And yet the next banners will be 6 x 4. So the club has no need to get involved, positioning them, or storing them. And nicely avoids the problem of the wording ie Hull City being on them.
All voted for and decided by people on this board. The club has no 'need' to be involved, but still will be.
The answer to this is simple and has already been given. At this moment in time the whole issue of the advertising is being reviewed. The plan is to reduce the amount of space given up to it. This may free up space for banners the size of the "In Bruce We Trust". Dialogue is taking place with the SMC stadium team and the club to look at further ways to have banners and flags in the stadium. If we supply a banner for the SMC to display it has to be fire inspected, it has to be stored and it has to be rehung for each match. If we want a large banner to be passed over the crowd, the SMC will need to inspect it and they will either allow forum members to control it with the stewards or it will be stewards who do the lot. Forum members would need to be available for any briefing that the SMC will require and possibly will need to be supervised. The rules are that flags and banners bigger than 6x4 are not allowed to be brought in, Although I am sure that bigger banners do get carried in they are likely not to be in place very long. DMD has suggested that for the legends series of flags we stick to 6x4 for the time being. This will enable a shorter lead time between design, manufacture and display as it does not involve the SMC. THE WORDING ON THE BANNER HAS NOT BEEN THE SUBJECT OF ANY CONVERSATION WITH THE CLUB OR THE SMC! THE USE OF HULL CITY HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED. ONLY ONE CONDITION HAS BEEN SET AND THAT IS THAT THE CLUB APPROVES THE WORDING AND IMAGE PRIOR TO IT BEING DISPLAYED BY THE SMC. The club will not allow images or wording that could be offensive to anyone on any banner, large or small, bring a flag into the stadium that has swearing on it and it will not last long for instance for instance. It is obvious that any banner that is designed to unite supporters in the support of the team and manager, cannot be used by either the club or protesters as being sympathetic to one side or another. But the use of Hull City is not barred by anyone and as far as I know would not be barred by the club. If we have banners that include Hull City or Hull, will the be approved, I do not think that there will be a problem, but it would depend on the context. Equally if we use Tigers on the banners would that seem to be supportive of the name change? There is not contrivance, just supporters wanting to support the team and manager. Making this whole issue about being pro or anti is simply wrong.
Exactly; the same answers you are able to give, but, IMO, inadequate answers. As for meeting with the liars, have you seen that they are making a new application for the name-change, when they clearly stated they would not? I wonder who will be submitting it, will be one of the Allam's or one of their paid lackeys? Just how must confidence does that give you that their words mean anything at all. If I were you, before you collect any more funds, I would submit a design with Hull City AFC on it and ask for it to have a position of prominence, requesting a written undertaking that it will be hung with no quibble - folk do change their minds; especially Egyptian tyrants with perfect CVs.
Just a couple of points: 1. I have read the comments of Dutch were he says all advertising is being reviewed. Other than that I have seen nothing that gives anything positive about when, where or how banners will be hung - if I have missed it please supply a link. 2. I agree there will be various conditions on supplying large banners (in excess of 6x4), as you seem to be in the know, perhaps you could enlighten us all to the full detail, as, with the exception of the fire control, the ones you have mentioned have been discussed already; although I am particularly interested in your points about 'manning' the operation on match day., , it sounds like quite an undertaking over a season. 3. You really did not need to shout your capitalised paragraph as the message comes across loud and clear without shouting; but thank you for confirming that there is no agreement that Hull City AFC will be allowed - but I am surprised you say it has not even been discussed as I could have sworn I had been told it had been. To be fair, if the club approve the wording then I think the point I have made has some merit - don't you? 4. So no one really knows whether or not a banner with Hull City AFC on it would be allowed? I would have thought that the whole marketing drive and name-change initiative, coupled with his recently announced re-application, might give folk, who are questioning me, some pause for thought. Maybe not. 5. My simple argument - forget the circular bullshit - is that (if you are not pro-name-change or a fence-sitter) not including the historic name of the club, on banners of players who played under that name, can be seen as sympathetic to the name-change initiative - I understand fully that you, Happy Tiger, Chazz and others don't care. The club's name continues to be under threat and I believe that it should be protected in everyway possible, not weakened by a banner appeal that is of excellent intent, but poorly timed. The 'In Bruce We Trust' banner was, I thought, meant to be a one off in support of Bruce when he seemed to be under the cosh of injuries; the Steptoe banner only resulted because excess funds were burning a hole. 6. This is the statement that I believe is at the basis of the whole naivety of this approach: "It is obvious that any banner that is designed to unite supporters in the support of the team and manager, cannot be used by either the club or protesters as being sympathetic to one side or another". Why is it so bloody obvious to you? In principle I would agree, but since when has Assem Allam been a man who comes across as principled in matters relating to the club, it's name and the supporters (hooligans) who wish to keep it? Equally, could it be seen that if we design a banner with the clear name 'Hull City AFC' on it, that we would be considered provocative and reverting to our hooligan roots? Believe me, I would love for this excellent banner initiative to be able to progress and flourish, I would support it as I did the Bruce banner, but I believe there are too many other factors that require sorting before it will be possible.
