That's nonsense, we don't need to dine with the devil to know who the devil is. The closer you get, the easier to lose perspective, sometimes. Insider information, especially robust information is pointless if it cannot be shared to form opinion and, let's be honest, not everyone looks at things the same way. We are just getting the same old I know, I am deep, you are wrong bollocks, but the truth is that actions speak louder than words and the marketing and communications practise of Mooney screams either incompetence, deceit or, more likely, both. While you all stroke each other we are being screwed.
You've formed an opinion and are desperate to find something to use to support it. You'd be better getting involved and finding out yourself instead of just repeating the same allegations on here and ignoring all the answers that contradict your position. In any event, it's pointless to target a staff member. It's just taking the emphasis away from the problem.
Okay, we are back to your normal nonsense. Read my posts and you will see I ask questions to garner knowledge to support the information anyone can see on a day-to-day basis; this one being no exception. I have offered possibilities of an alternate view to the one proposed by you and others, I have offered more substantial facts to support that than you have to support yours. The news today is just a continuation of that; do you have something new to support your good guy, badly drawn, theory? I am not targeting anyone, I am simply pointing out what I believe is the inevitable position of Mooney, the inevitable position he must adopt and the inevitable actions he will professionally adopt to achieve his given objectives. It's nothing personal, it's business and the sooner we put him quite firmly in that box the better. To deal with the problem effectively, the proponents of the problem must be identified and effectively dealt with - we are not doing that with Mooney, but he is certainly doing it with us.
So, what are YOU personally going to do to address where you perceive the problem to be? I don't mean what you think others should do, what are you planning to do about it? Edit That's not my theory at all. That you try to claim it is discredits your claim to be offering substantial facts.
You are right, of course; when James is told to play someone, he plays them - is that not a fair continuation of your explanation and his employment status? I have already been told by Dutch that if he does not do as he is told he will be sacked. Why do you think there is this vacuum of communication and honest dialogue? Is it our fault?
I am a member of HCST and, if necessary, I will lobby for them to use their position to address this problem - it is why I joined them - but as they have taken further action today nothing is yet needed. What do you think an individual can or should do? Why does an anonymous individual, on an anonymous forum, have to do anything other than voice opinion - should I get my boots out when I am not having agreement with you on football matters? What are you doing besides voicing outrage, blaming others and defending the indefensible?
So despite all the words, you personally are doing nothing, but leaving it to the trust, who seemingly hold a similar view to mine. Fair enough.
Okay, let me get this right then. You are saying to me you think he is doing what he can and impresses you - a good guy. I am saying that, maybe, he is not and that he is deliberately misleading and delaying - something you seem to strongly disagree with. A good guy, badly drawn or whatever phrase you would like to coin to sum that up.
Life is far from as black and white as that. I've qualified my words by saying that I don't agree with all he's done, and vehemently oppose a fair amount. But that's far removed from the position you're trying to twist it to Aim for the cause, not a symptom.
I see we have more pages about James Mooney. As I'm feeling generous. James Mooney is employed by Hull City Tigers Limited. I would expect Hull City Tigers to be on his LinkedIn entry, that's his employer. He helped DMD put up two flags none of which mention Hull City. That's what we voted for. We had a big debate about whether the club would allow the Cobb Morley one to go up, but up it went. I would say that James Mooney helped sort both flags out. I suspect he couldn't give a toss if our 6x4 flags said Hull City on them or not. After all we can call the club what we want. For the owners we don't matter, so its irrelevant what our flags say, as long as they aren't offensive. The money for away supporters. Nobody has shown me anything to suggest James Mooney is responsible for how this money is spent. Given the nature of the Allams I'd be surprised if he has any say at all in how the money will be spent. HCST has written to the Premier League to ask about the money. They should ask the Allams what's going on and get back to us. Which is the way it should be. To be honest I'm surprised Fez is spending so much time trying to pin some of the blame on James Mooney. The only people who matter in this are Assem and Ehab Allam and their attitude to Hull City supporters and the Premier League. They make the decisions on what money is spent when, they are the ones that should be held to account.
More nonsense. It is matters like this that make Trust membership sensible. Do you expect me to take a contract out on Mooney, who is the conduit, if so you will be disappointed. The real problem is the club and I am happy for the Trust to follow up on what they are already doing - I am too busy answering your endless questions. If, at any point I thought personal action was necessary, I would take it, but why would I share that on here? Grow up dog.
So other than building an opinion based on no personal experience and repeating it on here, you're leaving any action to the Trust, that, based on some comments on here seems to hold a similar position to mine. Fair enough.
Read his LinkedIn page, it's a tad confused. Nothing new in the banner comments so no need to go there. Pinning the blame, where do you get that from? I have blamed him for nothing except poor marketing and communication, his job responsibility. At no point have I said he has one ounce of responsibility for determining where the fund money is spent, nor have I said he has none, we don't know, none of us know, do we? There is a constant suggestion, in fact insistence, that he is a very reluctant messenger, no more than that, I am questioning that, no more than that. I believe his role is too ingrained in the process to be considered a victim, which seems to be were the reasoning leads.
This is the second mention of this very weak argument. Not everyone can meet him, not everyone can meet Farage or Cameron. I have absolutely no doubt that if boot were on thuther foot, you would consider your own point bloody mindless nonsense. I seem to recall that you did not find it necessary to meet fellow supporters before you labelled them Scabs. Grow up.
No need for childish abuse or misrepresentation. I'm simply trying to get a clearer idea of your position on the Supporters Fund issue. It seems to now be that you acknowledge it's not really a James Moony thing, but goes way beyond that, and you're waiting to see the outcome of the Trust's letter before deciding what you personally are going to do.
That's really quite precious. You accuse me of forming my opinion, or shaping questions, without the benefit of personal contact with Mooney, something not essential in this media age. It was you, wasn't it, I am not mistaken am I, who labelled fellow supporters as Scabs (a far more serious matter) when you had no benefit of personal contact with them. Nothing abusive from me there and certainly no misrepresentation - it was you, wasn't it? Dual standards, methinks. This is not an insult, just advice - grow up, it's getting childish. I have always thought and said that it goes all the way back to Assem and Ehab Allem; I even questioned whether or not Ehab should be given the same victim tag as James - you really should keep up as we could have saved all of this palaver. Sometime ago I questioned as to the intentions of the Trust and I was assured action would be taken (it's on here somewhere), it has and we will wait (again) for a response. I could write a letter, I could buy a banner, I could do **** all; but I did join a Trust and I believe they have to be given the chance to do what they were elected to do - that might not apply to you as I don't know and am not interested in whether or not you are a member. It's a little like Trades Unions work, a few pay and many can benefit.
