Very true. Geoff is doing a grand job in getting the message out there, but sadly, some people will only believe what they want to believe, and can find ways of justifying their choice. Others are signing as a form of continued protection, as for example, a "culled" membership scheme could produce some interesting votes of support.
Like commas and apostrophes the presence or absence of a question mark can alter the meaning of a sentence. Don't go drawing up any contracts on a Friday afternoon.
Some, like myself, are still continuing to buy tickets and attend games. I can't stand the Allams (or Bruce for that matter) but I won't be forced out of supporting the team.
There will also be a significant number of supporters who, despite everything that has happened, still trust the club. I understand them, but it's all really very sad.
I do know a couple of lads like that, but I don't think it's my place to try and influence them. I've had a word, but I shouldn't push it. It's a free country.
It is, but it was obvious from the start (maybe not posted, I don't know) The price change option was effectively the flip side of the fact that there is the potential of everyone cancelling the direct debits as s protest
So they've been selling the soul of the club since the beginning of their 'tenure' - now they're asking the willing punters to sell their souls as well ... please log in to view this image
The first time they talked about 5 quid tickets, gift to the community, football should be free, like air...it was so disgustingly obvious they were only in it for profit. Thank goodness they never managed to con HCC into "gifting" them the stadium - it would have been far worse. The problem is that the mistakes they have made in this whole endeavor of theirs is that the degree of shafting of supporters is much more damaging to supporters and the club in general. Odious snake-oil salesmen is all I can say.
It's very debatable, but in some suggested outcomes, we could have been better off if they'd got it, as it's suggested they had a buyer set up for a quick sale dependent on getting the stadium and land. All hypothetical as there's no guarantee the buyer existed, or that they'd have sold, or that the buyer wouldn't have been as bad or worse.
We'll never know But personally I'm happier that the Council own the ground as despite some criticism of the council it gives an amount of stability
True. Even if there was a buyer in the background, they don't exactly sound as though they had the football club at the heart of their plans. If there is any truth in the story at all, it sounds more like something aimed at helping the previous owners sell up rather than a serious buyer existing.
