group ran by elected volunteers. I think once these questions are asked and answered folk can be supportive or they can move on, it's really that simple. How many voices must CTWD listen to, record and then publicize to meet these requirements; 1,855, 5,000, 16,000, 25,000 or more? It's a genuine question.
