Why Ehab needs to start attending matches

Indeed, but it's done now and it's release is not far off.

And when I said rumours, I meant Burnsy being told what's being amended.
Either way I can see why the Trust would wait before an 'official' position, but I don't see why the views and feelings of supporters who were previously told might be affected should be gathered and passed onto the club. Nor why those views couldn't be shared publicly at an early stage, long before a position is taken whether to fight against it or not
 
Either way I can see why the Trust would wait before an 'official' position, but I don't see why the views and feelings of supporters who were previously told might be affected should be gathered and passed onto the club. Nor why those views couldn't be shared publicly at an early stage, long before a position is taken whether to fight against it or not

Plenty of people have let the club know what they thought of the initial plans, so have plenty of groups and the Trust have already stated their position (it is that they will wait to see the finished version, but hope it's been amended significantly from what was initially announced and they'll be canvassing all fans as soon as the details are known).
 
Plenty of people have let the club know what they thought of the initial plans, so have plenty of groups and the Trust have already stated their position (it is that they will wait to see the finished version, but hope it's been amended significantly from what was initially announced and they'll be canvassing all fans as soon as the details are known).
Let's hope there's more than 7 days to comply this time then !
 
Whether it was the right or wrong thing to have an NDA is debatable, but it was there and accepted by those that attended.

To breach that at a period where bridges are trying to be built with the club for me is very much retrograde step.

I would be interested in whether those attending were given an agenda and an heads-up on the subject the NDA was protecting.

Personally, I think the whole nature of the membership scheme they had devised, in particular the loss of concessions and the blatant exploitation in increasing the charges for children, whose desire to attend is moral blackmail of their parents, is nothing less than a total bloody disgrace. The use of an NDA to hide it was both divisive and incredibly foolish if they really wanted it to be secret - that group was just way too diverse and involved, socially and financially. It fully deserved a whistleblower and I applaud them. Bollocks to building bridges with arsehole.
 
Last edited:
I disagree

The only similar event to gauge how it might be handled is the E1-3 evictions, and if they are handled in the same way (and we have no reason to believe that they won't be) there will be precisely no time at all to arrange any type of protest and hope that changes would be made
By the time I found out I was to be moved I had 7 days to get together with the group I went with, decide what seats we would get, and then all turn up, together, at the same time, in person, to get our new seats.
As it turned out that was logistically impossible to do, so waiting until that point to argue is the thing that would be absolutely no point.

The club have publicly said that some pass holders will be moved and haven't done anything to suggest that will be turned round. If I was one of them then I would be using the time now to protest, because later it will be pointless and impossible to achieve in my experience. That would be better achieved both individually and as a group

What would you do, can you offer a timetable of how, from reading their website, to now, you would have achieved it? Can you add how you would amend your actions subject to any revisions, which have been postponed, as would your plans. Who would you have in mind to attend and run the event, what is their availability? Let's deal with some realities and not some hypothetical 'would-have-dones'.
 
Either way I can see why the Trust would wait before an 'official' position, but I don't see why the views and feelings of supporters who were previously told might be affected should be gathered and passed onto the club. Nor why those views couldn't be shared publicly at an early stage, long before a position is taken whether to fight against it or not

Are you asking all of this of the HCOSC, too?
 
I would be interested in whether those attending were given an agenda and an heads-up on the subject the DNA was protecting.

Personally, I think the whole nature of the membership scheme they had devised, in particular the loss of concessions and the blatant exploitation in increasing the charges for children, whose desire to attend is moral blackmail of their parents, is nothing less than a total bloody disgrace. The use of an NDA to hide it was both divisive and incredibly foolish if they really wanted it to be secret - that group was just way too diverse and involved, socially and financially. It fully deserved a whiteboard and I applaud them. Bollocks to building bridges with arsehole.rseho

National Dyslexia Association?

There's a possibility the club knew full well that some couldn't contain themselves if they'd been given a secret, and expected it to be leaked.

Sadly, if that excited individual wasn't part of a formal group, their actions will have given an excuse for the club to trim back what talks there have been with formal groups, even if it's only initially. If they were part of a group, it should limit the fall out primarily to that one group, dependant on what they do about it, and if it was an independent action.

The action may or may not have been done with a view that it benefits all, but there's a fair possibility the fall out can cause set backs.
 
National Dyslexia Association?

There's a possibility the club knew full well that some couldn't contain themselves if they'd been given a secret, and expected it to be leaked.

Sadly, if that excited individual wasn't part of a formal group, their actions will have given an excuse for the club to trim back what talks there have been with formal groups, even if it's only initially. If they were part of a group, it should limit the fall out primarily to that one group, dependant on what they do about it, and if it was an independent action.

The action may or may not have been done with a view that it benefits all, but there's a fair possibility the fall out can cause set backs.

<laugh> Predictive bollocks!!

That possibility is exactly what I think; they have used it to their own ends.

There are always set-backs with the Allams, it is what they do.
 
It was clarified some time back that the two groups have differing raison's d'etre.