Fez, 1. If something is under review, it means just that. Supporters banners will be considered in that review according to the club. 2. In practical terms, banners that are passed over heads will need to be collected, carried to the start point, controlled through the stands and collected at the end, then moved back to the store. This by its very nature will need to be manned. It may be that supporters could do most of this, but they will have to be organised and controlled. Passage from stand to stand needs coordination. 3. The question, can we use Hull City AFC has not to my knowledge been asked, what part of the capitalised point do you not understand? The club has not discussed what words can or cannot be used. If you want to ask the question, email James Mooney. 4. See above. 5. You make a clear habit of trying to put me into a category of support. Let me make it perfectly clear. I have never supported the name change, I am not a member of any group that supports the name change. I until recently have always stated that I would not attend matches if we became Hull Tigers, that has changed. As far as Assem Allam is concerned, I am not bothered if he stays or if he sells up, it will not affect my support for the team or manager. Find one single post of mine where I support the name change. Go on, trawl through every post and find one. I stated right from the start that I would not join a protest group and I never will. I took part in the first protest march from the West Gate, did you? 6. Are you saying that posters on here are not united in the aims of the banners/flags? The Not 606 banner has started a dialogue with the club, how that moves forward depends on this forum. Lastly the forum can chose who they want to represent them going forward. Any member of the forum can take on the task of getting the banners displayed. DMD does not and has not asked for any recognition for what he does. If you do not like what he is doing, do it yourself, take the whole thing over and do it the way you want, ask the question that you want to be answered, design a banner, arrange the PayPal and just get it all done. If you do not want to be involved, that's fine. Why don't you volunteer to help on a matchday?
These things can be looked at from several perspectives. One thing I expect we all want is for Hull City to continue. At some point this issue will be resolved. At that time, do we want to be starting supporters initiatives from scratch, or build links now and do our bit to make sure the team know we support and appreciate them? Right now, the club need to be seen to be working with fans at a variety of levels. You can choose to believe that's their motive, rather than a real desire to help, that's up to the individual to decide. I think I've made my view clear. Either way, it means that right now, there's an opportunity for us to work with the club that may or may not be there another time and right now, the club are more than willing to help where they can. There's nothing to stop people protesting against the name change in any way they see fit, but still supporting the simple concept of the banners in supporting the team.
