The future well-being of the club (from the perspective of a supporter); it is difficult to see what input they have, so if someone can help me (and others) understand we might all be the better for it.
In my opinion, if a group chooses to be involved or not involved or to only pick certain elements we should respect their choice. We're not going to like or agree on everything, but as long as we're all working to the same goal of raising the profile of Hull City there's room for variety.
The OSC is fully committed to providing and extending its social events throughout the region. Pre match it has two venues open for members and non members. The Arena Bar holds ex player interviews before each home game. The Dug Out Bar is the home of the Tiger Cubs (junior members) and is a family orientated pre match venue, with various activities on hand such as face painting. During the school holidays the OSC in conjunction with the Tigers Trust is providing soccer schools at venues across the local region (note to Chazz, I will be passing on your comment). During last season the OSC raised over £10,000 for one of its charities CRY. It has recently provided digital radio's for the cancer ward at Castle Hill. The OSC is working with the club to improve the matchday experience for all supporters. It works with the Fans Liaison Officer and takes an active role in the FWG. It is a member of the FSF. The OSC works with other Hull City supporters groups both at home and abroad. What more do you want it to do? The OSC provides a social link for its members to the club. Its mandate and the reason for its existence is to do exactly that. It will continue to act as a supporters club. If you can explain how the OSC can work with the trust without damaging its relationship with the football club I would be interested.
I don't disagree with that at all; what I believe is useful is understanding just what all of the groups do actually get involved in, what it costs and, where appropriate, what's in it for them. It is clear that supporter involvement will be a key area of club progression, so an early understanding of what the groups do and do not stand for can only be beneficial to the future conversations that will inevitably be held on this and other boards. The variety can be better used and enjoyed if it is understood; well that's my opinion, anyway.
Fair enough, quite a comprehensive answer, thanks, TOM. It does come across as a social organisation, which might not be too clear to everyone; basically an extension of the club's commercial enterprise and it's marketing strategy. The pre-match bars are a commercial element and will make money, but that's fine; just as the Tiger Cubs pay £6/year to belong and receive their free Xmas party. I note that the soccer schools are priced at £25 for the 3 days (bring their own lunch), which seems to be another commercial event and not particularly cheap; do you know if there are subsidised places for those who cannot afford it? The CRY work is excellent and something I have encouraged the Trust to do (no reason to believe they won't as I do believe they have made charitable donations in their short life so far.). I think the OSC raising £10K is very good indeed and, when added to the contributions of Dean Windass and the parent's efforts, should be considered a sound result. What more would I like? Well there is certainly more transparency on the website than there was and I understand that the OSC has direct and limiting connections to the club, but I think it a shame that means it cannot have some form of relationship with a group such as the Trust, as it could only be of benefit to the wider supporter base - not to mention the club itself.
The OSC is a self financing business, a not for profit organisation. Whilst it benefits from its links with the club and owes its existence to it, it does not receive any financial support. It is not an extension of the clubs commercial enterprise. To a certain extent all events are commercial enterprises. However, no officers or directors receive any benefit from these. The bars, would be open anyway and whilst the club benefits, so would any other bar or pub that hosted events. It really is no different to a pub having a darts or football team being based on the premises. The OSC soccer schools are great value for money. £20 for members for 3 days, how does that stack up against other offerings? Combined with the Tigers Trust soccer days these are a popular and well run events. The OSC does have links to other Hull City supporter groups, but it cannot as I have said before, be linked to any group that opposes the clubs actions, without running the risk of damaging its relationship with the club.
Even when the OSC's own membership opposes the club's actions? What is the OSC for, if not to represent its members?
That's right and in this case who gets the revenue from the bars? Up here the Cross Keys football Team is just about to move to the Sandpiper - not really the same kind of relationship as the club and the OSC enjoy - no club, no Official (very protected) Supporters Club. The OSC is limited by the club on what it can and cannot say (as we've humorously seen on the other thread), it is intertwined with the club's marketing strategy, it has no sense of independence that I can see and feels totally constrained to consult or collaborate with the wider supporter community. That's fine though, as that is what it is and I have a very clear understanding of it now, or at least better than what it was.
That is always going to be difficult. It is the same for any supporter group that has a ballot of its members as you will know. I have had discussions on representation and how that is managed. A supporters group can present its members views on a subject when asked, but cannot in reality do anything other than say "this is what this percentage of our members think". It has to include both sides and represent all of its membership as it is not in a position to do anything else. Unlike a trust it is not mandated to protest against decisions of the club, but it can only present its members views. It actually works both ways, the OSC still have to represent the views of those for or against and possibly those who are indifferent on any ballot.
The trust is not mandated to oppose the club, it is mandated to represent its member's views. That can and does go both ways. Let me ask the question another way - which of the OSC's members' views are being represented by that statement?
It's a dangerous argument, given the number of supporters trust members that didn't vote against the name change. I think at the time there were reportedly 1600 members of what is largely a protest movement, of which from memory, 740 voted against the name change. In what way are the other members represented? I think it's better to simply accept that the groups exist for different reasons and look for common causes rather than argue over other issues.
Not bad from memory on my part, the figures did change just prior to the vote, I thought it had attracted more, but the same argument applies to the 23% that didn't vote in favour, especially given the trust's main raison d'etre. My point was more about it being unproductive to squabble over differences and we should now focus on the commonalities.
You're mistaking trust committee members for the actual trust. Apparently they're not always the same thing. It's needless though, we should be all pulling together.
But that's the point, isn't it, Dutch; the OSC cannot pull together, they cannot represent the result of the vote they called (the numbers game is a red-herring, both the OSC and the Trust called a vote why?), They seem incapable of making a statement that doesn't make them look foolish - they are the club, not much more, not much less. I am interested in who all of these groups are that TOM tells us the OSC work with.
