HCST ideas for the future...

"It was a joke ffs. "

I'm getting the hang of this. I may have to practice though, then maybe renegade will like me too.

 

So the thread set up primarily to discuss positive ideas for HCST, because a previous thread was derailed by abuse, has well we can all guess the rest...

 

Beat me to it, I was just about to say the same. Anyway, ignoring some of the elephants...

Anyone any thoughts on how we could promote unity and improve the matchday experience?

 

Please except this post in the spirit that it is written.

I'm a bit pissed as I have had to drink early or not at all due to scuba diving tomorrow, so I chose get pissed early.

Our party went by boat to Dubrovnik, today and sat next to us, a young lad was wearing City shorts. Of course the subject was, Hull City, we discussed transfers and the championship etc, I of course was straight on a recruiting mission for the OSC. The lads father explained that he had let his membership lapse and I explained what my view was and how I want the OSC to do what it does best etc.

This supporter of many years, felt that the OSC and HCST have not listened to what the ordinary supporter wants. The OSC gave out the wrong image of itself and so did HCST, both in his view have failed, because each only did and said what they thought supporters wanted to hear. Neither represented him.

It is really time that we all stopped believing that we are right all of the time and started to engage the ordinary fan. If we were representative, both groups would have thousands more members. If as supports groups we are to progress, it is important that we both appeal to supporters with a wide range of views and offer what supporters want.

The one thing that this supporter wanted was simple. He just wanted to watch a game of football.

 

I can relate to that view. On all accounts.

 

He doesn't need either organisation then.

 

Duplicate

 

The majority of the fans don't NEED either organisation.

You'd hope that both are looking for fellow fans to WANT them though.

That I think, is what's missing. OSC is a social club of no use to me.

HCST should appeal to me but it still feels a little like a protest group. That's partly down to the legacy of the people running it, and yes I understand why they are. It takes a certain type of person to do these things.

It's making efforts to change that I think, but it's not there yet imo.

 

Fully agree.

I am not going to use this thread as a medium for recruiting members. So I will only say that whilst at the moment the OSC offers you nothing. That may change soon and to be prefectly honest, it will be more of a social network type of thing than a social club.
I still do not feel that I could be a member of the trust.

 

I honestly dont see why there is any more than this needed or why it is expected.
Any good ideas go through the FWG and are discussed and cast aside or implemented.
Why should or would they allow a Trust chairman to private board meetings? He'd be tied to confidentiality anyway and wouldnt be able to report back to members. The Allams arent going to discuss finances with someone like that present are they, nor should they - I wouldnt in their place.

The Allams are never going to deal with the Trust when one of the trusts aims is to "acquire" a stake in the club. Just how is this going to happen. By doing this you could be de stabilising the club by stating this as an aim.

"Leading and facilitating partnership working with Hull City AFC, Hull City Council and other stakeholders.
Do you not see this as provocative? How is this possible? How can you lead?

Would all the committee be able to put 100 grand in and buy 10% of the club? Doubt the Allams would sell it to you but is that possible? Its the only way i can see you acquiring a stake. That would make it harder for the Allams to sell if they do sell, so it wont happen. No new buyer will countenance a minority 10% stakeholder.

If we were skint in Div 4 then the trust could take over and run it but it wont happen as long as we stay in the Championship or PL. So i just dont see a role for the Trust, it can all be done in conjunction with the Club through the FWG.

 

I would love to 'like' this, as it seems to want to draw favourable sentiment, but, unfortunately I find it fundamentally flawed, as I would have asked different questions (judging by the comments you offer). This chap you met, why doesn't he join one or the other group and try to do something as a member with some, even the minimum of a vote, level of influence. I am not sure what is meant by an ordinary supporter; is that someone who attends games, or supports from afar, and never gets involved in a group (HCOSC. HCST, etc.), as that seems to be the majority and they are fairly ordinary in their approach, which is fine. Has he tried talking to anyone about his concerns?

The HCOSC is well founded in it's historic actions for it's members, and it failed to keep your acquaintance as a member; did he say what they did wrong for him, what did he see as wrong with the image? Was he living in Hull and on holiday, or is he a remote supporter?

Did he accept, or was it mentioned, that the HCST is a very, very new organisation that is coming to terms with it's role and membership? It hasn't yet been going long enough to have an annual membership renewal - so fresh as paint then?

Did you ask him what he reads to keep up to date with developments; if so, what were his answers? The HCST represents it's members, as does the OSC. The HCST is trying to be transparent, not just with its membership, but with everyone. Is the OSC, TOM?

Who is it believes they are always right all of the time, I don't, you say you do, but who are the others who do? Somebody, at some stage simply needs to stop the waffle, make a (democratic) decision and get on with it - do you think he might have agreed with that?

Isn't each group only representative of the views and aspirations of those who can be bothered to join them and a select few, those who can be bothered to run them? Why should they change what they do (unless they are freeloaders) to pander to those who can't be arsed. My best guess is that in the fullness of time, when the HCST has had as long to develop as the OSC, that folk will look at what they do, what they offer and they will make fresh, better informed decisions.

How is it that you want the OSC to do what it does best etc. What is your view of the group you are associated with. You can check the HCST website out for theirs.

