Actually, the answer hasn't been given to the question I think I've asked twice now, and as it's CTWD's considered opinion, if it was searchable by google, I'm sure they'd have simply posted the link to it. It shoud be answerable, as it's simply the thought processes that the group have applied before suggesting this to members for discussion. So yes, you're babbling. As for alternatives, there are many, even within the trust route, which is why I'm interested. Another consideration could be along the lines of pressure groups that gain more influence outside the system, than they would have if they were elected and bound by rules and conventions.
If an organisation has aspirations to one day have a shareholding and a seat on the board at a football club, a trust is the only realistic option of achieving it.
IF that's what the members decide after consideration is the best option, then there are possibly still some variables within that model. Knowing a bit more about these specific proposals could be useful. A seat on the board is one way of influencing a club, but it's not the only way.
Dutch, if you wish to use the term babbling feel free; it doesn't change why I am now bored and at a loss as to why you feel it necessary to keep making the same points of opinion, ask the same questions (which are answered as much as they need or can be) or keep intimating that you know of many different alternatives to the CTWD stated strategy - yet you never expand, do you? Have you considered the fact that they might listen to all fans? But, to be fair to CTWD, the current owners we have (not you) don't listen to anyone - the most recent of meetings has yet to bear fruit and CTWD have no communication conduit. As far as I can see, the only reason CTWD can be claimed to make the most noise is because of the deafening silence from everyone else. The irony is how this relates to your on-going remarks (complaints?) about the KC atmosphere. Do you really believe that any group will be deemed solely representative of fans? If CTWD do a good job then their membership will grow and they will become influential (but with this owner??). I am sure there will be other groups who will lobby to express their opinion; perhaps you might form one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supporters'_trust I know that is a simplistic link, but it not only covers and offers links on supporters trusts, but it offers a link to shares (if you really need guidance). As for the rest, maybe, when the committee have finalised their draft constitution, they might outline all of the pros and cons. But let's be adventurous, let's have a guess, do you think those old Hull City shares are valid; have you asked the club? Okay, I see what you are asking, but, as the link I posted can demonstrate, Trusts can all be different or the same; there has to be buy in from the owners and there might be some form of government intervention. So when you take these factors into consideration then, perhaps, it could be considered that your questions are premature and constantly repeating them, in one form or another isn't going to change that. I cannot see how a Supporters Trust can be anything other than answerable to it's members, the supporters; the club will have inbuilt commercial protection - it is a necessary factor of the mutual trust that would be required to operate. Elsewhere I saw a comment that seemed to take for granted it would be the Chairman who would take a position on the board of the club; that may be the case, but a very good argument can be made for the Chairman being one-removed. For clarity, would the various other arrangements you have referred to offer anything more, or would they offer something less - like no place on the board? Is this something you accept? Why are you reluctant to discuss these variables and options; you expect CTWD to be explicit in their answers to your questions but you appear to offer nothing. Have you considered working with the committee, they might find your input useful, or they just might have it all well in hand. I don't believe anyone has stated that it is the only way, it is simply a case that an organised group are getting on with the way they have chosen to follow - others can follow if they wish, just as 1855 did with the original campaign.
Fez, you're doing your usual trick of rejigging the question to something it isn't, then writing a bundle of **** all to 'answer' a question that was never asked of you. Your point seems to be an allegation that I'm reluctant to discuss something, when I'm offering the points up for discussion. I just feel it's better to discuss the actual scheme rather than hypothetical ones.
The cost of a 5% share in the club will depend on what the owners sell the shares for. They could sell them at current market value of sell them all for a pound. 5% wouldn't give the Trust a veto on the owners decision but would be a gesture of goodwill towards the fans if the shares were sold below their market value. Who choses the board member would be up to the club's rules. Personally I should think the club will leave it up to the Trust. I would expect the Trust to insist they had the final say over who would represent them. If the club and the Trust have a good relationship then I don't expect it to be an issue. Perhaps CTWD can say whether the constitution will cover the election of a board member. The owner of Hull City is a limited company so the Trust would have no liability for any of the club's debts unless it guaranteed them. Again CTWD can say whether the constitution says anything about the Trust getting credit or guaranteeing the debts of third parties, including the football club. I would say it is up to the owner of the club whether the Trust gets a board member. There's nothing to stop the club appointing a member of CTWD as a non-executive board member tomorrow. Why would the owner do that? The only reason I can think of, unless the Trust has millions to invest, is as a gesture of goodwill towards the supporters and to build a stronger link between the club and the supporters.
