Hull City Supporters' Trust - Become a member

[PLT]

So you admit you dont want to work with him at all? I no you dont so why put yourself forward when that is a stated aim of the trust.

If the owners agreed to work with the Supporters Trust or anyone else representing the fans it'd be a good thing. One of the reasons I don't like Allam is precisely because he doesn't work with anyone.

I'd rather we had a different owner of course, but if he said tomorrow we'll discuss concerns with fans openly I'd be really pleased. I wouldn't suddenly think he's wonderful, but I'd certainly welcome the opportunity.

 

[Chazz Rheinhold]

Go on then explain that, what's in it for me?

To pressure Allam to leave by pretending to go with a policy hoping you get enough members to steer it to your own agenda?

So why did you join when you clearly dont want to work with Allam? Or have i just answered that.

 

[Fez]

Or stick your fingers in your ears like your doing cos you dont like people asking nasty questions.

Dutch got no end of abuse on here about the seat move and lack of support from ctwd before people saw what he was getting at.

PLT's views are well known on here and ive applauded him for being honest and holding those views. But he is now on the trust committee. Someone holding his views cant seriously want to work with the Allams, as the trust purports to do, can they?
We've seen what get Gretton thinks.
I was told by olm exiled wasnt involved and laughed at about it. Seems he is now heavily involved. He also wants Allam to **** off.
Can you see where I'm going with this? Arent these legitimate questions?

No, they are out of context to reality and overstated to suit your constant bleating.

 

[Fez]

All an opinion can be based on is past experience.

Do you really believe that?

 

[Bielbs]

Asking questions is "usual negativity" no it isnt.
Asking questions is "bleating", no it isnt.
Fair play to you for stating your point of view.

Giving money to charity and publicising it!! Tut tut Charon will be fuming about this.

Thanks for reading and you may have a point regarding the words I've used however I hope you take on board my points regarding HCST only being successful if it has members of ALL views included and active.

 

[DMD]

Thanks for reading and you may have a point regarding the words I've used however I hope you take on board my points regarding HCST only being successful if it has members of ALL views included and active.

I appreciate your points Bielbs.

I like the concept of a fans group, but my experience so far is of a group that isn't that good at listening, and gets defensive when questioned.

 

[Fez]

The reason for the move is largely irrelevant, the fact is the club were talking to numbers of individuals, so dialogue was certainly possible. It needed coordinating, which shouled benefit all.

You can't dismiss it and try to move on if no lessons have been learned from something that cost the club and the group supporters.

I still don't see how you can argue that the club refused to deal with the group then, yet think they will with the renamed group.

Do you ever stop spouting this nonsense? At one end of your argument you say CTWD should have been the coordination between fans and club, then, you finish with a strong inference that the club would not just refuse to talk to CTWD, but they will continue that with HCST.
Why didn't you, or one of your number, do the coordinating, instead of heaping blame and responsibility onto other volunteers?
I think one of the problems is the blurred line between club and owners, in that the owners use their employees to operate a false front to the fans - I am sure the employees often have sincere and honest best intentions, but they cannot compensate for the irrationality of the Allam family.
Your grudge against CTWD (which seems to have passed onto the HCST) is clearly based on your frustration or dislike of some individuals involved and that's smacks very poorly of the widely recognised and much criticised behaviour of Assem Allem to HCC and the city of Hull. Get over yourself, for God's sake.

 

[DMD]

Do you ever stop spouting this nonsense? At one end of your argument you say CTWD should have been the coordination between fans and club, then, you finish with a strong inference that the club would not just refuse to talk to CTWD, but they will continue that with HCST.
Why didn't you, or one of your number, do the coordinating, instead of heaping blame and responsibility onto other volunteers?
I think one of the problems is the blurred line between club and owners, in that the owners use their employees to operate a false front to the fans - I am sure the employees often have sincere and honest best intentions, but they cannot compensate for the irrationality of the Allam family.
Your grudge against CTWD (which seems to have passed onto the HCST) is clearly based on your frustration or dislike of some individuals involved and that's smacks very poorly of the widely recognised and much criticised behaviour of Assem Allem to HCC and the city of Hull. Get over yourself, for God's sake.

