What a joker, puffing out your chest and howling at the moon; you really are quite special ... needs probably.
It's only a practical problem in your eyes. You're very blinkered in what appears to be a very bitter view. I'm quite happy in the way the trust represents my views. I can email the trust. I can contact the committee members. I can contact people on here. Brain storming sessions on here? Start one, it'll be nothing more than mumbling away to a faceless group of anonymous internet users, possibly not even HCAFC supporters. The group & committee are not faceless to me. They've had open meetings & elected committee members that are easily accessible. The place for brain storming is in pre-arranged open meetings for members & non members. Participation in trust groups & sub-groups should be restricted to members. It's the members that make the group democratic, if you want a vote, pay your subs. The committee were democratically elected by their members at an open meeting. People were given the opportunity to speak. They've had at least one further session since. On here is not the place. If you want to spark a discussion start a thread. You could even alter & change posts to suit your cause. The trust have canvassed thoughts & specifically asked for them to be submitted via email. Do it & then attend a meeting, put your hand up & speak. If flinging personal abuse around hardly adds to whatever you want, then it may be best that you start to lead by example. You never actually say or offer anything other than critisism of the trust. It's as though you're extremely bitter about something, you may not be, but that is how it appears. The last few pages only highlight this. One last thing for the record. I prefer email or PM to contact the trust because that's my preferred choice & not because most replies seem to ignore the point and are limited to pompous remarks or ignorant abuse. That's more your style.
Fez, to clear some of the mud from your repeated posts and messy multi quotes, piss poor personal abuse and general cobblers, my position is quite clear. I believe that, if an organisation claims to represent a specific group, they need to demonstrate how they know what that group wants and thinks. I believe open discussion is key to doing that, and that needs to be initiated by that group Failing to do that makes it a dictatorship, which has advantages, but isn't what is claimed. That's my position. Anything else you've added is just the dust from your head. Now if you want to discuss that as a position, go for it.
So who is suggesting you can't do any of that? Do you think more ideas and wider discussion would somehow be to the detriment of the Trust? The question of initiating it has been answered several times, but in short, that's for those claiming to be representative to do, plus as this thread demonstrates, some seem afraid of wider discussion.
Nobody is afraid of wider discussion but most are bored by your relentless quest of whining about the trust but not offering anything. Start a thread for discussion, tag the trust. I'd just be happy to hear one of your ideas rather than your inane whinging about how the democratic trust is run.
It was reported at the recent court hearing in Leeds that the Allams evicted 1,000 people (including children) from the Airco Arena so Hull City could use it 3 times, yes 3 times. Yet people are still on about Mark Gretton's hip flask. If Mark isn't fit to be chairman of a small supporters' trust just where does that leave the Allams? Yes Happy, the sooner the Allams go the happier I'll be. As a member of the Trust I wasn't asked my opinion about the open letter, but if I had, I would have voted no. If they'd have got a majority saying yes and I was asked I would have said don't publish the letter, try and see if a private dialogue could be started if the approach was serious. They may have done this and this is the last piece of the jigsaw, but I suspect not from the tone of the letter. Given the nature of the Allams the gap between them and the Trust may well have got wider. I'm not sure that was the intention though. I see the debate goes around in circles again. For me there is only one loser and that's the Trust. This message board is read by hundreds, if not a couple of thousand City fans and all they see is abuse and more abuse. In fact we have 7 pages of it. Enough to put anybody off not606 for life and possibly the Trust as well.
Pointing out areas isn't whining. Whining is when people get upset at others point out the trust can be improved. If the trust claim they're democratic and representative, asking them how they coukd demonstrate that and offering suggestions isn't whining, whining is having one way that suits you, and refusing to let other views be considered. It's not just about offering one idea, for what it's worth, the badge,shirts etc were something I suggested quite some time ago, but please, don't thank me. It's about a general culture of inclusively. If you're determined it's one idea, what if someone emailed the trust with an idea that suited a majority on the committee, but affected other fans, possibly negatively or could be done better. Do you feel it's okay just to go with the email, or can you see how the idea, and the implementation could be improved by wider involvement? Don't forget, a big criticism of the Allams is their reluctance to involve City fans in the running of the club. Surely leading by example is a good way to strengthen the argument? See, those points aren't 'whinging'. They're constructive criticisms.
Really? Seems that was the intention to me. Its all they've got. Throwing stones at them. The badge is great, the reasoning not so good. But as we are Hull City it doesnt matter. We havent had the name on the shirt plenty of times in our history. I couldnt give a **** what our twitter account is, I expect most people dont. Any suggestions/ideas can go through the FWG without the Trust. Its up to the club what the choose to implement. They've took on board suggestions off here, like Pie pies etc. 10 quid tickets would be lovely but not a chance of happening.
Whining is when you repeat the same point over & over, post after post, thread after thread. Ramming it down people's throats even though they disagree with you. As I say start a thread, send them an email, contact the chairman, contact a committee member, offer to help, volunteer, get off your high horse & offer something that could be deemed as pro-active rather than critical. My view is that this isn't the platform for discussing specifics of what the trust should be taking forward.