Well, in 15 pages I've seen this grow the arms and legs of passion and honest endeavour (lots of sincere well dones have been given), I have seen folk let down and I have seen folk getting incredibly moist and start sending emails to Ehab. We have had a lost banner that maybe wasn't lost, a banner that was sized and approved but is too big. We have engineers looking at solutions to a 'sail effect' and we now have an advertising review that is impeding progress. We have had the banners put up in places where they were generally agreed to be poorly sighted and now we might be passing them around. These banners have issues in regards to bringing out and unfurling/hoisting, yet they are simple to take to away games. All things being equal, they are certainly interesting and thought provoking banners; those continental Johnnies (and many home grown banner displaying supporters) must have gone through utter turmoil to achieve their own results. I glad the club has cooperated so much to make this happen. You have constantly put yourself into a category, it is just that the category appears to change. I certainly recall you saying that you would have no real issue with Hull City Tigers (it's a name change, TOM!), unfortunately the archives disappeared with the system change, not that I would have bothered anyway. You have said I don't attend matches (wrong) and now you ask if I attended the march (you know I, and thousands of others, who live in Hull and attended the game, didn't), what are you trying to prove; is a part of the same daft game of telling us all you bought a scarf and gave it to a young kid - good for you, but we really didn't need to know. You might find these useful for the splinters.
Dutch, It is the owners intent that Hull City will not continue, but that Hull Tigers, or something worse will take it's place. I agree that at some point this terrible time will come to some sort of fruition, but do you or I know what that will be and what the end result will be? You have said the club are doing an advertising review, so why not let them get on with it on their own, as it is their responsibility, after all. They must surely have the gist of the banner ideas and it must not be beyond their with to eventually offer sites for banner development; they might even commit to commissioning the favoured choices of the supporters (sic). So why not slow down? Lessons have been learnt, engineers can have more time for creative solutions, money can be better spent. I agree it would be great to see the club working with the fans at all levels, but it is massively hypocritical for them to be appearing to do so while undermining the wishes of the same supporters with their reapplication and poisonous interviews. Have you considered that there might be an underlying reason for their new-found cooperation? It was only six weeks ago, Dutch, when you were seriously pissed off with them - and then something suddenly changed. Can you think of an announcement that they became privy to that might have played a part, something the FA might have been thinking of announcing, but the club asked for a delay? You are right when you accept the individual has the right to make their own decision and it is very clear you have made yours; I just hope that your honestly intended efforts do not end up being a key argument in any reapplication the owners make - the key fan consultation and liaison element. I seriously advise caution to anyone who does not want a name change, as a bit of a delay to the banners is nothing in comparison to jeopardising 111yrs of Hull City AFC tradition and history. Less haste, more speed, perhaps?
Inside the KC Stadium the team-name is certainly not self-evident. Are these the banners that will about the size of a double bed - 6' x 4' - with no room for the club's name?
Why not try a mock-up, or scale one to get a feel for how it looks? It could be a long and expensive project with many banners, so why not look at all alternatives? It would be great to have something in the stadium showing the club's name; especially as the club are right behind the initiative.
The mock up part is pretty much the Cobb Morley ones, the artists opinion and the forums decision, so the design of the banners is pretty much set from the discussions on the other thread where you raised these points. I agree, banners with Hull City on would look great around the stadium. As I said, if you've a specific design for one in mind, I'm sure mauled could oblige. The more banners the better in my eyes. They'll compliment the ones the forum chose, especially if you use the same designer.
Which tread, as I did not post on the tread that discussed these banners. Thanks for your response, I understand the dilemma, but believe it is not as critical as it might appear. I think the detail on a 6' x 4' banner doesn't need to be seen from distance, the picture sends the 'distance message', the text you could include would only need to be seen within the local vicinity; as more banners are created and the theme becomes known and appreciated, the logo 'Hull City (AFC?) - Legend' (however you would present that artistically) would be easily seen if a clear font style is used, without losing the impact of the picture. As the club are 100% behind this it is a fantastic opportunity to undo some of the de-branding already done.
This one, where we went with the concensus on the current design. http://www.not606.com/threads/a-flag-poll.288800/page-15
It's colourful. It's worth putting the vote when we're looking at future displays, once this one's run it's course. The more the merrier is my view.
No need to vote at all, those flags already exist just need to co-ordinate with the owners / holders to get them all together.
Bit hard for me being 2000 miles away, but i won't get upset if you take it on. Seeing as you won't be spending any more time at the KC arranging the big banners.
