It's pretty much about defending the fait accompli. It was the discussions before the "we will" bit I was hoping for.
It was nine days ago when we first announced we planned this, there was plenty of time for people to voice any concerns, as it was all we got was 'well done' messages. At the end of the day, it will be the FA who will decide if they adopt this or not and it's at that time that the actual detail of any new rules would be decided.
So I take it you didn't ballot the membership before taking these actions, what rules do HCST actually have ? All well run organisations have rules and regulations in place which is something HCST seem to lack. Its becoming more and more apparent that the HCST is just a front for a few faceless individuals to push there own hidden agenda.
Well, if that's your idea of consultation and considering other views...I guess there wasn't much of a before the "we will" bit. Do you not think a more open method and at least pretending to listen could just help recruit people. You never know, some of them could just have a few ideas and abilities that the committee themselves don't have.
All of our aims and objectives are published on our website. Protecting the club's heritage is very much at the top of that list of aims and objectives and is what our members signed up to. With regard to this specific motion at the FSF summit, our members were all advised of our plans by email a month ago, those plans were also published on our website.
What do people want, a bloody ballot every time the Trust does anything at all? That's not feasible. As has been stated, the aims of the HCST are abundantly clear and anyone opposed to this motion is hardly likely to have joined the organization in the first place. Personally I think it's a great move and I am quite happy with it as a member of the Trust. I've had plenty of time to object had I wanted to.
I don't want a ballot. I'm saying that more open discussions should help recruitment and unity and produce a better end result. The committee aren't experts in everything, there are plenty of people with various skills that could all add to the process. I'm not sure why discussion seems to be feared.
All of our plans, our aims and details of everything we do are published on our website, promoted via social media, emailed to members on a weekly basis and posted on Hull City forums where they can be discussed. Nobody fears anything, there is nothing preventing anyone from discussing anything we do and we regularly take on board ideas that we receive.
So you don't have any rules regarding how HCST is run or managed ? so how can you function properly ? Like I said it's an organisation set up to push the hidden agenda of surtain individuals and not to represent the fans like it claims.
Here's an idea, when you do take on board someone's ideas or comments, why not acknowledge that and show what's happened as a consequence? The only suggestion I recall seeing takien up was the use of a trust log in on here so that people knew if it was just OLM or the actual trust, but that seems to have died a death. The discussions on here tend to just degenerate to personal abuse, but I don't recall ever seeing any positive feedback on here from the trust about comments or ideas raised. The communication lines are something I've raised for quite some time, but I see the same defensive attitude to any perceived 'criticism' of the trust, even if it's meant as a constructive criticism. It could even go further, and if a suggestion is made, people could be encouraged to get involved themselves and run with it. It doesn't always need to go back to the committee for them to action it, as sometimes that can just cause stagnation. Sometimes it just needs maybe some coordination or a central point. Just think, it could get more people all pulling in the same direction and help minimise some of the suspicion that exists about the group.
As you obviously can't be arsed to look for yourself, here's our rules... http://hullcitysupporterstrust.com/wp-content/uploads/HCST-Rules.pdf Here's our visions, aims, objectives and action plan... http://hullcitysupporterstrust.com/hcst-vision-aims-and-objectives/ 'Surtain' is one Tickles would be proud of.
It's a shame you didn't apply them rule 56.1 unless you just didn't think it was significant enough !!
It had already been agreed with our members in our 2015-16 action plan... Outline actions for 2015-16 Aim 1 Preserving, protecting and developing the identity and community of Hull City AFC, embodying ambition with tradition Actions: 1. Continue pressing the FA to strengthen the rules concerning owners and heritage (M Gretton) 2. Engage with FSF to develop their heritage campaign and help influence the FA (C Cooper) 3. Develop and implement a campaign against the “name-change by stealth” of Hull City AFC (C Smith)
4. Keep M.Gretton, C Cooper and C Smith in their unelected "voice of the fans" position by continuing to aflict their anti-allam propaganda on Hull City supporters.
They were elected by the members of the organisation they represent. If you want to join an organisation that backs Assem in anything he wants to do, there's always the OSC.
Kinell Dutch. No one tells them how to write a motion. Ive said it for a long time, they're worse than the people they accuse of similar things. How anyone with a brain can't see their smoke and mirrors is baffling.
