please log in to view this image THE Football Association have begun the consultation process over Hull City's revived bid to change the club's name to Hull Tigers ahead of the 2015-16 season. A year after a first application was rejected by the FA Council, a decision that was then set aside by an arbitration tribunal last month, City's second attempt at re-branding has now been formally lodged with the game's governing body. The FA have responded by launching a period of consultation ahead of the matter being heard by its Membership Committee. That includes gauging the opinion of the club's supporters groups. This week, the FA have written to both the Hull City Official Supporters Club (HCOSC) and Hull City Supporters Trust (HCST) asking for a written submission on behalf of members. A statement from the FA said: "The Football Association has been informed by Hull City that the club wishes to pursue a playing name change to Hull Tigers for the season 2015-2016. "Requests to change a playing name of a club are considered under FA Rule A3 (l) and require the prior permission of The FA Council. "At present The FA is not able to provide a timescale for the completion of the consultation process and does not expect to make any further comment until the assessment of the request has been completed. The consultation will include supporters groups of the club." The board of HCOSC, who represent roughly 1,500 fans, are due to meet in the next 24 hours to decide how to respond. Another ballot of the HCOSC members is not being ruled out. Last season, a poll showed 555 of 932 voters were against the bid to become Hull Tigers. HCST's stance will be more clear-cut. Formed earlier this season through a merger of City Till We Die and the Tigers Co-operative, one of their policies is to "preserve, protect and develop the identity of Hull City AFC." Chairman Mark Gretton said: "We are planning to ballot our members so we can give the most up to date information that demonstrates to the FA that we are still against any change. We will include that in our written submission." Time is of the essence if a decision is to be made before the 2015-16 campaign. Under FA rules, it will be the Membership Committee that will first consider City's application and their recommendations will be passed on to the FA Council, who would vote on the matter at a full meeting. The FA's AGM and final Council meeting before the summer break is scheduled to take place on May 19. The lack of a meeting in June could mean the FA push to make a decision then or await a verdict in their July meeting, something they are likely to be against given the publication of fixtures for 2015-16 in mid-June. City were unavailable for comment when contacted by the Mail yesterday. http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull...tory-26332910-detail/story.html#ixzz3XMxypc2T
Seems odd that the consultation doesn't cover the majority of fans, especially as one of the groups mentioned is group set up to protest against the name change. Are what is about a combined total of just 2,000 members representative? Arguably, this board covers more individuals. I can see the Allam's picking up on that one.
It should be a vote of season ticket holders, however not a vote conducted by those who have a very vested interest in the outcome. I'm sure it's not beyond the FA to ask the club for the email addresses of all season ticket holders, contact them in a blanket fashion with a simple 'yes / no' question and then collate the results. Yes it's a fair amount of work but the FA can earn their money for once, this is a massive issue. Speaking personally, if the FA did this and the vote came back in favour of a name change then I'd accept it as a fair result, even though I'd be dismayed by my fellow fans. I'd then support any new club set up with the name Hull City.
My concern is that it could drag things on, as the Allam's could point out that neither group is demonstrably representative. Playing devils advocate, they could point out that the Trust, with a wider remit, has only half the number of members that CTWD had.
The FA pick who they consider to be a stakeholder, not the club, the club obviously don't want any fans to be consulted.
People on here have said Allam will get short shrift this time if he isn't seen to consult the fans properly. Would a proper ballot have to be of all season ticket holders or would balloting the official supporters club members be enough?
I think it should be season ticket holders, as that's the best gauge of opinion we have, it just shouldnt be a vote held by someone who wants a particular outcome. I wouldnt agree with a vote conducted by HCST either.
Only balloting the season pass holders isn't actually representative of supporters. Plenty of supporters have been priced out of season pass ownership - particularly with the change in pricing (meaning buying a pass is worth much more if you particularly value games against the expensive 'big clubs'), and enforced eviction of e1 - e3 with only two weeks to decide whether to renew. How much have passes gone up since City were last in the championship? A couple of hundred quid!!! The entire community of Hull has a stake in Hull City by virtue of the fact that we all own, and paid for, the stadium in which the team plays. The best representative sample of City supporters is via everyone who has a customer number (and so has bought tickets), say, since the move to the KC (I doubt records exist before then but you never know). Even then with one customer numbers often buying multiple tickets you could build the number of tickets bought into the equation.
I think they'll once again claim the fans views are irrelevant, despite the FA clearly stating they don't agree. I think if the club was going to hold a ballot, we'd probably know about it already, they've only got a few weeks. Also, I think the Allam's are aware that an open vote(with the question determined by the FA) would go against them and cause them more problems than not doing one.
But the FA are leaving the door wide open for him to make the same claim as them by only talking to a group that represents such a small minority of supporters.
There are only two formal supporters groups and they're asking for submissions from both, they can do no more. The Allam's can continue to claim there's a silent majority, but as they refuse to ballot the fans, the claim will simply be disregarded.
Of course they can do more! The main point is, what they're doing can easily be used by the Allams to point out it's not a representative sample, especially as one group exists primarily to oppose the name change. It begs the question as why the Trust are balloting members. Anything not clear cut and representative, runs the risk of this dragging on, and on and on.
Hopefully the FA are as sick of this as everybody else and they can give a definitive no and settle the matter once and for all
It's for Allam to demonstrate he has support. The FA are consulting the supporter groups and if he wants to go further than he's welcome to.
I disagree, if the FA are saying they are consulting fans, they need to do that, not just ask a minority. To do it as they are, leaves the Allam's able to say that the decision was flawed, as it over emphasised the views of 500 or so protesters. Assuming they reject it. I'm not saying he'd be right, but that's an obvious claim from the situation.
It's not a group that exists primarily to oppose the name change. It's a supporters group open to anyone, with its policies voted for by its members. Opposing a name change is the current policy. There was nothing stopping the silent majority from joining, standing for positions and showing their support for Allam and Hull Tigers by voting pro Allamist leaders and policies into power. But they didn't. Because they either do not exist, or they just don't give enough of a ****. People joined the trust to be part of an officially recognised supporters groups to give their opinions a proper voice. Why should others be able to sit on their hands and still have the same ability to voice their opinions to the powers that be?
The FA have made it clear that they view supporters's opinions on any name change proposal as relevant. Is is admirable of them to be proactive in seeking these opinions in their consultation process. The club should follow suit & take note. If the FA have approached specific supporter's groups in their consultation process for their input then it is only right that those organisations give, in their response, a full, honest & true representation of their member's views. The best way for them to achieve this is for each organisation to canvas their members & determine a majority view via a clearly presented ballot. CTWD excelled in representing their member's views in last year's process. Their presentation was thorough & professional. I'm sure HCST will be just as professional this time around. The OSC failed miserably in presenting an honest representation of their member's opinions on the name change to the FA. The people responsible for their presentation to the FA had the sole intention of preserving their own personal relationships within the club rather than giving the true & honest representation of their members. As a direct consequence the organisation lost members. The people concerned should be nowhere near a second presentation.
All as maybe, but none of that stops the Allams being able to point out that a primary purpose of the group is to oppose the name change, and they represent around 500 or so people. The Allams could point out that 19,000 people chose not to join the trust, some of whom were previous members of CTWD. I'm not saying it's right, I'm simply pointing out a potential opportunity for the Allams to claim it's not a representative consultation. No need for defence of the trust, they're not the issue. The issue is the Allams not being given an open goal to drag this on by pointing out that the limitations of the consultation.
