As far as the role and purpose of the OSC is concerned I have stated I am trying to understand it better and to do that I ask questions - is there something wrong with that? I might have more questions about some things to do with the OSC and it's claims, but I'll take my time, if that's okay with you? You just managed to type a lot, but say nothing. Try answering the questions, it's a decent way to find your way forward. You might be my focus for the night, as you are posting so much questionable ****e - I like the way you use the 'everyone' card, it seems to be a common ploy of losers. Type as slowly as you like, but if you are going to quote comment out of conversation/thread then you might find it sensible to quote the post and thread you refer to - we are not mind-readers, thankfully! It's the norm on this and other boards. You're so keen to get your bile across you forget the niceties. Try typing slower still, you might catch-up on yourself.
The majority of supporters in the OSC voted against Allam's proposal to change the name - Noble should respect that view and represent the majority views of the membership - when is the next vote for the Directors - perhaps it's time for a change
How does the OSC manage this? "represent and respect ALL of its paying members differing views and opinions" Do they go around to each members house for a cup of tea and a chat on regular intervals?
I'm more interested in how they communicate these diverse views to the owners, with whom they (need to) have a good relationship.
As the statement say's it is the directors duty to be impartial and represent the views of all members. It is not their choice, it is a duty. Those who voted for the name change have the same rights of representation as those who voted against it and even the ones who did not vote.
You are full on Anti Allam .. Its been funny watching your sheep like performance ... you have no room for any potential middle ground (I agree however it will not be forthcoming) .. but you simply have turned every thread about anything over the last 18 months into an Anti Allam thing ... calm down .. football is back soon .. you seem like someone who has taken this crusade way too far ... and become obessed over it .. now is the time to try and reach out and make peace .. yet you come across like that you will not allow it ... hell even CTWD sorry HCST have offered it .. just calm down young man
And in that ballot the majority said no to Hull tigers some said yes. There were only two options, and yet the OSC claim to "represent and respect ALL of its paying members differing views and opinions" so how do they do that?
like any election, there are winners and losers - the majority voted against the name change, whether the minority like it or not - there is no grey area - the OSC should respect how its members voted - I'm sorry but those who voted for the name change do not have the same rights of representation - they lost and should accept that they are a minority and accept that the majority of the membership did not and do not want the name of Hull City to change, that's how democracy works - seriously if they are not happy that the name of the club is still Hull City then they need to consider why they are members of the Hull City Supporters Club in the first place - it's not supposed to be a clique that kowtows to Allam, its supposed to be a supporters club that represents the views of its members - and its members voted against the change and the minority need to deal with it
I have posted this before and it is still the best explaination of difference. Not everything is the same as the OSC and HCST, but much of what is said relates. One of the big differences is that the OSC has a constitution and has a different structure to the one below. Leyton Orient Football Trust What about the Supporters Club then? Are you trying to replace it? Absolutely not. Many LOFT members are also members of the Supporters Club, and everyone recognises what an excellent job the Supporters Club does. LOFT's aims and objectives are different from anything the Supporters Club does, however, and we firmly believe that there is a role for the two organisations at Leyton Orient, each working in different spheres. We can't do what the Supporters Club does, and there's no need for us to try when they do it so well, but similarly we can do things that they simply can't do at the moment. Please explain. Well, we explicitly invite people to join LOFT to get involved in the issues that concern the fans and to act as a voice for their interests. That often means talking to the club, lobbying the club's officials, campaigning amongst the fans, actively promoting the club in the community, 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 and, quite rightly, doesn't try, because that's not what it is there for, and that's not why people join 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 we can speak our mind, and if need be publicly disagree with the Club, without jeopardising our very existence. But isn't it confusing having two organisations? Wouldn't it be better to work within the Supporters Club? Only if you believe that 'hostile' takeovers are the right way to operate and if you're prepared to ignore the fact that there's no mandate from the members for the Supporters Club to take on the sorts of issues that the Trust is concerned with. We've got too much respect for them and their work to do that, and we don't think it necessary when the two organisations have such distinct roles and objectives. We've a friendly and co-operative relationship with the Supporters Club, and keep each other informed of what we're up to and sometimes attend each other's meetings. It might be that some time in the future the two organisations come closer together - and indeed we are working together with the fanzines at the club's Fans' Forum - but as organisations there is no pressing need to reform. I hope it helps.
Just asking again as I'm still struggling to believe it: that really was the whole statement? Not just an introductory note?
the majority want the submission released - the minority don't - so to respect the views of all, it isn't released - which actually only respects the views of the minority and completely ignores the views of the majority
I've been a big critic of the supporters club, I asked what they do. It turns out that my criticism was down to my lack of understanding of its purpose. It's not a campaign or protest group. It exists more as a social club and is an extension of the club. It's not independent of it. I was critical of the initial vote announcement and spoke to them at length about it. I can now understand their position. As group, they have told the club 'this is what the members think' and pretty much left it at that. The supporters club itself has remained impartial, but the members have had a say. In some respect, that says more than the announcement from a single issue protest group that didn't convince almost a quarter of its members.
