Sorry if you thought I was being rude, I thought I was being humorous. The club have never taken minutes at any meeting I've ever been at, not with Adam Pearson, not with Paul Duffen, not with Nick Thompson, not with Assem Allam and not with James Mooney. It's standard practice at all these meetings to make our own record, ideally the club would do it, but they don't.
Fez, in my view Andy's minutes will be accurate, and his style's easy reading. He's certainly not someone that can be manipulated, so I think it's good that he takes the minutes. However it's come about, I think PLT's a good choice. He's certainly willing and able to speak out. It's bad that we haven't had a rep up to now, but provided nobody has an objection (and provided he's willing), I suggest we support him and start looking at issues we'd like him to raise at the next meeting. The only other option I see is a vote, and I know some my other options will decline. I also reckon that if anyone wanted to go and observe, or attend to ask a particular issue, I doubt it'd be a problem.
Okay, understood. If it is understood why minute taking has evolved, it can also be understood why they would be neglected.
In no way have I criticised Andy or his minutes and I am appreciative of the fact that someone does it for the benefit if us all. I have no issue with PLT being the rep, but does he want to be, as it was dumped on him? If you think about it he shares a very similar opinion of the owners as I do. I am still not comfortable with what I am being told about the club inviting organisations, rather than individuals, the answers have been confusing and contradictory. I am distrustful of the club management and I believe the name-change is very much alive as a threat of a different nature. I would also like to see daylight between CTWD (who I still support), the HCOSC and NOT606; if PLT accepts he is our rep then I would have preferred to see him post the minutes and answer questions, rather than OLM who is the CTWD rep. In my opinion this would get the same messages across, it would offer continuity of communications and it would let the discussion thrive and the nitpicking subside.
Sorry I missed most of this. I was at the meeting for the simple reason that I put my name down when the club originally looked for people to be on the group back in the summer. I was invited to the first meeting, (along with everyone else who applied I'm led to believe) and it went from there. JM knows me personally and knows I post on this board, which might be how I ended up with the title of not606 rep, I don't know. As OLM says though, I didn't announce myself as representing this board. Fez; yes I'm a director of the OSC. I don't agree with your suggestion though that my views are radical. Outspoken, yes probably. The OSC chairman was in attendance as the OSC representative, I represented no one other than myself and one or two people who asked me questions to ask beforehand. I'm pretty sure there were a few individuals in attendance not representing any particular group, including myself. I'm also fairly sure that anyone was able to get on this group and it's not just a case of the club handpicking leaders of certain groups (though there is understandably an element of that). If the board needs a specific rep then I agree a vote should take place. I'll be there regardless and will happily represent either the board or just myself, whatever's decided. It was my understanding before the meeting that another poster from on here was going as well. I don't know if they came in the end and which one they were if they did, but my point here is that there might be more than just me who's already going to the meetings and who posts on here.
So if PLT is our rep and represents us then surely we get to pick what he wears and says? I'd suggest you go dressed in a pink morph suit and demand that be our kit next season for comical value.
really? who gives a flying **** all this representing ****e, daft as ****.. this is the biggest hull forum.. ( **** all you afc ****e) we're the only hull sporting team how many are going to disagree and agree.. happy only posts about anti ctwd stuff... even though the purpose of the meetings are about improving fan experiences.. pretty much nothing to with the name change
For all intents and purposes OLM is our representative, he seems to be taking all the questions, answering the others and posting all the details. What is the point in voting for a rep? There are at least two people from this board who are getting by invited, one is obviously raising points made on here, I'm sure the other will too if asked. So long as everyone knows who from this board is attending, so it's known who to address about any issues, what difference would appointing our own rep make other than possibly preventing another individual from attending in his place? Besides, it's already been revealed that photobomber James Mooney reads the board himself (or at least some club staff do) and these threads about the meetings will be of particular interest to him, so in reality just by posting here we are representing ourselves to the club with a fair reflection of who thinks what and who's shagging who anyway.
Should these meetings continue and should they be as influential as OLM has listed, then there is always a likelihood that a more contentious agenda item might arise and I think we should be conscious of attendee's associations and affiliations. I also believe, as our experience has shown us, that the top down management integrity of our club, towards us it's customers, leaves a great deal to be desired. It was stated in the meeting, by James Moody (according to those minutes), that he is sceptical over the involvement of CTWD in the atmosphere discussion; I am equally sceptical over their seemingly haphazard process of pigeon holing individuals to their own view of how critical groups should be represented. I, and many others on here, was hugely disappointed and angry over the stance and contribution of the HCOSC in the name-change argument, I do not believe they have changed, have they? I believe that if we are to have an official representative then they must not be an official of another group, especially one so closely aligned with the club and it's policy.
