Just to offer another perspective, why, after all of the proactive work of the supporters we have mentioned, are the club not knocking on their doors, anybody's doors, and making that initiative something lasting? Can we really, so consistently, dismiss the collaborate role they could adopt, or is this the point when someone tells me this is happening?
I think that's a fair point, and one I don't know the answer to. I can guess at a few reasons, but I think it'd possibly be better to maybe look at ways we can produce things that help the club believe we're more keen on supporting the players than we are in encouraging protest?
I dunno what you're on about but it's not a supporters' trust. It's basically a charity with paid employees, not fans. It's not a problem, but I can't see why they'd want to be involved.
I'm not sure how this could work, or if it would work at all, but I was hearing about something they do on a motorbike forum, and wondered if it'd work for here. I see it as a thing that could help community spirit, but I guess the fact I'd never heard of it could suggest it's pants as an awareness raiser though. Basically, they have a couple of club shirts or banners that they pass on like a batton. So if one lot from down south have a ride up north, they take the shirt and hand it to the northerners, who then take it, say to a group on mainland Europe etc etc. photographing it at various landmarks and events. It'd work fairly well domestically, going home to Southampton, Manchester, Scotland etc after games, but it'd be interesting to see if we could get a global element, and possibly get the team and other dignitaries it meets on its travels to sign it.
It's been a while since your response and no one has thought it worthwhile to take the point further, so here goes. A part (big part) of the malady that envelopes our club is the myopic vision that the owners know the answers, all of the answers and that we should all just accept that. There has been a decent suggestion about a cross-group togetherness that the HCST has put forward in their latest 'Across the City' bulletin, but two things immediately detract from it: the lack of preparedness of HCOSC to enter reasonable discussion (apparently) - is this the club or the members? - the other, disappointing element, is the readiness of HCST to focus on this point in the bulletin. It is disappointing that one seems to have nothing in their magazine and the other seems to want to score pot-shot's when it really could be done differently. There is some learning to be done by all concerned, but the club remain the villains, we shouldn't lose sight of that, as I have seen nothing to change it.
I think a significant part of the problem is that nobody seems willing to take the initiative. For a variety of reasons, the club are unwilling to work with the trust, and it seems that the OSC don't see some of the suggested initiatives as their role. My view is that this board could play a big part, using the FWG as the vehicle. I believe it's no good just saying we want to be involved, and then just saying what we don't want or don't like. We should put together a series of positive suggestions, and if possible include ways they could be progressed. I think the club will listen. Obviously they won't agree to all of it, and some will be impractical, but if we get a few key ideas progressed, it could help show that there are a good few areas of common ground. Hopefully, a focus on the many bits we share, could reduce the disharmony from the few bits we don't.
The reason it was mentioned in the newsletter, was because it was the main issue raised by members who emailed us in response to the open letter sent to the club. I wouldn't say any pot-shots were taken, it merely explains our position on the matter. For non-members, this is exactly what it said... "One suggestion made to us was that we should develop a relationship with the other large organised group of City fans, the Official Supporters Club. Mark Gretton, our Chair, has on a number of occasions approached the OSC for a meeting, thus far without success, but we will continue to pursue this. At the end of the day, although our two bodies have different things to offer, we should have much in common."
It's simply not true that the club are unwilling to work with the trust, we have an ongoing dialogue with the club on various issues.
This idea was first mooted by TOM as a gathering of minds of all of the groups, not just HCST and HCOSC and I believe it was just last week. Perhaps a bit of quiet process, some constructive lobbying through known links would have been preferable to stating past efforts and their failures as that comes across as negative and a bit of a dig. All that was needed for now was an acknowledgment that the idea has been taken on board and was being developed, the historic context was unnecessary and a tad accusing, a bit like a pot-shot; HCST didn't need to qualify their actions at this time. It could be argued that part-time organisations allow themselves time to consider and respond, which has been a plea for understanding in the past. It's more about tone than content.
When the club announced there was no more pay on the gate, a great many fans were concerned about us stopping walk-up's, so I sought clarification of what was actually happening. The club confirmed exactly what was happening, assured me there was no question of walk-up's being prevented from attending and subsequently issued clarification of all ticketing arrangements. When it was announced that season ticket holders now had to pay to attend U21 games, I contacted the club to find out why this had changed. It was suggested to me that this wasn't down to City, but Ferriby say otherwise, so I plan to revisit this at the next FWG meeting. I had a conversation with the club on receipt of our open letter, I've had a conversation with the club about our Reverse The Rebrand campaign and I'm having ongoing discussions with the club about HCST sponsoring a player this season. There is no issue that I can't pick up the phone and talk to them about, obviously there are several issues on which we still don't see eye to eye, but that doesn't prevent them from being discussed.
I'm really not surprised Dutch, or someone else, asks this. I have pressed on this in the past and, despite reading a fair amount of waffle, I have never seen anything to suggest there is a real official communication between club and Trust.
TOM suggested it last week, but it's something we've already been working on since we were formed last January, I see nothing wrong with the tone of our comments.
Were they talking to you as an individual or as a committee member. I can and do talk to the club, as do others. They've said in the past, they're happy to talk to individuals or groups, but not as the trust.
The last time it was raised, there was categorically no discussion. The mention of the trust and SAG being a point in case. If that's changed, I'm surprised it wasn't discussed publicly, and begs a question on the open letter to Ehab.
They're talking to me as the trust's representative, I'm no longer seen as an individual fan, they see every conversation with me as one with the trust. Hardly a surprise after all that's gone on over the past couple of years.
That must be a very recent change in policy, as it certainly wasn't the case during the closed season. I know the trust were on the FWG, but the issues were only those raised on here or brought to the table by others. What occurred to change that, and why then write the open letter to Ehab? When will the next meeting between the chairman of the trust and the chairman of the club be taking place?
Immediately after hell freezes over. I said the club were talking to the trust, we're not back on the owners Christmas card list quite yet.
I think it's probably more apt to say the club are talking to someone that happens to be on the trust committee. If it were more than that, the chairman would be involved, even if it was indirect There seems little value in discussions that don't have his support over and above what the FWG provides. The situation is no different to last season, where trust reps are on the FWG. That wasn't seen as 'in discussion' or there'd have been no need for the open letter. If dialogue was occurring since that letter, I would have expected the trust to have been loudly trumpeting the green shoots.