We get our nickname "The Tigers" from our home colours. The question is, why did we adopt black and amber in the first place? My theory is that Hull's position as a major trading post in the Hanseatic League allowed an abundance of Baltic amber to reach our shores via Hull. It's an extremely rare colour combination in European football, and it makes us quite unique. Does anyone know for certain why we adopted those colours? Answer me that, CTWD.
The money goes to the owner of the shares, which won't be the club. The money only goes to the club if it increases the number of shares and sells them to the Trust to raise capital. I was just pointing out why the club may sell shares to the Trust for less than their market value. Unless the Trust owns a significant number of shares it will have no real power over the policies of the club. The Swansea City Trust couldn't stop Swansea City declaring a dividend which put £2 million into the hands of its owner and £400,000 into the hands of the trust.
Well they definately went down for those supporters who thought they were doing the right thing to help their club. Yes they were able to sell them to the glaziers before he de-listed the club, but most of the small shareholders didn't realise that once Glazier had 75% he could de-list and become the sole owner rendering the shares worthless. On the other side of the coin, i presume Glazier has done fairly well out of it. ( should go and check with Mr Google )
you want to know the thought processes and arguments behind reaching the conclusion about their intended course of action? if it isn't already minuted you want someone to write it up?
Not in the way you seem to be suggesting, but I'd expect a group looking for member support to have something that shows the pros and cons of the options and the strengths and weaknesses as well as a easy read explanation of the one chosen so that members can make an informed position. At the moment, a place on the board is a non-starter, but given the chairman's said he's off, it'd be good to be able to show a clear, supported action plan to any new owner. You've only to read this board to see that some think this CTWD is the name change group. An open discussion of the options could help dispel that and encourage more people on board. I also think this would free up time for the group to look at bringing other fans issues to the club. At the moment, I think the club are receptive to helping fans wherever they can, obviously within reason, so in my view, it'd be good to help by having a focus for questions so that the process can be streamlined and more informed.
CTWD are ****ing useless. Not a single one of you have answered my important, City-related question...
Here we go again, you in denial and blaming anyone else in reach. Look back at the few extracts I have made a comment against; I have rejigged nothing at all, I have never claimed you have asked me questions, in fact you have asked me none - if so, where are they? I have highlighted where you have made some statements and also where you asked questions and I have asked why you continually ask the same old same old .. . . Do you accept that there can be a supporters trust (regardless of who steers it) and separate other supporter groups who can all share the ear of whoever is on the board of the club? The whole basis of your questioning (which I support in principle) is that you know there are other options, besides a trust and that, should it need to be a Trust then you might be aware of some variables you might comment on - if CTWD can be more specific about their proposals. Is it so hard to give a simple, idiots guide to the alternatives and variables you refer to? we need something to discuss, if that is indeed your aim. I don't understand your last line - I just feel it's better to discuss the actual scheme rather than hypothetical ones - what actual scheme, do you mean the hypothetical one, which is the only one that can be created until a Supporters Trust can win the support, inclusion and cooperation of the club's board? I am genuinely confused, as you seem to insist on receiving answers that cannot be given; no one knows what conditions will be in place in any framework agreement, should the club accept a supporters trust - unless you know something different? Indeed, the subsequent response from Obi makes some good points, but all are only academically correct and are, ultimately, purely dependent on the final agreement between club and trust; that is if there is one in the truest sense of the term.
Fez, you really are rejigging. You're attempting to spin a question I asked to clarify CTWD's position into a challenge for me to post a whole bundle of options as if I should have every answer. Clearly I don't. That's why I'm interested in a summary of the scheme the committee consider the optimum.
Regarding the first point you make, don't you think it is normal practice that once a body is elected and entrusted with developing policy they are allowed to get on with it, consulting how and when they feel appropriate? Do they have to include you because you make the most noise (do you see the irony in this)? I would think they will release their framework constitution to the membership when complete or in an advanced draft format, which is when constructive comment should be welcomed, I would hope. In all seriousness, if you were in their position, would you be discussing the detail on a public forum? As for your second point, are CTWD, in whatever stage of evolution, the only body who can bring up issues to the club? In fact, you keep asking for clarity on whether or not responses are from a group or an individual, but isn't it the case that only individuals are bringing issues to the club, as CTWD are unwelcome? So why do they need the time? Would you not be better engaged in encouraging another group to take up this role of representation, or form one yourself?
