Really? You do not read something a tad different? There is a clue, or two, below. Is the OSC making any recommendations, as they do not mention any? They do mention looking forward to the further details (I don't think these were the eventual revisions, were they?)
I am not and was not trying to do anything other than point out that the OSC expressed a view that was valid at the time with the information available. You definitely posted the above. "I can understand" indicates opinion though doesn't it?
Any supporters club that thinks it is okay to force fans out of seats, put up senior prices 50% and misread the family problems is not representative of fans and to use the word 'welcomes' in the scheme is deplorable in my opinion
Why would they advertise them? The one thing they will have learnt by now is that you are more likely to get what you want from the Allams if you don't make a public fuss.
I think it was about that point that I made OLM aware that he was coming across as a bit of an Allam apologist, someone else mentions a day or two later (whether he accepted the concern is unknown, as I simply received more of his rapier wit in response). I was clear he is not such a beast, as was the other guy, but his posts did tend to give that impression, unless you read them in their entirety and how they were intended. What you have done, in selecting elements out of context to the conversation and the other content of his posts, is exactly the piss-poor posting style we see on here all too often. You have made your position clear, now try standing by it and not attempting to belittle the words of others as some childish smokescreen.
And yet people still say it's the Allams that set fan against fan. Strikes me, a few could do to lose their fragile egos, and we could all focus on the actual problems together.
Could not agree more. However the morons at Middlesboro who let off those stink bombs/flairs need a good slap for sure. Even when I pointed out 3 of them the Middlesboro stewards did nothing. Maybe they thought the ones thrown out pre-game were enough. We just don't need scumbags like that. As for Ehab Allam attending games........................
Which part of this was valid at the time, or even now? "One of the major advantages to the scheme is that it should make the cost of a match day more affordable to families." Help me out. A family of Dad, Son 12, Daughter 8 sat in S4 (last year total - £595) (coming year - £972). More affordable? A family of Gran 68, Grandad 68, Grandson 10, Granddaughter 8 sat in LW6 (last year - £886) (coming year - £2448). More affordable? A family of Brother 16, brother, 14 & younger brother 12 sat in E6 (last year - £394) (coming year - £1494). More affordable? A family of Grandad 68, Dad 40 & Son 8 sat in N4 (last year - £898) (coming year - £1242). More affordable? Obviously this is all based on the information available to you when you made the claim that the new scheme "should make the cost of a match day more affordable to families".
I never claimed to know. It is how I would expect them to work. No comment about the Trust's statement that they will be working up alternative proposals and sending them to the club? Bit different from we'll wait until the revisions will be announced. From TOM's analysis of the effects of the price structure I wouldn't surprised if they suggested changes to the family pricing, the closure of upper west and the rates for older supporters. When the club make their announcement we'll see how much influence the OSC has. If you are right then they'll have very little influence. If that's the case all this jousting about who is the best supporters organisation will mean nothing. Hull City supporters are so divided that the Allams can just do what suits them.
Some of them can move into a part of the South Stand and get it cheaper. An Allam said it was fairer so we should all accept it, like Happy does with most of their ideas.
Let me make this clear. The OSC issued a statement that was based on the clubs own statement. We had no prior knowledge of the scheme as our rep was bound by the NDA. The planned meeting between that club and the OSC was overtaken by Burnsy's scoop. There is no smokescreen, others believed there to be advantages to the scheme and welcomed the concept. OLM took a lot of flak from some on here. I have not taken any of OLM's posts out of concept. As I wrote and published a spreadsheet, that outlined the effects of the pricing and gave access to whoever wanted it, I think I did my bit to demonstrate the issues. I posted a version of this spreadsheet on here. Instead of focusing what was on the statement, which was only based on the information available, I took the time to analyse it. I went a stage further and looked at different price structures for the South Stand. I made a working version of the spreadsheet available to a member of the FWG and I have no idea if he used it or passed it around. I have also had several PM conversations with others on here who are willing to look at the scheme and are willing to give up time to find a solution should there be a need. It was an OSC statement made at the early stages of what has turned out to be a protracted business. Many things have happened since. But like everyone else the OSC does not know the details of the changes.
Nobody has shared any info with the FWG as a whole, the messages going backward and forward were largely centred around whether there would be a meeting or not and what's happening next (though I believe most FWG members have sent details of their concerns directly to the club). The only party who've shared their opinion on what should happen next is Amber Nectar, who've suggested the whole thing is sacked off until next summer.
