Could it possibly be that "when we have agreement" actually meant, "if Ehab says we can"? Something smells fishy.
Surely the board of directors of the OSC have an obligation & responsibility to release the content of the submission they made to the FA, on behalf of their members, to their members. Anything other than full & complete disclosure would be viewed, by many, as corrupt.
"...until there is an agreement to for the statement to be released it will not be made available." What on earth does this mean? Agreement from the directors? Very strange.
Each to their own, but there must surely be an OSC member out there who cares about how his group's views are communicated to official bodies, if there isn't then it is fairly poor reflection of the genuine interest of the membership and would tend to endorse their 'good-time-Charlies' image. A pity really, a decent opportunity for transparency is lost. This type of behaviour would dissuade me from sitting at a collective table with them. But it is what it is.
Well lets see how we all are on this can of worms. HCST has opened a dialogue with the club as the OP states. How will HCST maintain that dialogue? Will every discussion be an "open book" or will if and when it gets to sitting around the table some of what is discussed have to be agreed with all parties before it is released and if one party does not agree, what will HCST do? This is a fundamental issue that will and does cause issues in supporter involvement. It has been even commented on in the consultation by Government, that one of the biggest issues is that the membership of any supporters group may not be privy to the workings of the board of a club for instance, even if they have a seat on the board. What happens in organisations is often subject to agreements of this nature and it will be the same if HCST does have a dialogue with the club. There will be situations like this, I cannot apologise for or alter that the fact that an agreement has not been given. I cannot confirm who's agreement is needed either. So members of this forum can draw whatever conclusions they wish, I can do nothing to stop that, fill your boots. The failure to release the submission has not been brushed under the table, it has been discussed, but unfortunately that is all I can say. Posters can draw whatever conclusions that they wish too, but as far I am concerned, the current board has nothing to answer and I believe it is worthy of support. Fez used a term "Good time Charlies". Actually he should look at what the OSC is doing and has done. I am a "Good time Charlie" so best count me out Raising over £10k for Josh Fells CRY Charity Donating radios to Castle Hill (using funds raised from Dean Windass visits) Tiger Cub events Pre Match ex player interviews Online interviews and messages from players Representing supporters on the FWG Holding branch events Now the events may seem like the OSC is mainly about having a good time, well the sad truth is that that it is all about having a good time, its all about enjoying, supporting Hull City, its not all doom and gloom its about the social aspect of support. Being involved in charities and the community. That is what membership brings, involvement and enjoyment. I enjoy being involved with the OSC, I enjoy my membership of HCSS as well. Sometimes it is easy to forget why I go to football and the truth is I go to have a good time and if that is a bad thing and I should be all serious, well sorry but that's me for you a "Good time Charlie" Does that mean, Fez that we should not have a pint and sit around the table putting the world (of Hull City) to right, no it doesn't, serious issues are dealt with, but to be honest the OSC isn't a protest group and it has to maintain a relationship. Fez your view of me may have fallen off the cliff edge, that's up to you. But I have to say, just because something is not proven on here, does not make me a liar. I will not try to change your view. But you are wrong and that is a pity. I took the piss, that's all, you left the door open and I stepped in. But you have been very snide at times with your remarks and "clever" with words about me and I have not bitten.
I think you're in cloud cuckoo land; don't you read the posts before you answer them? Yet again, for the sake of clarity: I don't see a can of worms anywhere. Your organisation took a vote of it's membership and submitted the results of that and their own interpretation (I believe) of the views of the membership to the FA. I think this is agreed, but put me right if you are able, although I think you will struggle if you have not seen the submission. Anyway, the point is that your senior officer appeared to make a commitment to share the submission when he is able, but you tell us he cannot, so he is unable. It sounds daft, it is daft, but anyway, what reason could there be for your board to decide that they must go back on a commitment to tell it's own membership what they had said on their behalf? Are you starting to see how strange and unethical that is? I am trying to be reasonable, TOM, as I thought your initial response was fair and reasonable and you should, perhaps, have stuck with it. Discussions are one thing, a submission that has be voted on and is a key policy milestone is a totally different matter, so your question regarding what the HCTS will do has no relevance. Any actions, relevant to those discussions would be a different matter, allowing reasonable latitude for their importance and nature. This is the real world and some autonomy can be given as a part of the trust within the Trust, but the with-holding of your submission should be a concern to your members. This bit left me wondering whether or not you are having a difficulty understanding the nuances between the points you seem to be struggling with. What on earth could there possibly be in the release of the OSC submission that would compromise the workings of the board? Which board, the club board or the OSC board, or are they one and the same - you told me they are not? This is what I said: I am aware of the OSC's publicity regarding what they do, although I haven't given it too much scrutiny and I don't believe I will. But there is a segment of the club's support that see some or all of your membership's key incentive as freebies and favours; now I don't know how much truth there is in it (which is why I said 'if there isn't), but when folk cannot be arsed to question why they are not being told what their elected (they are elected aren't they?) officers have submitted, on their behalf, then you would have to wonder why. The rest, about your reason for belonging is fine, well done, but it's not really relevant to the point of discussion. Of course you can sit around, have a pint and do what ever you like, I have never said you are a protest group, just as the HCST isn't (although they will speak up to address wrongs against their members and, by association, supporters in general). I would have thought you would realise that maintaining a relationship is applicable to all parties, OSC, HCST, Club. et al: but at what cost, TOM, where would you draw the line? I haven't called you a liar,although I certainly think you get your arguments and facts mixed up. My opinion of you fell off a cliff-face because of something you did off this board, but it certainly caused me to look at your actions and opinions differently and I started to see something I had previously defended you against. I didn't leave any door open, you created your own false door and manipulated a historic post, but that is dealt with. I have might sometimes of been a tad harsh, as have you, but I always stuck with the truth and the facts, my so-called 'clever' words simply putting right what you get wrong; as do others.
