] What size do you want? please log in to view this image here's mine. please log in to view this image
I was on the CTWD committee and I didn't hear Mark Gretton use language like that about the Allams. The rest of the committee may have realised what a sensitive soul I was and adopted their Sunday best behaviour. Most of the time we expressed amazement at what Assem Allam said. He proved to be one of our best recruiting sergeants. I found posting a picture of the flask on Twitter offensive but it doesn't stop me supporting Mark as chairman. He was a good chairman of CTWD and I haven't seen anything to contradict that with his position on the Trust. I find the eviction of the Airco tenants far more obscene. Hull City pick up half a million from the Premier League and, at the time of the court hearing, had used it 3 times. In the meantime the High Flyers have to go around Hull with a begging bowl to raise £10,000 to convert a warehouse. Chazz has a point. The Trust, if it is to move beyond being a protest group, has to persuade people like him and Happy and those who think like them but never post, that they have a place within it. If the Trust cannot create a "we" from the current "them and us" amongst supporters it will fail. A start has been made with the other thread but these 14 pages shows there's a long way to go yet. Assem Allam is not going to be the owner forever, we will have new owners one day and hopefully the Trust will play a constructive part in putting the Tiger Nation back together.
Winning hearts and minds is fine and will obviously be the aim, but I'm afraid there's a limit to what can realistically be achieved, some will simply never accept anything we say and will continue to call us 'self serving pricks' whatever we do.
HCST didn't even exist when the tweet was posted. What I posted on this thread yesterday is 100% true, based on my knowledge of Mark and the committee members. If you'd prefer to believe your own lie ahead of my informed truth then there's nothing more I can do, saying anything else would (once again) be hopeless.
I didn't call you a self serving prick, I called Gretton a ****ing weasel. And you can quote me on that.
You called my post "bullshit" and presented a different untrue story. I take the role of secretary seriously, it requires me to be impartial in my Trust dealings - if I had posted "bullshit" on here, I would have to step aside instantly. You appear to have allowed your strongly held and expressed feelings about certain individuals override the truth and lead you to believe a lie.
I'm no liar. Another post was deleted saying about the snooping on emails. So you sit next to him. Did he show you it. Did he tell you what it said and piss himself hilariously? and you said you ****ing idiot thats disgraceful?? You've opened up the box, let us know eh
I find this a ridiculous argument; we have Chazz misinterpreting tweets to suit his own agenda, we have him saying individuals should be denied their right to a private view of someone they have to deal with to move (voluntarily) what they see as a good cause forward - of course, if this was to be something that all reasonable folk should adhere to, then all countries diplomatic corps and all off the well-meaning peace negotiators (paid and volunteer) would be redundant overnight. Frankly, the only purpose this point serves is to allow Chazz to come back off his holiday and make an abject **** of himself. Sad really.
"The position of Chairman must, no ifs and buts, must carry authority and integrity. I don't know Mark, although I do admire and sincerely appreciate what he has done for the group and it's membership; not to mention the fence sitters who reaped the benefits of his work. It (the flask) was a joke, albeit a poor one, I can share it's sentiment, that's no secret on here; but to tweet it, be proud of it and, if pissed at the time, not to immediately retract is simply poor judgment. You seem to focus solely on the reaction (it need not be immediate) of the owner and, although it should be taken into account, perhaps some thought should be given to the so-called silent majority and, also, the 1855 who might look for a better reaction to a very clumsy and offensive joke. This is not a back-street youth club, we are discussing a fledgling Premier League Supporters Trust with aspirations of sitting at the top table of a multi-million pound business, whose owner and Chairman has been held up to ridicule by being publicly called a **** by our Chairman. Any potential owner must be watching with interest."
You have addressed this to me so I will speak for myself. I have no dispute with your general comments on the qualities required of a Chairman; there has never been any dispute about that. I focus on, what in my opinion, was an ill-advised joke, it was openly discussed on here at the time and privately discussed elsewhere by many. It was quite a while before the HCST was formed so we all had time for a considered approach to how we, as individuals wanted to play it. We, the members (as opposed to the fence-sitters, seeing as you brought it up), saw fit to support the election, by democratic means of the current board of the Trust - our Trust, the members Trust - we understood the historic joke for what it was. I can't speak for everyone else, but once I had asked my questions and received answers, I decided that this, apparently one-off act, was not going to be the norm and that a valuable lesson had been learnt. I also coupled that with the excellent leadership and commitment Mark had given to a cause that I could have little input into, but was extremely grateful for his contribution - fighting the name-change. I could add that this was heads and shoulders above the contribution of some snipers and fence-sitters who lurk on here and elsewhere. I have always realised that the graveyard is full of indispensable people, but every now and then comes along the right person for the job and, in this case, a difficult, unrewarded, part-time job that gets too little recognition, as do the roles played by all of his colleagues. There is the ability, within the Trust rules to ask for Mark's removal (see below) - if you are or wish to be a member or if any one else is in the same boat then it is a fairly simple exercise to voice your concerns and again, democracy and rules will be applied, as seen fit. You say: "You seem to focus solely on the reaction (it need not be immediate) of the owner and, although it should be taken into account, perhaps some thought should be given to the so-called silent majority and, also, the 1855 who might look for a better reaction to a very clumsy and offensive joke.". Where did I mention the owner? You've lost me there, not for the first time. As for the" silent majority", I will let them come to their own conclusions, perhaps you should too. I'm not too sure what you mean by the "1855 who might look for a better reaction to a very clumsy and offensive joke", is this the Trust membership now, as it was not in place at the time? But no matter, that is for them and they, the members, spoke with their votes - are you a member, did you vote? If you are and did, then you will be aware that democracy moved us, the Trust forward; if you are not then it really shouldn't concern you, unless your cause is ****-stirring in something you are not prepared to join. Anyway, here is AlRawdad's explanation again, just so we remove any element of doubt (You can read Obi's too, just go back a few posts, as I also trust his view): I think this was one of your better posts, TOM.
