Supporters Committee Meeting Update

Or a cafe owner. One near me offers a full English with tomatoe's, bean's, egg's and hash brown's.

 

Weren't they offered at meeting one (after which there has been a second meeting)? This was also raised as a stick to beat the committee with, not a reason to cancel the meeting.

That reason was someone breathing too heavily, something that Ehab saw as akin to holding a gun against his head.

 

It's all very confusing because Meeting 1 actually took place back in April (IIRC) at which time the Allams were not in attendance. Meeting 2 I think was in July, again without the Allams.

But the general consensus now is that the first meeting with the Allams in November should be classified as Meeting 1, as thought the previous meetings didn't happen and certainly didn't matter. But in reality that was Meeting 3 and subsequently the next Meeting should have been named Meeting 4 but is now commonly referred to as Meeting 2, despite the original Meeting 2 being held last summer as outlined above.

So it was Meeting 5 last week that never occurred (or the Allams may refer to it as Meeting 3). The issue now is that when the next Meeting takes place should it be referred to as Meeting 5 or Meeting 6, or Meeting 3 or Meeting 4 in the Allams case.

It's yet another example of an Allam cock-up. They can't even get the Meeting numbers right.

 

It’s the same numbering system they use when announcing the home match atendances.

 

They constantly aim to punish their “silent majority”.

 

I think you and many others are ignoring the facts. These are my personal views, formed after reading and listening to content in the public domain and from speaking with one of the reps on the committee.

There is no simple solution to returning to concessions and addressing the issues that the owners raised. There is an agreement that concessions will be introduced, if a solution to the abuse can be found. The trust put forward a solution that has been discussed by the committee and it is the committee that pointed out that separate turnstiles will not work. Even a lights system has been discussed. The problem is how do you maintain flow rates on a system that already is blamed for long queues? The debates on what to do and what would work, are long, because the answer is not easy. Would supporters consider wholesale seat moves again?
The process is long, because the answers need to be right and most at the table understand this apparently.

The meeting failed after a document was put in front of the committee members, it contained EFL Guideline 111, issued in April 2017 (when we where in the PL). The gist of which was to put before the committee evidence that the protest groups had a right under the EFL rules to a place at the table. The fact is that EFL Regulation 112 ( not 111) is a very loosely worded section, that can be read in many ways. Posts on here suggest that if the Trust was not invited to sit on the committee in the future, it would be a breach of EFL rules and this is simply not the case. The reason for the cancellation, given by Ehab is because of the article, but combine it with the document and commentary becomes a threat in my view.

The branding of the club will change, the owners have dug their heels in about AFC, but they are still talking, but, personally if the crest said Hull City --- The Tigers, I do not see that as a problem. I would like AFC to still be used in certain circumstances, but it isn't a major issue for me.

The committee is not made up of "yes" men, it is not HCST meeting with the owners, it is selected supporters and supporter group representatives, who debate the points vigorously, to the extent that the meeting are prolonged, (unlike previous supporter committee meetings) one finished after 11pm. Other clubs have exactly the same process of selection to their supporters committees. Any post or statement that implies that supporters who attend these meetings, will simply vote along the lines of the owners wishes is simply wrong. There is no lone voice at the table and there has never been any suggestion from anyone who attends the meeting that this is the case.

If there are protests during the game, I believe that there could be trouble on the terraces, if the game gets abandoned, I do not think for one minute that just the owners will be blamed.

Of course I expect OLM to dismiss my post with his usual style and for others to pick holes in it, but my opinion is as valid as anyone's on here.

 

This is the wrong place to have a sensible, reasoned opinion........of course you will be dismissed.

 

Dont tell them how to run their business.

 

It was the one before the threatening paperwork meeting ( referred to as the non meeting) apparently. You can call it by whatever number you want and others can call it by whatever number they want.

 

But it's all a game to them. And the Supporters Committee have to play the game as well.

I actually think there's been too much read into Ehab's concessions statement. I read it as that they're offering concessions back (at some point) even though
they don't need to because it's not in the EFL rules. They're offering something even though they don't need to - again it's all part of the game.

Allams Out.

 

Regarding the concessions issue, it can't be that difficult to sort out the abuse issues as 91 other clubs manage without our stupid pricing system. Unless of course we are the only club where anyone has gained entry on a concession ticket who wasn't entitled to do so.

 

The trouble is a lot of people can't read between lines, something you have to be proficient at regarding statements from the Allams.

 

Concessionary pricing.
Much repetition of the points made at the previous meeting, (see prior report) with the main point being that the reason the membership scheme was brought in was to prevent the abuse that existed through the misuse of concessionary ticketing, and not to price anyone out of attending matches. The actions taken away were as follows:
All to re-review & feedback the offer of concessionary pricing proposed by Ehab last month – link attached:- https://www.hullcitytigers.com/media/6952/match-categories-and-ticket-prices-all-cat-2.pdf
Club to look to extend the above into the membership scheme, not just one off match ticket purchases.
Club to review a proposal handed out at the meeting from the Supporters Trust.
Club to investigate whether concessions only turnstiles would adversely impact “flow rates” which are a health and safety standards.Concessionary pricing.
Much repetition of the points made at the previous meeting, (see prior report) with the main point being that the reason the membership scheme was brought in was to prevent the abuse that existed through the misuse of concessionary ticketing, and not to price anyone out of attending matches.

Look at the link, the clubs proposal is more than 10%

 

A lot of words there.

The Allams can fix the branding in 5 minutes, we are Hull City. they could have changed the Hall of Fame or the billboards they have paid for could have had Hull City on them, the match program could have Hull City on it and many more things so easily fixed. They haven't been changed because the Allams don't want to, any and all talk about branding guidelines, understandable amendments, consultations is just putting it off nothing more nothing less.

I thought that you would have learnt by now that you need to read and understand each and every word the Allams say. Concessions are for the premier League. Talking about how to implement and the details is just stalling, all the other football clubs and many other places manage just fine with concessions, if they wanted to do it they could, just like everyone else does.

 

So the membership scheme was brought in to prevent the abuse of the previous concession system. Is that what the Allams told you. Why didn't they just enforce the old system better? it would have been a lot cheaper and a whole lot less hassle.

 

The prices on that link are the ridiculous ones that meant litterally everybody either paid the same as now or more because adult prices were increased and only one child price per adult was allowed.

 

Awarding a concession as per the premier league definition would cost the club next to nothing and could be done today. There is no legal obligation on the club to do this and would merely be a box tick. Further work could and should then take place towards restoring a meaningful set of concessions.

The badge could be sorted out in minutes and a proposal put to a vote of paying members within a matter of days.

The branding issue may prove more difficult as this would involve someone who is pig ignorant suddenly developing some better manners. Do not hold your breath on this happening.