There are plenty of lessons that can be learned from the past. It does no good for some to try to rewrite mistakes to try to make it look like they never happened. Your post helps highlight the need for the club and others to talk to fans and to get as wide a perspective as possible from people with experience, and also from those that should be the future. It also shows that fans can do things in spite of external factors. I think sometimes, one issue becomes an obsession, and leaches into too many others. Being right about one thing, doesn't lead to being right about everything, any more than getting some things wrong means everything is wrong. Sometimes right and wrong are a matter of which perspective you view it from. There will never be a one size fits all answer, but the impact on those that feel negatively affected can be minimised, but only if it''s acknowledged.
You did say this, without a doubt. The fact also remains that for anything to result from the lessons learnt, there needed to be, and still does need to be, a two-way dialogue between club and supporters - these days it is totally unremarkable that this obvious way forward still escapes the club. Some, over the years, have spoken to the club, unfortunately they always come to realise it makes no difference whatsoever; some things might change when it suits the club, or SAG, but nothing that really matters to the supporters. I can't be arsed to trawl back either (will the search ever be fixed?) but I recall that where it got tetchy between you and other posters it was mainly because you seemed to use the issue as a club to bash the CTWD and then HCST committees (rather that an individual - which has changed over time) and what you claimed to be their inaction and lack of support. I won't go into the counter-arguments as they are done, but suffice to say that there was fault on all sides. I have no idea who, from that CTWD committee (they were all named on their website, etc.), is accused of being a party to that early move - I have just followed the link and seen this Exiled City AFC, whoever that is; why we have never been told I don't know, as it tends to taint others on the committee and makes the constant referring to it no more than a gripe, which certainly eroded your point. It does seem to me that he has admitted his error (finally or not), resigned the things that drove his good intentions and everyone should move on from it, as it is nothing more that a caustic topic of discussion that shades the real issue - the owners lack of honest and open dialogue with supporters. The fight against no-concessions has to be fought over at least one season, the best resource to co-ordinate and lead that fight is the Trust and it needs as many members as possible to offer the credibility it deserves for working to help all supporters, whether they like it or not. You had a fair point, it's done, can we move on now? This one will happen regardless of protest, promotion might save upper-west, no promotion is unlikely to prevent it or some other moves happening - what can be done to make the moves more practicable is difficult to say, as no one is listening. If we can't talk to the club then we should be talking at them, in measured, but very stark terms, but we need to do it collectively and the internet hatchets need to be buried deep and meaningfully where they can be forgotton.
As Fez correctly says, it really doesn't matter who the club talks to if they're just going to ignore them and in the past couple of years, that's precisely what they've done.
There is more to it than just that one individual, but as I've put many, many times, I'm more than happy to draw a line and move forward. If you check back, I even repeatedly said so at the time. That obfuscation (a freebie for t'other thread) didn't erode my point, it actually help make it for anyone that bothered to check. It should be making others look a bit closer at things now too. Some still keep trying to maintain my argument is against individuals or the trust. Neither is true, and never has been. It keeps cropping up because some still try to make that case and try to rewrite my opinion and motives as well as history. It happened again only yesterday. If you think I raise it a lot, consider how much of that feeble nonsense I ignore. Others now see more clearly a big part of what pissed so many off at the time, but were dissmissed as whiners. I've always maintained we need a strong supporters voice, I still do. My caveat is that to truly be the supporters voice, it needs to be inclusive. People were put off previously because it didn't appear to listen. Some recent releases from the trust seem to poi t to them pushing that way too. I see that as a positive. Hopefully now some of the previous arguments can be put to bed, albeit with a fair few cracks papered over, we can move forward, hopefully more enlightened. Edit. The club not talking to fans isn't strictly accurate. There is some degree of dialogue, albeit limited. That's just a sad statement of fact. Making demands of them simply doesn't work, and can be counter productive. I think they would favour an image of luddites with pitch forks and flaming torches storming their castle. It in itself is clearly an issue, but it doesn't need to stop fans doing something for themselves and playing with the cards we've got, as tended to happen in the past. Making the Allams less relevant will annoy them more than letting them be the whole issue.
