Adapted from a previous post of mine. Supporters joined HCST to get involved in the issues that concern them and to act as a voice for their interests. In the Name Change debate this includes the trust representing the supporters' views to local politicians and media and working with other national and local football groups on supporter issues generally. The Supporters Club doesn't do most of those things, because that's not what it is there for, and that's not why people joined it. It doesn't have a mandate from the people who've joined it - many of whom are quite legitimately only interested in the social aspects of the Supporters Club - nor does it have the properly constituted legal structure of a Trust that allows it to do it properly. The Trust is a completely independent organisation, and doesn't depend on the club for premises or facilities, and it means that it can speak its mind, and if need be publicly disagree with the Club, without jeopardising its very existence.
This is the same post that I posted (no need to adapt) the last time you suggested the OSC couldn't be critical of the club without running the risk of losing privileges. I would suggest that if the OSC (or other groups affiliated to the club) cannot approach & discuss their poll results & member's views in an open & honest manner with AA without the threat of losing privileges, then they do not have a working relationship either to maintain or worth maintaining. That's all.
Assem Allam was made aware of the result of the ballot and no one has said that privileges were lost. I do not see how it is possible for any supporters club to fully oppose the club it is linked to. It may not agree with the club but it is reliant on the relationship. The OSC can approach the club and discuss their poll results and their members views in an open and honest manner without the threat of losing privileges. But they have to have a working relationship and it is has to be maintained. Can it afford to test how much it can be critical the club though before losing privileges? Can it run the risk of being too critical, I do not believe it can?
With so many claiming that the numbers of members make it non conclusive, surely it would be better for them to support the calls for an independent survey of season ticket holders.
It should be as critical as it needs to be regardless of any consequences. As long as any criticism or comments are delivered in a professional & constructive manner then there shouldn't be a problem. If the relationship was of any worth the club would approach the OSC for it's input & be accepting of there responses no matter how much they deviate from the club's views. Refusing to comment, not commenting in a truthful & accurate manner or pretending issues are not apparent makes the organisation & it's relationship with the club appear both weak & irrelevant.
We present the views of our members, we obviously need to prove what those views are, it would be ridiculous to not to ask them. Throughout the campaign CTWD were demanding a ballot of all season ticket holders, the view of HCST is no different, the fans should be balloted.
The OSC & their inability to discuss & comment on issues relating to the club along with their added inability to report & feedback their members views to relevant organisations in an accurate & truthful manner in order to maintain two bob relationships with our two bob owners.
I am firmly in the camp that only those who bothered to join a group should be counted ( even if loads whine and cry that the said group doesn't represent their view ) However as both the HCST and OSC have comparativly small memberships, some have pointed out that it leaves the door ajar for Mr Allam to claim any vote is not fully representative ( his claimed silent majority ) The only way is to have an independant yes or no vote of a larger group, the easiest group to identify being the season ticket holders, a little unfair on regulars who don't have a season ticket but as fair as can be.
Or, it makes the members appear both weak and irrelevant; yet another instance of well-intended individuals feeding the monsters game plan, a part of which is that supporters are irrelevant.