I'm repeating the same thing, because I'm answering the same point you keep wrongly making about my position. You keep whining on that it's email or nothing, and ignore what could be benefits and no detriment to adding other options to that. You could still do things your way, but others could contribute in different ways. These comments are constructive. As for getting off my arse, I have, on many occasions, including involvement with the trust and talking to the club. I involved all those I was representing when I did it too. I don't see the need to shout about it. I only mention it now to show another hole in your whining. As for this not being the platform, the Trust posted the OP requesting discussion. You'd best email them and point out you think they're wrong for raising it on here. Me, I think this being the largest on line City community it makes it an ideal platform for discussion.
Have a word with yourself, you've repeated the same inane crap on near on every HCST thread for a quite a while. We've had these conversations previously & you did nothing until the next HCST thread when you just repeated the same crap. Email or nothing? Have a re-read "As I say start a thread, send them an email, contact the chairman, contact a committee member, offer to help, volunteer, get off your high horse & offer something that could be deemed as pro-active rather than critical.". You refuse to see what's there & choose instead to see what you want, it's a recurring theme.
I've generally been replying, so if I'm repeating the same crap, it's generally in response to the same daft questions. Anyway, you've said the same thing again and again, so moving on, why do you think having a wider discussion is a bad thing?
I've explained why I don't believe this to be the right platform to discuss which projects the trust carries forward in a previous post.
So if this is the wrong platform, are you planning to email the trust for posting on here asking for comments and ideas? Shouldn't they have just done that via email?
Not at all, but good to see you've reverted to your normal tedious form. They asked for input via email. I've pointed out that there are other ways for you to contact them, I've also suggested you start a thread for a discussion if you want to have one. Showing quite clearly that although not agreeing with the concept I'm not trying to stifle or stop it. I've explained clearly why I don't think this is the right platform for discussing specific ideas for the trust to take forward which you choose, as normal, to selectively ignore.
I haven't ignored it, I simply haven't seen it. Humour me, I've looked but couldn't see why you think this is the wrong platform for discussion, only that you prefer other methods, which could still be used as well. Could you copy your reply, or explain again? (obviously ignoring the fact that the trust have used it for precisely that) Oh, and my argument is that those claiming to be representative need to start the discussion. Suggesting I start it is selectively ignoring something you've accused me of repeatedly posting.
As with all things contentious, once you get discussion going there will be rights and wrongs on both sides; this is a classic example, but the pity is that folk, who wish to exert their cleverness, are using it as a platform for attacking supporter elements they don't like. The club is a professional, commercially run business, that is supposed to have the leadership of a man, who in his seventies, tells everyone, not just the so-called hooligan support, that they should read his CV and not question his business decisions. I have always thought the most recent inclusion on a CV should be the one of note and on that basis his claim merits scrutiny. The result of his leadership has been beyond what anyone could have thought imaginable. In terms of club success it has been a very mixed bag, but promotion and the FA Cup final were wonderful highs; unfortunately even that was poisoned by his anal demands for the club to be renamed and his divisive and insulting campaign to further his demands. Relegation is something the club family, the supporters, are familiar with, so when he achieved that he did not find rancorous response, he found dignity, resignation and support, albeit a diminishing one. During the course of all of this a protest group, CTWD, evolved to fight him (let's be clear about that) and, having won their battle, they disbanded. Another group, HCST, was formed from within the folds of the wider support and that is a Trust with long-term ambitions, limited time and budget, and an evolution of operations in it's very early stages. But, they also have a preparedness to do something that is agreed with their membership, they consult as they see fit, as they understand their own thinking as a representative committee of the supporters who paid their dues and voted them to do just that. Non-members might wish to offer input, the Trust may seek it, but their direction and how they achieve it is their own and, as a fledgling Trust, some might think it both reasonable and correct to offer them more than a few months to pull it all together and sort their new, part-time world out. Many, some maybe, will recall I was a frequent challenger of CTWD and how it would evolve to HCST, I still both defend and challenge the Trust, although on both counts I have dome it democratically from within. That will continue as I believe they need more time, not least because of how the club continued with their horrendous decisions well into 2015 and, maybe, but hopefully not, beyond that. I suggested, earlier on this thread, that if a general discussion is needed on topics from, let's say, building bridges with the owners to re-establishing camaraderie between supporters (although I think this is much exaggerated) then anyone, without any stated allegiance, can do that. It should not be a pre-requisite that the Trust officials take part in anything other than a personal level - if they feel the need to do so then they should do so under a different account, which I believe is active. This mirrors a point I made about the Mods, although that is much improved. As for known HCST officials, but not in an official capacity, knocking the owners on social media, then so-be-it, it is the nature of modern communications; if it's good for the club, then ... ... It does seem that the few forum posters, OLM and PLT, who are doing their bit in the Trust and elsewhere, are being targeted for doing just that, rather than giving them wriggle room to develop this strange new concept.
