As you put "we", presumably that's a trust post? As you're ex chairman, and current vice, do you think your sig is conducive to encouraging dialogue with the club?
TOM, apologies if mentioning you in my earlier post prompted you to respond in this thread. I wasn't having a go, I was simply using our past discussions as an example of how we all separate personal views from the position of the organisations we are members of. And for the record, none of the things you quoted about were what I was referring to, it's in the past and it is gone.
Therein lies the problem. There are a significant number of City supporters that don't want anything to do with the club whilst the Allams own it. PLT's signature represents those supporters. The more important question, however, is, does the club want a dialogue with the fans? The evidence I've seen is they don't really. Far too often it is take it or leave it. If we were 10 points clear at the top would they have had another look at the membership scheme? I doubt it. The simple fact is, we may miss out on promotion and they could be more dependant on our money next season. I don't expect many to agree with me but I think they have screwed up as owners of our football club. Its not just the name change. They should have sacked Bruce the Christmas before we got relegated. They've let Bruce waste millions on players that haven't performed. The evictions from the East Stand backfired on relegation, as large areas of the KC have to be left empty. It also resulted in many supporters not renewing and finding something else to do on a match day. They had no idea about generating a buzz about our promotion charge. Airco poisoned a generation of future supporters against City by evicting them from the arena.
I'm afraid you're wrong there Obi. His signature doesnt represent anyone. His Vice Chairing the Trust does. There's the contradiction. I've always felt the Trust have been too afraid of stating what they really think. I think they should come out as vehemently anti Allam and i think PLT wants that. They've just fence sat and thats why the membership hasnt increased, in fact its falling off a cliff now. They've made some huge errors with their stated aims also.
I meant PLT's signature represents the feelings of those supporters who want the Allams to go. I think the Trust isn't anti-Allam and has tried to build bridges with the club. Whether they should have is another matter.
Yes, representing seems to be getting used in place of reflecting in this particular part of the discussion.
It can't really be both ways though Obi. As a chair/vice chair on the trust, and commenting as "we", that sig is perceived as a trust view, or at least linked with it. It may well just be PLT's personal opinion and I respect his right to hold it, but given his role, I don't see as a positive attempt to build bridges and encourage dialogue, particularly after other comments, and the flask.
It represents the views of those supporters who think enough is enough according to the Cambridge English Dictionary.
I think that is up to the Trust to sort out. If they want to have a more harmonious relationship with the club PLT will eventually remove his signature. Whether that will do the Trust any good is another matter. Personally I think it is up to the club to build bridges with those disaffected supporters, of which PLT is only one of many. Not the other way around. I suspect they won't try and we'll carry on as before. Whether it has a disastrous affect on the club will depend on us winning at Wembley.
In an ideal world, yes, the Club should be reaching out to the supporters, as we are a significant part of "the Club" or at least we should be. The reality is, the evidence so far is that they're unlikely to do that in any meaningful way, so we either sit back and let it turn to ratshit, or try to encourage them to talk. If the trust want to encourage them to listen and engage, I don't see sigs like that and other comments as being productive.
I only ever use this site on my phone using the app now, so I don't even see signatures; I've only remembered what it says because of the last few posts before this one. I forgot I had a signature actually. It probably isn't conducive in all honesty no. I'm not sure if I was even involved in HCST when I wrote it. I read someone else use it about a year ago and thought it summed up my feelings very well, so copied it. I might get rid of it. As I've mentioned to you before though, I find it hard to accept that this is a controversial view. I understand yours and Fez's points about people knowing who I am etc. and having to tone it down for that, but I hate the idea that being against certain people for no other reason than that they have done bad things can be wrong. I think they get an incredible amount of leeway and benefit of doubt (except it's not doubt it's deliberately underhand and secretive) and every time they hurt someone new it gets largely brushed under the carpet for one reason or another, while some people even celebrate it. I learnt this week that one of the young kids in our academy who went on that recent Italy trip for the memorial tournament thing couldn't afford a passport, so the club paid the £80 for him to get one, and then after the trip sent his family a demand for them to pay it back at £10 a month. Totally pathetic yet almost predictable. There's absolutely loads of these little things with City under the Allams. Again maybe it's my youth/naivety but I find it hard to accept that you can't criticise these people. Who actually can hold them to account? When they don't own something they just take it; when they get taken to court they can afford more expensive lawyers than the opposition so they get away with it. If they behaved this way in charge of a well-known company they'd be widely despised like Murdoch etc and people would boycott their products. I realise that I need to resist the lazy temptation of writing a single four letter word in place of rants like the above. I don't generally have time for all this though, and people don't half post some bollocks in defence of them. For example let's not forget how this exchange started; it was another of Happy's ridiculously over the top angry reactions to the honesty of an Allam being called into question. I suppose he's probably achieved what he wanted from that
There's nothing at all wrong with that signature if that is your opinion, and I've no reason to doubt that it is. Where this issue comes (for me) is that you are commenting as someone whose associated at a high level with a group that is seemingly wanting to work with the club. In fact, in the post in question, you were commenting as the trust. Having different views to the Allams on how the club should be run would be self evident from the request for talks. Trying to engage them in dialogue when your stated aim is for them to go sets it off on the wrong foot, if it doesn't stall things totally. Whether we like it or not, and it doesn't mean they should be able to do what they want, but they do hold the cards as far as control is concerned. I've said earlier that I see Geoff's role as a positive, and from my limited dealings with him, I think he stands a chance of making in roads as far as dialogue goes. It'll be easier if potential hurdles were kept to a minimum.
Just stop publicly questionning what the fraudsters do and you'll be alright. Either that or you need to post your tax return, since that's the in thing this week.
Bless ya. So you still think that, but think you should remove it because it looks bad. Nice morals there along with standing by your principles and being honest. Of course you want to blame me. It's always someone else's fault. Someone else should always make the effort, or the consessions. I guess you're just typical of your generation and its sense of entitlement. You seem to have a problem distinguishing between criticising and hostile and offensive insults. That's why you put so many people off. I guess that's their fault though. Not sure why you mention Murdoch, I'm pretty sure he's raking it in and is currently happy as a pig in ****.
