The FA should take into consideration whether one happens, since they took into consideration the ridiculously loaded AA ballot he did last time !
The arbitration panel in effect endorsed two of the tests Assem Allam has to pass to change the name. They are a majority of supporters in favour of the name change and a strong and compelling business case. Both tests were used when the FA decided the original application and the panel said they were reasonable. The FA have now written to the OSC and HCST asking for their views. The ballot of their members is their response to the consultation. Unless the FA has specifically asked them to find the views of all supporters then it has nothing to do with passing the majority of supporters test. Both groups haven't got sufficient members between them to represent a majority of supporters, never mind a majority in favour of the name change. I would expect the FA in their letter to the club to have reminded them of the criteria they would need to reach for a successful application, including evidence of a majority in favour. It is up to the club to decide how they respond and whether they hold a ballot. Just my tuppence.
I'd say the FA need to make that point explicitly and clearly to the Allams. To 'wait and see' and then say it's not good enough, leaves too many opportunities for the Allams to squeal bias. From the Allams perspective, the FA oney consulting with two minority groups that can't show they're representative leaves a golden opportunity. Whether he's right or not is irelavent, for me, to ignore it is just foolish.
I think you are worrying unnecessarily. The FA got everything it wanted from the arbitration panel. Its procedure was held to be fair and it was only Malcolm Clark not declaring an interest at the Membership Committee meeting that saved his bacon. Assem Allam needs to have a business case and a majority of supporters in favour of Hull Tigers. Its up to him how he achieves that, not the FA. There was no problem with the FA consulting the OSC and CTWD last time so I see no problem this time. After all it was stated in the press that consultation with CTWD was part of his appeal. The fact that it didn't appear in the judgment tells us how much water it held.
The Allam's have been told they should hold a season ticket ballot, if they decide not to and lose then they can squeal all they like, it won't get them anywhere.
My concern isn't that the process would support the name change, it's how the Allams would use that perceived bias as an excuse to drag the issue on even if the FA say 'you had your chance, and you blew it'.
I'm not actually worrying, I'm simply making a point that based on previous experience, he'll grab any opportunity to claim bias. If he does that, no matter what the FA say, he'l drag it out. For me it's foolish to provide him with one.
( just to clear I'm not worrying, just interested!) Where have they been told to hold a season tickets ballot, and equalling I'm not sure I agree with Obi ( shockingly) when he says they have to get the support of a majority of fans The ruling points out many stakeholders said there should be a ballot, and specifically that the Football league said the decision should be determined by a ballot of season ticket holders, but it doesn't say the FA agreed with that , and in fact the panel say that the suggestion of the football league was "rightly not adopted"
Sadly I don't think that is the case, formally anyway As I said in previous post according to the ruling that was the view of the football league, which they expressed in their consultation response, but the FA were right to not agree to that suggestion That sounds the exact opposite to me They will of course take everything into account making their decision and they certainly place great weight on the supporters views, but they haven't actually said there must be a majority .........I don't think
It comes down to the interpretation of paragraph 84 and the five conditions set out by the Football League. My understanding is that a strong and compelling case includes a number of factors, of which the views of supporters is an important one. The sub-committee recommended rejection because the club failed to meet a number of criteria, specifically the lack of a solid business case and support of a majority of supporters. Had the sub-committee solely relied on the lack of a ballot the panel's decision may have been different. They didn't, they found other aspects of the application flawed and so voted to reject. Technically I suppose a business case could be so compelling to the FA that it overrides the views of supporters. Any such circumstances would have to be exceptional and doesn't apply here, in my view.
I think you're right But it was the technicality I was referring to They won't just reject JUST because there isn't a majority, that isn't a standalone test They would balance against the business case If that was poor but all fans wanted to change they might agree If the business case was fantastic and less fans wanted to they MIGHT agree Having said all that the likelihood of any type of business case seems small Cheers for the reply
It was something I hadn't considered. I'm sure HCST will have taken note for their submission to the FA, if they haven't done already. We need to emphasise both the lack of a business case and the lack of consultation. Perhaps point out that no effort has been made to convince supporters of Hull City that there is a business case to change our name.
If the business case is strong, it would be a good idea for the Allam's to reveal that strong case and influence the views of fans. Well, there's still time ... but not much.
Absolutely You would of course expect that the business case would be the basis they would be using to convince us all it was a good idea...that's if they didn't think we were irrelevant ! But the lack of both is important I think