Sometimes it pays to heed what the perception is, rather than what you believe the reality to be. Can you give me an example of the club talking to fans in the manner I described, which is the manner that will move us all forward? Making demands is pointless if they are not listening, but laying out why they should or should not do something is perfectly acceptable. If that brings a result, without direct acknowledgement of the supporters efforts, then so be it, the result is the important thing in all of this. The owners have used some outlandish and insulting terms to describe and insult supporters, so how they see us is of bugger all importance to me; why would it be? How we project ourselves and how we conduct ourselves is the important thing, the owners have not even earned the lickings of a dog, (Dutch or not ) in my opinion.
Haha what bollocks this is, does it really matter what colour the seats are? If anything black is best because they don't fade in the sun (like amber seats) and when the grounds half full it doesn't look as empty. A 'kop' isn't built and designed by architects, its made by the fans that go there. It doesn't matter in the slightest what configuration the concrete and steal is in so consulting the fans would have been pointless.
Newcastle and Sunderland seem to manage. Not that I support the move to the Upper West, just saying there is precedent for having away fans in upper tiers.
My 'belief' is based on first hand experience, and posts that still exist on here and CI. If others choose to believe other manipulated versions, that's entirely up to them. People will believe what they want to believe, no matter how much you offer information to the contrary. As we've seen with this one small part, things do tend to come out in the end. As for discussions with the club, the occurred and continue to occur. The fact little comes of it is a consideration, but it's unlikely to chang, particularly by brute force, which is why I suggest accepting it as a fact, and working with the reality of what we have. I think it would set us up better with new owners if we're seen as constructive, realistic and adaptive despite other distractions.
If supporters wanted their voices heard they would write to the club, to the HCST (or join it) etc. via post, email, twitter, facebook and the like. It's not hard to get your point across. There seems to be some people I know who moan like **** and complain but don't actually do anything to have their views represented.
My point is that if someone wishes to get across a very important point, and it becomes clear that their message and style leaves a perception that is not totally supportive of that point, then, perhaps, a change of tack is an option. of course, this can apply to everyone. We are agreed that brute force is not the way and that being constructive, realistic and adaptive is the way forward; this can be achieved without making an effort to communicate directly with the club, as that has been shunned, what we need is counter- intuitive thinking and not the directly aggressive or the directly consultative approach.
And some do all of that and more. It's still beneficial to have public discussion too, even if some wrongly seem to feel that's just moaning or complaining. Sometimes, the 'official' voice is far removed from the collective wishes, and sometimes people.feel their views are not represented, even though they've been offered. That's why groups have a responsibility to encourage public discussion.
I was more reacting to revisionists, than I was pushing a particular point, but no matter how that point was made, some would oppose it. Time has shown some of the reality. Perhaps it'll show more. What anyone takes from that is their choice. People will have their own views, I just object when people try to rewrite mine or my motives. I agree with the rest. It's time to get on with what we have.
How old are you ? I'd guess at 14. If the colour and design of the seating inside the then new KC stadium was unimportant why did HCC consult with FC voices several times before installing them? Maybe you don't like the truth or are not old enough to remember and if so the latter I will excuse but the facts are the odd amber /yellow seats were installed at the very last minute after pressure from Hull City fans. I was at that very meeting. It was an after thought from HCC. Up to then the new community stadium had been built in the colours of Hull FC. As for 'kops' as you well know it is a term for the most popular end/side of the ground, usually the cheapest were the more noisier fans congregate. City's was originally Bunkers Hill then the East Stand ( Kempton) which when it closed, those fans had to lead a nomadic existence to find another part of the ground. What do you not understand about that ?
Not guessing, just stating the facts as they happened. Do you honestly believe nothing would have been said if the KC had been built with all the seats being black and amber and not black and white, as they were originally ? That's not hatred. That's fact.
I remember the arguements very well at the time. It was a pathetic,typical football v rugby arguement and summed up very well the narrow minded,backward thinking that this City thrives on. PS i remember at the time thinking FFS just put neutral white or better still green seats in.
Doesn't really matter, whatever the issues in advance, the seats are good as they ended up. A bigger mistake was making the outside look like an IKEA store.
