I made a pretty concise summary on a podcast I did recently, didn't feel the need to also write the article although I'd happily write a more concise, easy to read one. 21:30 from here if you're actually interested. I made it through more than 5 lines actually, got about halfway through but just couldn't keep reading as it kept going off on tangents.
Here's a question. Which key element of the Allams tenure did you not mention ? Our Midnight Rambler " certainly did. Brevity is king.
Not sure, do you mean the takeover itself? Brevity is indeed king, which was my criticism of this piece to begin with. The content is certainly fine if you know what you're reading, but I can't imagine too many neutrals would feel any clearer about the situation after making their way through it.
"Poisoned chalice". "Gift". Perhaps long winded the article may have been. However he (she ?) attempted to clarify to "neutrals" the underlying motives of the owners. Many seem to miss this fundamental point. Perhaps you too ?
Not at all? I'm well aware of that issue as well, however I was being concise and listing the issues the fans have had with them in the last few years which would have had a more direct impact on people not attending Wembley. I doubt there was a single City fan who said "I'm fine with them closing the Airco Arena, I'm fine with them abolishing concessions, I'm fine with Assem telling me I can die when I want, but I'll be damned if I go to Wembley because the Allams put their money in as a loan." In fact most seem to be ok with that, as it's within their right to treat it as a loan. The only thing I can think that I didn't list was their attempt to get the stadium for free which led to the name change application in the first place.
Good to see you posting charles. My wife was concerned when you did not acknowledge your birthday thread on the 31st of March. In 3 weeks time' joannahatfield' will join you in the octogenarian league!
Seems to me you missed the essence of their strategy and subsequent abuse of HCC, HCAFC fans, HCAFC history etc. That's what the article you (and others) are criticizing is trying to point out. They are chancers & ****ed up royally. What is the point of being critical (as you were) of "long-windedness" of an article when it actually has put all those points together in one article, which many have not done before ?
You're making my point for me. If myself and others have seemingly missed the point of the article, as city supporters, what hope does it have of conveying its point to neutrals? The article itself admits to rambling, I hardly think it's ground breaking to echo it.
Thx for the link to the atricle - it's a good summary. Some significant communication issues between the Allams, The Fans, the FA, the universe & beyond.
Bloody hell. So your point is the article is rambling ? I concede it may have been. It does however mention all the relevant facts leading up to a poor Wembley turnout. The point I was trying to make (read every one of my posts on this thread), which I suspect any neutral with intelligence may recognise in the article, is that the owners always had an ulterior motive and have lied their way through the whole saga, and have caused untold damage to the support base. Your podcast in no way suggested that (their ulterior motive - a free donation for the land and KC stadium from the HCC) . Some facts relating to subsequent happenings maybe, but not the root cause. Subsequent actions after the City Council rejected the Allams' overtures is what caused (a) a reduction in existing committed supporters - long-term season ticket holders - returning to the fold plus a dilution of potential secondary injection of new blood and (b) an incredibly weak take-up of available Wembley tickets. My point is that the OP article addressed this. You & others only bitched about it's rambling nature and seem to miss the crucial issue (your podcast didn't even mention the Allams' attempt to get a freebie). Post #73 above certainly makes a better fist of the issue, yet still glosses over the Allams "ulterior motive". I suppose you have a point - if you & others missed the point of the article, as a City supporter, no one else will...give me a break. It won't even leave the realm of Hull City fans. Precis the article & we can do a survey
Sorry Syd - you posted a podcast you stated summarised the issues. Didn't mention the root cause. The OP did. That's my point.
You said the reason we didn't sell out at Wembley couldn't be summarised more succinctly, I acknowledged I didn't cover every issue, that's kind of the point of a summary. I don't even know why you started this up again. The article is aimed at people who don't support the club, i.e. Neutrals. Youve agreed barely any will read it and it would be confusing to them and it rambles. That's all I or others have said.
(a) I did ? When & where ? (b) True (c) Not if you miss the root cause - it's meaningless (d) **** knows - it's pointless (e) Yes (f) Doubt it (g) It does - but it has all the facts that are relevant PS: I'm doing a Bengals here: succinct səkˈsɪŋ(k)t/ adjective (especially of something written or spoken) briefly and clearly expressed. "use short, succinct sentences" synonyms: concise, short, brief, compact, condensed, crisp, laconic, terse, tight, to the point,economic, pithy, thumbnail, summary, short and sweet, in a few well-chosen words,compendious, epigrammatic, synoptic, aphoristic, gnomic "he gave a succinct résumé of the economic situation"
Just give it up mate. Take up a hobby if you get such kicks out of arguing with me. Plenty of others made similar comments to me but they haven't been targeted.