FFS

I didn't say they should act as coordinator. I did exactly as you suggested I shoukd and got of my arse and did something. I was prepared to do the same for others but needed a central point for contact, which CTWD had. The use of that contact was all that's required.

It's you and your hackneyed, inaccurate assumptions that need getting over.

 

[The Omega Man]

Thanks for reading and you may have a point regarding the words I've used however I hope you take on board my points regarding HCST only being successful if it has members of ALL views included and active.

That is the whole point and reason why there should have been distance put between the ending of the campaign by CTWD and the formation of the trust.
The fact is that the merger between Tigers Coop and CTWD did not need to happen when it did.

The opportunity has been lost to develop a relationship with the club, not because of the actions of the owners, but because of the actions of supporters. I know that this may be challenged but let me explain.

The reason for protest is immaterial, it has no actual bearing on the end result. In general the actions of CTWD and the club are perfectly correct. It is the individuals, their comments and the manner that they behaved that affects these things and that is from both sides. Individuals acting often in a manner that can only be described as egotistic.

By forming a trust of the back of a single issue protest group, not ALL supporters are represented.

I spoke to an elected member of the trust yesterday, I wished the trust well and I hope that one day it is truely representative of supporters and not only there to represent those actively opposed to the name change as it appears to those of us looking in from the outside. But in my opinion the make up of the board precludes a relationship with the club and that is a loss to ALL supporters.

 

[PLT]

To pressure Allam to leave by pretending to go with a policy hoping you get enough members to steer it to your own agenda?

So why did you join when you clearly dont want to work with Allam? Or have i just answered that.

So much wrong with that.

Allam's going anyway isn't he? Man of his word and everything.
Do you really think there's any chance of anyone pressuring Allam into anything?
How would the trust getting more members enable any individual to 'steer their own agenda'? The opposite is true. It's a democracy. I know you don't like a democracy but that particular claim is just plain stupid.

Try again if you want, what's in it for me? You're so desperate to go on the offensive all the time so let's see some logic behind it. How am I going to gain anything personally from this?

You'd ****ing hate to believe that there's no secret agenda wouldn't you?

 

[PLT]

That is the whole point and reason why there should have been distance put between the ending of the campaign by CTWD and the formation of the trust.
The fact is that the merger between Tigers Coop and CTWD did not need to happen when it did.

The opportunity has been lost to develop a relationship with the club, not because of the actions of the owners, but because of the actions of supporters. I know that this may be challenged but let me explain.

The reason for protest is immaterial, it has no actual bearing on the end result. In general the actions of CTWD and the club are perfectly correct. It is the individuals, their comments and the manner that they behaved that affects these things and that is from both sides. Individuals acting often in a manner that can only be described as egotistic.

By forming a trust of the back of a single issue protest group, not ALL supporters are represented.

I spoke to an elected member of the trust yesterday, I wished the trust well and I hope that one day it is truely representative of supporters and not only there to represent those actively opposed to the name change as it appears to those of us looking in from the outside. But in my opinion the make up of the board precludes a relationship with the club and that is a loss to ALL supporters.

A million words but no sense made. You do this sometimes.

The trust represents its shareholders and is completely democratic. Anyone who wants to be represented by the trust should join it and use their vote.
The board is elected by shareholders but can only contain people who want to do it.

If you don't agree with the board's make-up, what do you suppose should be done about? How can it be changed? The only way I know of is for the members to vote differently and/or more people to stand for board positions. If you want to have a say in the board then join and use your vote. Better still, stand for a position. That goes for anyone who doesn't like the board. Fact is, the people who are shareholders were happy to vote the new board in.

 

[The Omega Man]

A million words but no sense made. You do this sometimes.

The trust represents its shareholders and is completely democratic. Anyone who wants to be represented by the trust should join it and use their vote.
The board is elected by shareholders but can only contain people who want to do it.

