So it doesn't need Hull on there because it's self evident, pretty much like the image of a Hull City legend, where the club name is even more self evident PLUS it's what people on here chose. None of this is to do with the ASI money, it's just you pointlessly prattling on and on. You didn't want the banners at all, so even the representation wouldn't exist. Other people did want them, and there they are. No amount of teddy chucking will change that. Move on.
I've just had a message fro someone that asked the club directly, and it seems the flags yesterday are not paid for from the ASI fund. It was just something to help the atmosphere. Hopefully that message gets spread to correct the wrong information out there.
You really are selective in how you respond. The example you selected is a clear example of protest against the name-change, so my comments were related to that, as yours were misleading. Your accusations of me rattling on are typical of you and nothing more than the usual indication that you are stymied by your own arrogance. I posted in favour of the 'In Bruce We Trust' banner, Cobb was an afterthought; my donation was an additional measure of my support - what more did you want? The second stage is something I have voiced my appreciation of in principle, but have asked that it be withheld in practice, as I feared it would be manipulated by the club's Communication and Marketing Manager - guess what, it has, hasn't it. Obi - my soul feels no better for that. You say, move on, but, perhaps, it is you who should be taking your own advice.
The club haven't manipulated anything, it's you and a couple of others trying to do that. Have you seen they're not part of the ASI fund?
Ok that's useful to know. But without the club saying what they HAVE done with the ASI money it doesn't take us much further forward. The flags, coming after the crap T-shirts, coming after the shabby treatment of ASI will lead people to draw their own conclusions. You won't be able to change this until the club come clean on ASI and show they have used the money to actually help away supporters, rather than further their vile Hull Tigers agenda.
You'll be pleased to here the club have said the flags are not funded from the ASI fund, so you can let the twiterati know there's no connection and sweep up some of the bullshit.
You are being selective again. The protest is about dropping the word City, which is clear from what can be seen. Stop manipulating the facts to suit your argument.
And? Perhaps the club could communicate with everyone about the ASI fund they signed up to support. I'm not sure how this twilight communication changes the fact that the NOT606 banner initiative has been embroiled in the club's on going war of attrition against its supporters; an unfortunate consequence that you deserve full credit for.
Only by a few. As it's not ASI funded, there's no need for you to keep asking about it on this thread.
It is incredible that the club enjoy such a good reactive communication conduit through you, what a pity they cannot do it up front as is normally expected. Keep up the good work, I am sure they appreciate it.
Like what? I've paraphrased the key bit from a message I got from someone that got an email reply from the club.
