They're not allowed at the moment, largely for reasons already posted, but that doesn't stop the two roles being complimentary.
Its always the fans that have to be accommodating, tolerant, understanding, sympathetic to the club. The club hold all the cards, they have the money and the authority. People say if the Trust wants to represent fans it has to be nice to the club and its owners. Even if the fans are nice the owners will only lie, cheat, and manipulate them. The FWG is a prime example, if you have read Muffin's post detailing his attendence at those meetings. The FWG a collection of fans from all walks of life who all want the best for the club, and then the club ignore all what has been discussed and do what they want anyway and at the same time use the meetings as an example of the club and fans working together. Rather than telling fans to bend over even more there are one or two on here who need to open their eyes.
Is it still 2014 on this thread? The Trust has moved on to new and interesting projects that benefit City fans in the long term, while still providing a voice for fans when the club does things that fans do not appreciate. It may well be that the membership scheme is the next such "thing", although the Trust will consult its members first before fully defining it's position. People engaging with the Trust are seeing this change. Incidentally, the Trust has always had, and continues to have, a dialogue with the football club about important matters. It's not perfect but it's there, and it makes a positive difference. And it's slowly improving too.
I wouldn't disagree, but it still makes it pretty much either, do what it takes to campaign to replace them, preferably with a buyer in mind, or learn how to deal with them. Just calling them ****s about things they may or may not have done and then wondering why they won't talk to you achieves nothing.
That has never been the Trust's approach, or even an approximate characterisation of the Trust's approach. I simply wouldn't have ever allowed it, because it breaches the Trust's rules.
I think you're maybe separating official comments from those of some board members posting on here. Not everyone separates them in that way and it reflects on the trust.
Then say that the first time. The Trust can't and shouldn't vet every personal opinion of its board members, any more than any other organisation should. To illustrate, I have taken exception to 1-2 things that The Omega Man has said to me in the past about his approach to matters relating to football clubs and supporters organisations. Does that mean that I decry the OSC, where he is a senior officer, for holding the views expressed by TOM? Of course not, because it would be a ridiculous construct. I'm able to differentiate between the views of individuals and the views of organisations to which those individuals are members. I think having that ability is pretty normal.
The OSC is doing commendable work raising money for charity. Children In Need also does commendable work raising money for charity, the scale is different, that is all. But let us be clear, it is the BBC's Children In Need, just as it is Hull City's Official Supporters Club. HCOSC exists because of the official approval of the club; so as not to lose sight of reality, that means it exists due to the largesse of Assem and Ehab Allam. The accounts of HCOSC might show financial distance (are there any operating funds from the club, or facilities granted FOC?), but that is nothing without that one word 'Official' and without that, what are they? A social events organisation that needs access to the goodwill of another business? Let's not compare the two any more and, for the time being, forget complimentary activities, as that would be more dishonest than the owners and their acolytes. I do agree that HCST Board members should refrain from public insult directed at the owners - no matter how richly deserved it is. (PLT is the one being discussed on here). I think internet twattery has lost touch with reality, humour is a thin veil to hide sarcastic nonsense, insults and dishonesty seem to be the new parlance of everyday conversation. If the new HCST Board feel that Ryan is okay to continue defending his right to use this, or any other board to vent his spleen in those terms, then they have it wrong. With position comes responsibility; operational and moral. Criticise where appropriate, but in terms appropriate to whatever status you hold in representing others. I have no issue with ongoing communication with the club, but I do believe that collaboration, such as the FWG, should be curtailed until the club accepts that collaboration to be a two-way street - which it very clearly is not.
I didn't think anyone would mix the two up, so saw no need to mention what I think is obvious. If you think people don't link the two, that's your prerogative, but not my experience. The hip flask alone should highlight that. Ignoring it is foolish. Hopefully, Geoff's more considered approach and communication skills will help the trust move forward.
I briefly read the last minutes of the trust last night. The trust are ready with a questionnaire for the new earn your stripes stuff. But the next meeting of the trust isn't till the 6 th June. Surely the trust should be meeting before then as that will be too late?
Perhaps there'll be an extraordinary meeting called when the final details are actually published (I haven't missed them have I?!) I think there should be for the reason you suggest
I had hoped that lessons were learned and that the Trust had moved forward on this issue of communications and ad hoc comment; clearly that's not the case and that is a concern. If HCST Board members and representatives do not understand the difference between expressing reasonable exasperation, in the right tone and language, and in the right place, to simply expressing foul-mouthed insults in very public discussion forums, then I must consider whether or not I am prepared to be represented by them and I think the answer is no, I'm not.
I thought everyone posted on here anonymously? A few people think they know me, but not many, and anyway they're wrong I'm not me Presumably PLT is the same and isn't himself either?!
I inadvertently posted my name, which wasn't an issue for me, as quite a few know it/me anyway, although I don't encourage it's everyday use. PLT, like OLM and AlRawdah, has made his name known through this board and others and I think that is now beyond doubt; my double naming simply placed his board use to his Board status in context - it's what was being discussed. To regain anonymity would take a new account and no-one has multiple accounts on here, do they?
We communicate every day via email and we can usually sort out most things out that way. We won't be waiting for a meeting to sort out our response to the membership scheme.
As my user name has been mentioned I suppose I should respond. I support any and all supporter involvement. I support the trusts objectives I did not support any protest within the stadium or personally against the owners. I do not believe that anything will ever be gained by insulting others in these situations. I suggested a supporter group conference last year and I personally would still support one now. I am an individual member of the FSF and support its general aims and campaigns. There is a reason that I joined the OSC and that was to fulfil a desire to be able to socialise with other City supporters at matches. It has worked for me, match day is full of greeting and chattng to other supporters, where in the past, having a pre match pint with me Dad sort of isolated me. I became involved, because I could gain from the experience of working in a supporters group and I believed that I could also "give" something. I have benefited personally, but not financially. I have learnt more about the way that football actually works though not directly through the OSC. I want the trust to succeed, but I felt it needed to change its board and I am glad that it has. I applaud the work done by the original board in getting it as far as it has got. I just never felt able to join it and I actually still don't, which is something that I regret. Some of the personal attacks on here and on other forums on the OSC were unwarranted and when made by posters who were in positions of responsibility, they just made me want to distance myself from them. The Trust will have the same problem as the OSC, if it develops its links to the club. The closer that it gets to the club, the less independent it will become. AlRawdah got me wrong with a statement that I made re the Hull Rules group, I said that the OSC would promote and support the group, it does, but only in the same way that it supports other things like CRY. It does not have any influence within the group and it never will. If it tried I would leave the OSC board. Hull Rules is still moving forward, it is a massive task, though and AlRawdah's input is and will be missed. As has been said the OSC is totally reliant on the club, without that support, it would simply not function. It does not have any financial support from the club or the owners. The OSC needed to modernise and I hope that I have been a part of that process. I believe that in the past if every season pass holder was a member of the OSC, it would have been capable of representing the supporter base. I still struggle with the concept that the OSC or Trust represent supporters rather than they represent their membership. That membership is made up of one or two demographics and can only represent them. It may seem hard to accept, but if the full supporter base really cared about the name change for instance, the CTWD membership would have been in tens of thousands. I'm no having a go, just pointing out that there was a fundamental flaw in both the OSC and CTWD being seen as representative of the supporters, they only represented their membership. As for the membership scheme, I don't have any information other than what is in the public domain and I certainly cannot express a view on here that condemns or supports something that I have not seen yet.
Don't bloody come on here spouting all of your common sense and making well thought out rationale points! FFS