If you don't agree with the board's make-up, what do you suppose should be done about? How can it be changed? The only way I know of is for the members to vote differently and/or more people to stand for board positions. If you want to have a say in the board then join and use your vote. Better still, stand for a position. That goes for anyone who doesn't like the board. Fact is, the people who are shareholders were happy to vote the new board in.

The trust was formed from the membership of a single issue protest group. Does it have a relationship with the club? NO. Does it represent ALL supporters? NO.

Would it have been different if a trust had been formed that was not a protest group. YES
Would it have a chance of a relationship if individuals had not, called the owner a ****? YES

I cannot help it if long sentences are beyond your level of understanding.

 

[balkan tiger]

A million words but no sense made. You do this sometimes.

The trust represents its shareholders and is completely democratic. Anyone who wants to be represented by the trust should join it and use their vote.
The board is elected by shareholders but can only contain people who want to do it.

If you don't agree with the board's make-up, what do you suppose should be done about? How can it be changed? The only way I know of is for the members to vote differently and/or more people to stand for board positions. If you want to have a say in the board then join and use your vote. Better still, stand for a position. That goes for anyone who doesn't like the board. Fact is, the people who are shareholders were happy to vote the new board in.

Better to stop banging your head on that brick wall. Everyone already knows how it works wether its a supporters trust, a union, a political party, a social club, a womens instiute, a knitting club...or whatever. Those who care enough get involved and do something.
As a last point, those who care enough to do something will always for some strange reason be in the minority despite doing their best for the majority.

 

[PLT]

The trust was formed from the membership of a single issue protest group. Does it have a relationship with the club? NO. Does it represent ALL supporters? NO.

Would it have been different if a trust had been formed that was not a protest group. YES
Would it have a chance of a relationship if individuals had not, called the owner a ****? YES

I cannot help it if long sentences are beyond your level of understanding.

How can it aim to represent ALL supporters? At any club that would be difficult but when you've got fans like some of ours it's impossible. A trust surely aims to represent its shareholders. It can't represent someone who doesn't join and share their view.

The trust is made up of a board and shareholders who are pretty much all anti-name change. People who are pro-name change don't admit it away from the Internet, and they certainly aren't the kind of fans who will give up their time for something like a supporters trust. That's why it's the same faces in the trust as in the WYP fiasco and all the fanzines, blogs etc.

You seem to be suggesting that even though no one pro name change has come forward and asked for the trust to represent their view, the trust should represent that view anyway.

As I keep saying it's a democracy. If the shareholders want the trust to protect the club's heritage, how can the trust do the opposite? The only way to turn it into the pro-name change group you want it to be is to get a few hundred name changers to join up, log off their computers and fight for what they believe in. Best of luck finding them.

 

[DMD]

How can it aim to represent ALL supporters? At any club that would be difficult but when you've got fans like some of ours it's impossible. A trust surely aims to represent its shareholders. It can't represent someone who doesn't join and share their view.

The trust is made up of a board and shareholders who are pretty much all anti-name change. People who are pro-name change don't admit it away from the Internet, and they certainly aren't the kind of fans who will give up their time for something like a supporters trust. That's why it's the same faces in the trust as in the WYP fiasco and all the fanzines, blogs etc.

You seem to be suggesting that even though no one pro name change has come forward and asked for the trust to represent their view, the trust should represent that view anyway.

As I keep saying it's a democracy. If the shareholders want the trust to protect the club's heritage, how can the trust do the opposite? The only way to turn it into the pro-name change group you want it to be is to get a few hundred name changers to join up, log off their computers and fight for what they believe in. Best of luck finding them.

A part of the problem is that if a group sets itself up as Hull City Supporters Trust, it's implying it is representative of Hull City Supporters. It's a cop out to claim it only represents its shareholders, even if it that is in deed true.

 

[PLT]

A part of the problem is that if a group sets itself up as Hull City Supporters Trust, it's implying it is representative of Hull City Supporters. It's a cop out to claim it only represents its shareholders, even if it that is in deed true.