If PLT and OLM are there, tbh, Im perfectly happy with that. Or anyone else who happens to be a member of this forum. I don't think this board needs a spokesperson because honestly, there is no need. We have a wide range of views, intelligence levels and sobriety levels at any one time on here. What would a "Board Rep" actually do? Put their "CTWD are liars and cheats and my forum backs the Allams" face on, deep manly voice obvz, then swap to a high pitched shrill voice and say "Oooo Im not here to represent Happy, we're not *really* anti allam (the ****) we just wanna be loved and taken seriously"? Not gonna work and no point. OLM, PLT and anyone else that goes for that matter, asks the questions we as forum members want asked so we're represented. AN, CI, CTWD, OSC etc obviously have agendas to follow, whereas we do not which makes an official Not606 delegate kinda daft. People have questions, they put them up, they get taken, they get asked, the responses are fed back. Why make it more difficult than that. I would of course expect to not see CTWD claiming to represent this forum, nor would I expect to see them claiming ownership of any questions raised on here. What I would like to see if, if James decides a poll on a subject is a good idea, the last place it should be is AN and the first place it should be is here.
Happy, there are some that don't recognise OLM as spokesperson for various reasons (look at the banner vote for some), so where was their opportunity to ask questions? Someone appointing the reps on others behalf for me is wrong and casts doubt on the process. Up to now, as there hasn't been a rep on their, there have been views missing. As nobody has objected, and he's accepted, I'm more than happy that PLT has stepped up to rectify that. So unless anyone objects, I propose we welcome the first not606 rep.
I have agreed that I object to the club pigeon-holing reps to groups. I have also made it clear that I believe PLT is an inappropriate rep for this board (due to his appointment with the HCOSC - in exactly the same way that OLM is). If they were members then so be it, but they are officers of their group's management committee/board. This board enjoys neutrality and embraces all views so I see no reason to be represented by anyone with strong official allegiance to any particular view. I would rather we are not officially represented than have threads hijacked with the complaints we have witnessed over OLM's involvement - even though he only seems to have ever done anything for the common good.
Seems fair enough. I don't want to be drawn in to a discussion on it, but while I can see your argument about dual roles, I don't see it creating issues in this case. I initially said being a mod on here and a rep could cause conflict, but most seem to disagree with me on that, which is fair enough. I don't see the previous threads as 'hijacked', like this discussion, it's people voicing a view on representation, which is what the meeting is now about. If an alternative is available, we can have a vote. I had some in mind, but they declined, do you have anyone to propose?
Having watched the progress of some of the threads, I think you might have had some justification in having cause for concern over conflict due to dual role of mod and rep, so I think stretching it to a triple conflict is, well, stretching it . . . . I do not believe it is up to anyone to nominate someone else, as, if they are up to the role of rep, they should be more than capable of putting themselves forward and stating their own preparedness to attend the meetings as a rep. I am drifting to the view that I will broaden my reading to other boards (something I have seldom bothered with) and garner my information in that way, but use this one, which will hopefully remain neutral, as my discussion board; the CTWD forum might also be used for discussion, but only if I subscribe to the new trust - which is far from a certainty. The one thing I do know is that I would be far happier and convinced about this whole process if the club, who call, chair (?) and host the meetings, were the ones to take and issue the minutes, which would show a clear acceptance of those attending and the roles in which they are attending - it would be nothing more than a hint of honesty from an organisation that has sadly lacked it for some time. Let's get rid of the Smoke and Mirrors and encourage top down consultation and integrity.
The club don't take minutes of the meetings ? wtf ? So they have no record of what has been asked ? So it depends if James Mooney remembers or something ? Maybe they should take minutes and act on the points raised and get some things done
'Our club' ? Curtis Davies has been at the teenage cancer unit all week creating awareness and publicity for that. And the club are donating part of the gate receipts from todays game to the cause. Some clubs do stuff away from the glare of the cameras. Anyhow why are Lincoln City giving out leaflets in Leicester ?
I have been to the last two meetings, representing myself. I posted before the first meeting that I would be happy to raise any questions and will still do so if I'm asked to future gatherings. As work committments means I can't guarantee to attend all meetings I wouldn't want to be an official representative but having now seen PLT in full flow I would certainly recommend him to ask any and all questions on behalf of this board. I can understand those who question the club's motives for these meetings. I am extremely anti name change and will be happy when the Allam's leave, James Mooney knows this, but JM genuinely seems to want to improve matchday experience for club and fans, and engagement with people at these meetings can only help everyone.
I think that it's fairly obvious that James has avoided inviting organisations and has instead just invited individuals who he feels also cover those organisations, quite probably to avoid having to specifically invite CTWD, as we're not his employers favourite organisation. CTWD weren't really happy with this, so asked that someone was invited specifically as a CTWD rep(much as is being discussed here), James agreed and I took up that role. There is obviously going to some crossover, as in addition to being the CTWD rep, I'm also the heaviest poster on this board and just by posting as an individual I will continue to answer questions raised where I can. That said, I posted a CTWD thread on here to see if anyone had questions they wanted raised(mainly because I didn't know if we had an official not606 rep or not), but if we appoint someone, then I'll obviously not do this sort of thing in future, I'll just keep my CTWD hat on.
Going back to actual meeting notes for a moment, they were spotted by a Safe Standing campaigner, who has let us know that the issue of sitting/standing at away games is something that Palace have been trying to address. They have agreed with the Premier League that there is no issue with clubs selling away tickets with the option of 'towards the back' or 'towards the front', in fact, they welcomed it as an imaginative way to address the issue. I've forwarded the email to the club, hopefully they'll take this on board.