This has an impact on their membership, they attended the FWG and shared the 3 hour presentation, they signed that NDA and their Communications Director has thrown a Bluey on here about it, so I do not see any harm in asking them what, if anything they have or will be doing in their capacity as an official supporters group.
 
I would be interested in whether those attending were given an agenda and an heads-up on the subject the NDA was protecting.

Personally, I think the whole nature of the membership scheme they had devised, in particular the loss of concessions and the blatant exploitation in increasing the charges for children, whose desire to attend is moral blackmail of their parents, is nothing less than a total bloody disgrace. The use of an NDA to hide it was both divisive and incredibly foolish if they really wanted it to be secret - that group was just way too diverse and involved, socially and financially. It fully deserved a whistleblower and I applaud them. Bollocks to building bridges with arsehole.[/QUOTE

Great post Fez

100% agree

I would have had to tell fans IF i had been in the know... **** the NDA

No concessions is a ****ing disgrace IF they go ahead with such a vile idea.
 
At least we have that settled, there was no HCST.

Are you sure they want to join their world? I thought they wanted to get the best for their members and the wider supporting community and that, from experience, means not joining their world. That does not preclude them from taking up a limited board position, if ever one were offered and it certainly wouldn't prevent them attending the FWG - although my thoughts on that are known.

The membership scheme is to be announced, until it is no one knows jack. I don't know where you get 8,000 lost supporters from, or how you blame any losses purely on any new membership scheme. Are these the type of details you would expect to be discussed at some strange preemptive meeting? No new announcement is forthcoming, although one source, or another, has been predicting one for a while now, so it is difficult to judge major meetings and initiatives on this basis.

The pros and cons of the scheme have been discussed to death and not relevant to our discussion.

It is my understanding, from comment on here and elsewhere, that we will lose those players anyway, so what big payroll?

I believe the Trust has offered to talk to the club, on numerous occasions - I'm sure they will clear that one up; perhaps it might be more reasonable of you to expect the club to respond.

How on earth do you know they would have recruited many more members by talking to them? You are making stuff up to support your criticism and to try and put some nice romantic solution in place - the Allams do not talk to anyone, that is and always has been the problem. You seem to have learned very little from the duration of their ownership, their statements, interviews, actions, lies and manipulation.

All academic as the Trust didn't do any of the things I suggested.
 
If the rumours are to be believed, nobody will have to move out of the South, though I've no idea what will happen to the West Upper now promotion is looking increasingly unlikely. As we should still find out in a matter of days, I still think it's better to find out what's being done before campaigning about it.

If the Allams carry on as they are, we'll be at Ferriby in a few years time! :emoticon-0101-sadsm
 
Are you asking all of this of the HCOSC, too?
I wasn't particularly asking it of the Trust even (although I accept it does look like that as the conversation developed)
If you look back at the start of my points I was simply saying that I disagreed with OLMs view that "there's absolutely no point in the South Stand or West Upper pass holders getting together until they know if they'll have to move or not."
I'm of the view that if I was one of them I would want to get together with people in a similar position before the club announce the final position and use that get together to get a feeling for people's views and what they were happy to do about it, if anything. That is based on my experience of the ludicrous timescales when they announced the East Stand evictions.
As it happens if I was one of those then, as a member of both the Trust and the OSC then yes I would ask both for assistance with facilitating that "getting together" either virtually or in person somewhere
But I'm not. Because I don't have a season ticket now due to being evicted in such a short timescale that we never got properly sorted and there was never the 'attachment' to the new seats or surrounding people

I'm not picking a fight...I'm entirely comfortable that people disagree with me..,I just hope that other pass holders aren't dealt with the way we were, because it was ****
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fez and DMD
What would you do, can you offer a timetable of how, from reading their website, to now, you would have achieved it? Can you add how you would amend your actions subject to any revisions, which have been postponed, as would your plans. Who would you have in mind to attend and run the event, what is their availability? Let's deal with some realities and not some hypothetical 'would-have-dones'.
I think I've answered some of this before I saw this post
(It is a rubbish quiz though!)
As I said after reading the website I would have asked both the Trust and OSC whether they were planning on doing anything about it before the revisions
I would have been told no (I realise there are things being done, but you know what I mean)
I would probably have asked if a message could be passed round other expected evictees to see whether there were enough people wanting to get together to express their concerns.
I wouldn't need to revise anything because I would be expressing my views about the info on the website. When the revisions are published I'd probably revise my view
If that couldn't have been done then I would have probably looked for like minded souls on here or other sites
If there were enough people interested I would have suggested getting together or at least getting a shared view of concerns. Whether that would be virtually or in person would depend on numbers
At the same time I would have expressed my personal views to the club. I just think that a group of people who might be affected could also have put a strong point to the club too. Ideally publicly.

If the announcement, whatever it is, gives people enough time to plan / protest then it might have been wasted effort
However the only similar thing the club did before was done in haste and if replicated would mean it would be virtually impossible for any arguments / expression of views after the event.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fez