How can they possibly represent anyone else?

 

[The Omega Man]

How can it aim to represent ALL supporters? At any club that would be difficult but when you've got fans like some of ours it's impossible. A trust surely aims to represent its shareholders. It can't represent someone who doesn't join and share their view.

The trust is made up of a board and shareholders who are pretty much all anti-name change. People who are pro-name change don't admit it away from the Internet, and they certainly aren't the kind of fans who will give up their time for something like a supporters trust. That's why it's the same faces in the trust as in the WYP fiasco and all the fanzines, blogs etc.

You seem to be suggesting that even though no one pro name change has come forward and asked for the trust to represent their view, the trust should represent that view anyway.

As I keep saying it's a democracy. If the shareholders want the trust to protect the club's heritage, how can the trust do the opposite? The only way to turn it into the pro-name change group you want it to be is to get a few hundred name changers to join up, log off their computers and fight for what they believe in. Best of luck finding them.

I do not want the trust to be pro name change.
I want it to represent all supporters and at the moment it doesn't.
It should have had a degree of independence but lost the opportunity in the way it was formed.

It's everyones loss.

 

[DMD]

How can they possibly represent anyone else?

Then they're not representing Hull City fans.

Work needs to be done on canvassing the views of City fans to see what they want from 'their' trust, and why some are reluctant to sign up to it.

Dismissing comments that don't fit the agenda is negative. Observations from outside should be viewed as positive opportunities to grow, not derided as they have been.

The attitude of some replies goes some way to explain why the club can't talk to them.

 

[Obadiah]

The trust was formed from the membership of a single issue protest group. Does it have a relationship with the club? NO. Does it represent ALL supporters? NO.

Would it have been different if a trust had been formed that was not a protest group. YES
Would it have a chance of a relationship if individuals had not, called the owner a ****? YES

I cannot help it if long sentences are beyond your level of understanding.

Hull City had a Trust, it was called the Tigers Co-op. It was the only City Trust recognised by Supporters' Direct. The Tigers Co-op voted to be part of CTWD and it was agreed the two organisations would merge. CTWD included representatives from this board, CI and AN as well as the Ulltras. I would say for a single issue campaign it had a fairly wide representation amongst City Supporters. Setting up a trust was a logical step and I don't see its origins as a problem.

The trust will need to win over supporters who were in favour of the name change or couldn't care less if it is going to be successful. For me that means taking up issues raised by supporters when they arise, for example the evictions from the North East corner. If it does that successfully the Trust will gain members, earn respect and grow. If it doesn't it won't.

To be successful does the Trust need a friendly relationship with the club? Yes and no. The club talks to the Trust indirectly through the FWG, that may well be sufficient. I think this will continue until the Allams sell. He's not going to sell now, he'll wait until he gets his money back which may well be in 5 or 6 years time. There will be a new owner eventually and a new beginning. I'd like to think Assem Allam will bury the hatchet with the Trust once the Arbitration Panel gives its findings. Whether he does is up to him.

If the Trust reaches out to supporters and builds its membership and influence then what Assem Allam personally thinks of Mark Gretton will be irrelevant.

Coming up on the horizon, the government may give the Trust a stake in the club and a place on the board despite Assem Allam's feelings.

 

[PLT]

I do not want the trust to be pro name change.
I want it to represent all supporters and at the moment it doesn't.
It should have had a degree of independence but lost the opportunity in the way it was formed.

It's everyones loss.

Then they're not representing Hull City fans.

Work needs to be done on canvassing the views of City fans to see what they want from 'their' trust, and why some are reluctant to sign up to it.

Dismissing comments that don't fit the agenda is negative. Observations from outside should be viewed as positive opportunities to grow, not derided as they have been.

The attitude of some replies goes some way to explain why the club can't talk to them.

How can it possibly represent people who haven't joined up?

Seems an easy question which is proving difficult to answer for those with an axe to grind.

To say the trust should ignore what it's shareholders want and instead do what some individuals on the Internet want, is ridiculous and would be impossible to achieve.