If all he wants to do is watch a game of football then he will have absolutely no problem meeting that need, or have I missed something?

 

I just see the OSC as mainly of benefit to locals. Weirdly I feel too far north from the HCSS too.

Long as I can watch footy played by my team though, it's all good.

 

Getting back to this idea, it would take a decent initial plan, but it has lots of merit. Something that can be worn in photo shoots at world-wide landmarks and locations, by City supporters. It could develop and be planned as it moves, maybe by opportunity than purpose. There could be more than one - home (domestic)/away (abroad) - there could be a blog on here (others could copy it) - it could search out ex-players and staff - it could celebrate memories - aye, it's a good idea.

 

Surely that's back to front?

If the trust want to represent fans, the onus is on them to find out what fans want, by amongst other things, listening to fans and considering their views, not being defensive towards anyone making suggestions.

Changing it from the inside would be difficult, if not impossible, unless those on the trust committee believe it needs to change. I see more benefit in the FWG, which is far from perfect but has a wider range of fans feeding into it, and a more open process, by feeding in and getting feedback from here. The trust could work with that.

 

Aye, it should be fairly straightforward to coordinate too. It could maybe just be an informal thing done on here.

 

I do not totally disagree, but I believe it is a point that is overplayed until the Trust can really get up and running and get a bit of development time behind them. Maybe, just maybe they are defensive for a reason. I certainly do not believe that constantly lambasting them for not conforming to your view of how they should progress is helpful, either. Contrary to you, I am becoming convinced that they should back off discussion one here, there is too much mischief and too many old slights; it is not particularly helpful to anyone - the sooner they get their own forum up and running the better.

Changing it from the inside would be very simple - they need a membership to exist and, if you are right, then that will be their Achilles Heel; there is also the question of re-election of officers, unless no one else is prepared to challenge them. Of course there is the other version, when some or all get sick to the back teeth of having to justify trying to get something started that could be good and they leave a vacuum. Trying to get this too right, too early is a limiter that they do not need; folk are fickle and opinions will change towards them, but they need a bit of space to grow and no measure of demands will change that.

I prefer the Trust as it is separate from the club - the FWG is too easily manipulated, NOT 606 is, by its nature anonymous. The Trust has agreed to seriously look at cooperating with other groups, the silence of the OSC is deafening.

 

I don't constantly lambast them for not conforming to my views, I point out where tbey're being misleading, or not conforming to their views.

I believe a forum of their own will achieve little with regard to being inclusive or demonstrating they're representative, that's better achieved by reaching out, not withdrawing in.

The FWG is far, far harder to manipulate than private conversations about suggestions nobody sees the origins of. There are too many different individuals and groups and minutes to manipulate the FWG to any great degree.

 

Fez,
The family we met are local to Hull, there were several interesting comments, one of them was about Hull City supporters fighting and how it was putting him off going to games. We had the normal type of chat about the transfers in and out etc.
I really do not know what makes someone an ordinary supporter, no one does. But I think he described himself as one.

As for the OSC being silent, our members will be able to read the interviews with Michael Dawson and Steve Bruce in the next edition of the Tiger Mag. Our junior members have just had a great time at the academy. Steve Moran was our pre match ex player interview before the Preston match and a summary is on the web site. We have new members on our board, changed roles for some of the directors and we are looking forward to developing the OSC benefits, to encourage a wider membership. We will of course continue to talk to the club about a wide range of subjects and will take part in the FWG.

You say that you prefer the trust because it is seperate from the club, but just how much longer will it remain as such? Will it feel the constraints of a relationship at some point?

Doesn't the trust already have a forum, that it carried over from CTWD? I thought it was still using it.

As for transparency, there is no clamour for publication of the submission. The board have had other things to discuss as well and it is as far as I am aware something that will be done when we get around to it. If you read back though this post, we are a new board and in some respects still finding our feet.

 

It's as much about perception as it is about fact. I believe many are more sick of the bickering than the policies, procedures or personalities; most, if not all of the personalities are, as yet, fairly anonymous to most.

I believe that their forum could be as effective and inclusive as any other, but it needs development time in every aspect. There are many ways of reaching out and many excellent reasons for doing so, just as there are many ways of embracing your membership and a forum is but one such way. The Trust's best disciples are a satisfied membership, who feel listened to and not excluded. New membership is very important, but these disciples (a growing faction of Hull City support) are essential to development and governance. This isn't all about the endless creation of initiatives, as at some point, the few must implement them.

I have seen comments from FWG members saying that what has been agreed during their discussion has not been implemented. I believe that I have seen it said that the club has implemented some FWG ideas, although memory lends me the thought these were something the club saw as advantageous. It seems that the casting vote is always that of the club, the hand of the lever of execution always the club, invitations and official minutes (or lack of them) are the club. I see this as manipulation.

 

If a claim is made, it's there to be questioned. It's sod all to do with the personalities, that's just something others attribute to it. If the cl aims were not dubious, there'd be nothing to question.

Your comments about FWG, I'm not really sure which specific bit you're on about, but your example isn't manipulation. However, anything that can be done in a diverse group, representing a broad saith of support and with published minutes and a written agenda, can surely be amplified with a single group representing less people in private.