The trust never were vehemently anti-Allam, different members had different opinions on the owners, but there was never any desire from the group as a whole to campaign against them.
"That's why you put so many people off" I'm starting to think you're doing this irony thing on purpose now.
It's a point you shouldn't take lightly. People read comments on here from trust members, and, rightly or wrongly directly associate them with the trust. As more people read this than the trust site, it will be a considerable factor in their decision making, and comments and attitude will contribute too. I'd be surprised if the club don't read the posts and draw similar conclusions. 'They started it' is not going to sway too many people when it comes to exchanges of abuse.
So you think you can talk for every other City supporter? His views represent mine, and others I know.
I take it lightly because I know Happy is in a very small and weird minority in the way he thinks. The only people that ever complain about me or the Trust are the same two or three on here and the same two or three on Twitter. They've always got hundreds and thousands of mates who think the same as them but don't have Internet access to post it themselves. They're also obviously people who would never join the Trust because they disagreed with us on the name change and will never accept that they got it wrong there. I'm much more interested in the rest of the fanbase.
If people like PLT weren't involved with the Trust then I wouldn't be a member. There has to be a view from all sides, to represent as many people as possible.
I am Graeme Hull on facebook And Graeme Maguire in the trust Im not in the Anonymous group of lefty Trouble causers
I expect the trust to fight no concessions For kids or pensioners as much as they did the name change. Allams out
Ehab picked a good game to attend, there was more Allam Out chanting on Saturday than there's been at any other game this season. I wonder if that will have any bearing on what happens with the membership scheme. Probably not.
It's not a case of honesty in that way, it's about perceptions and image. The trust are trying to push a message that says they're not anti-Allam, yet their chairman has that message on a public web-site. If they want to be taken seriously in contact with the club, then I'd argue it sends the wrong message.
That's fine, but I suspect it works more the other way. Having that comment (and others) in a public domain gives the people trying to talk to the club an unnecessary hurdle to overcome.
Your prerogative. Have you looked at why, despite numerous current issues with the club, the trust membership numbers are falling?
When there's a crisis, trust memberships go up, when there isn't they go down. It's the same at all clubs, people just can't be arsed unless there's a specific event/events that motivate them to do something.
There's isn't any point in you, or anyone else not saying what they think, that's not the issue. The issue is the way that the trust is perceived, and as was shown by flask gate, messages like those in PLT's sig, given his position, leave people with the impression that the trust is anti-Allam, when the trust itself says that they're not. It's possibly one reason why, despite there being numerous crisis events, which should show an increase in membership, trust numbers seem to be dropping.
You suspect but do you know? Do you have any evidence for this? If all the Trust board were Allam sycophants I certainly wouldn't want to be a member.
I have probably as much evidence as you have for the opposite. It was a factor when the flag fund was discussed, it was a factor for flask gate and is something to consider for the recruitment officer of the trust to see how much of an effect it's having on the apparent decline in numbers.
