How deftly you deal with truth and honesty; the banners prove nothing other than the designs on them were acceptable; the new ones are deliberately of a size that needs no permissions - so a real fudge of what is and what isn't allowed. Shocking that you cannot speak plainly without misleading.
The decisions were made on open discussions on this board. I'm happy to let people read them and make their own choices as to who is being truthful and respectful.
Really, no on suggested Hull City? Have you really posted that? It is the only reason it hasn't been done Come off it Charlie1, do some research if you are jumping into this feet-first. You might be right in your last comment, but your tendency to generalise really is poor; did you read what I asked for, a simple 'Hull City Legend' - just two extra words - was that really so bad? Did you really not read that or are you simply being provocative?
I will make my point as and when it is appropriate; usually in response to posts from others. Stop playing the respect vote, no one is disrespecting anything, you are having the banners made, get on with it. The banners are increasing the incidence of dropping of the club's name, that is supportive of the Allam strategy, they are already subject to that observation and will be more so as more follow their example. The point makes itself against the Allam's as they make it for us, I need to try and do nothing.
Against chelsea the stewards STOPPED a couple of dutch lads hanging there HULL CITY flag up on N4 wall were you walk to get into seating area from concourse. N4-N5 Yet let chelsea fans sit in N5 in chelsea scarfs Grrrrrrr
Filey, that's really frustrating to hear. If anyone experiences similar it needs raising with the club, giving as much detail as possible, in particular the stewards numbers. It can be direct to them, or through PLT for the FWG.
It's not incredible, it's a professional strategy to achieve their aims - the 'chummy' Mr Mooney, is playing you all with consummate ease. I find it absolutely hilarious how the different channels of outrage over the ASI, the tee-shirts without the club name on and this deliberately vague pricing statement are focussing so many on here, yet some (many, apparently) are prepared to spend further money on funding decorative banners for the owners stadium, banners that don't show the club's name either - banners that, whether intentioned or not, do carry on the owner's principle of losing the club's name. You really couldn't make it up. Perhaps we should lend the opposition our star larkers too!
Who chose the banner designs? If you want one to your own design , I'm still more than happy to help. Have a dig at people where you choose, but it weakens your argument when you keep trying to drag in unrelated issues, especially when the people directly involved have pointed out the holes in some of your guesses.
Nonsense yet again. There are no unrelated issues at our club, the sooner you all realise that the better. What have people pointed out? It's your normal vague nonsense that you try and as label as fact and some sort of wisdom. It's my opinion. live with it, ignore it, but it is as relevant as are the actions of James Mooney. Why would I want to pay anything further to buy something else for the stadium? I hope you got the 'D' for the first one. Buy your banners, it is your right and I have not said it is not, I have only said it is a mistake at this time and it is.
I could ignore it, but I'd rather people had a better picture than some repeated guesses that ignore the facts when they conflict with them. It's a fact that people on here rather than the club chose the design. It's a fact we can have anything we want on the banners. It's a fact you have an opportunity to test that by getting one. It's a fact you can come and meet the people you're making the comments about. It's a fact you've declined to put your theories to the test and prefer to repeatedly try to lump issues that are not related and ignore anything to the contrary. It's a fact I've been critical of the club on a number of issues. I chose to go to the people I question and address them. It's a fact people will see yet another of these exchanges starting, yawn and move to another thread.
Yes yes the banners were chosen by the people on here. The more critical would say the choice was more one sided than Allam's ballot, the less radical would say the choice was made to be none controversial to both sides and an attempt by the fans to build bridges with the club. And yet the club still managed to fanny arse around for the best part of three months to put it up. You keep saying we can have any banner we want put up, well i made an offer for another banner to test this theory, i did add that i would like written confirmation from the club as i don't trust the lying ****s.
They could say a lot of those things, they'd be wrong. The threads are there for people to read and decide themselves. As for written proof, it's already there on the web site and demonstrated by the other flags already in the ground that others have bought. There's the obvious exception of the 'we are Hull City' flag that 10' brought in. http://www.hullcitytigers.com/news/article/201314-liverpool-h-show-your-colours-2-1201250.aspx So, as you now have the written permission, what design do you want? I'll go a step further than you ask. If you buy a flag from us and use it responsibly, and the club don't let it in, I'll give you a full refund. Why you and Fez try to claim anything else in spite of the fact the threads exist where people chose what they wanted and said why, says much about your respect for the wishes of Hull City fans. Are you planning to blockade the club shop or berate people choosing to use the current shirt too?
I could ignore it, but I'd rather people had a better picture than some repeated guesses that ignore the facts when they conflict with them. It's a fact that some people on here rather than the club chose the design. So, that makes it right then? It's a fact we can have anything we want on the banners. Yes, because they were defaulted to the size that does not require club permission - a size you have advised if not suitable for text. That's fine. It's a fact you have an opportunity to test that by getting one. It's a fact that is the same pointless response you keep throwing out. Why would I want one, given my thoughts on them, their size, yours and Mauled advice and the fact I don't want one? Move on with this as it proves nothing. It's a fact you can come and meet the people you're making the comments about. It's a fact I don't need to, just as most other posters on here do not. I don't need to meet Ed Milliband, David Cameron or Ehab Allam either. It's also a fact you don't plan my schedule. It's a fact you've declined to put your theories to the test and prefer to repeatedly try to lump issues that are not related and ignore anything to the contrary. It's a fact you're now trying to invent something that isn't there; what theories? You have an opinion that the issues I have listed are not related, I have given my reasons why they are - what are your reasons for saying they are not? I don't ignore things, I simply disagree with you; something you clearly find wrong and difficult to deal with. It's a fact I've been critical of the club on a number of issues. I chose to go to the people I question and address them. It's a fact you can do what you want and it is also a fact that everyone else can - if that means expressing a view on an anonymous forum then then should be fine, it is what it is for - or have you reinvented the rules? It's a fact people will see yet another of these exchanges starting, yawn and move to another thread. It's a fact you didn't need to start the exchange; you could have read my post and simply moved on, which considering what you have put might have been the intelligent thing to do - but you would rather argue and try and dictate what folk should and should not do. Consider that some might be yawning at you.
You know very well we are talking about the large banners here not flags which comply with the existing rules and regulations and can be carried into the stadium by anyone. I said" the less radical would say the choice was made to be none controversial to both sides and an attempt by the fans to build bridges with the club" " You said "They could say a lot of those things, they'd be wrong" Really?
So, fans chose the banners freely to suit their own wishes. The whole ethos, chosen by Hull City fans, was to support the team on the pitch. A vote was had after requests from Hull City fans to keep politics out of it, and a decision made by Hull it fans was accepted. Most seem willing and able to respect that. Those that disagreed, didn't donate, but we're still welcomed to voice their view's on the design within the criteria Hull City fans decided. Kind of puts lie to your claim. Offer stands, a risk free flag of your own to your own design. The club are guilty of many sins. The issue you two are trying desperately to create quite simply isn''t one of them . You'd beter tackling the actual issues rather than trying to invent one of your own.
