If there’s a vote in favour of continuing with no concessions, the job’s ****ed, we can protest all we like, they can just claim it’s a noisy minority and they’ve gone with the majority decision.
I really can’t fathom how people are seeing it any different. One is an option to carry on the debate, the other kills the debate.
There’s nothing like divide and rule is there! Also a bit rich when people on here who don’t attend the games as a protest( and very admirable too,) then slate others who put forward reasons why they won’t vote. The common denominator being the ****s in charge who manage to contrive situations where the supporters turn on each other.
Superbly put Cheshire. Quote of the week, beating our Defence Secretary's (in his best Clint Eastwood voice) 'Russia go away and shut up' (no politics)
Exactly, I totally agree (although we both know the fight will go on in one form or another). This is why the vote should have been rejected and discredited by the Trust, so that such a result could be declared as beyond contempt and not in the least a signal of true feeling; instead it has been given stature and legitimacy in the public eye - a serious mistake IMO. This is why abstention is a valid protest and a valid response. The effort put into pushing for the yes vote could have been put into opposing the whole vote and offering a channel for those no-voters to be counted.
In some ways Fez, the protest group statement suggested just that, but I am afraid to say that the lack of support for the march before the game, dissolved any fear that there was going to be a mass demonstration.
At this point I agree with you, as the stance of the Trust and the time that has passed makes the yes vote the only option, just not a good one.
I don't have to look at this thread anymore. It's done. We know who will carry it on on here but it's done.
My last post may not be an easy point to make, but the owners hold all of the cards now and the vote for concessions is really the only chance that there is to get any form of concession back.
The Trust are still only a minority of those balloted though. I'd like to think by nature almost every member of the Trust will vote on what is in the best interests of Hull City AFC. Most posters on Not 606 would have a similar motivation. I suspect non Trust and non 606 members don't have that same motivation. Despite the crash in attendances, many remaining will be new supporters. They don't give a **** about the history of HCAFC, or therefore the future. The name change ballots showed that (despite the rigging). Many will vote purely on on what is best for them. I think by suggesting we abstain or vote to keep the pricing the same, we assume this ballot is going to be a formality and so we can show our distain for the owners AND still win the ballot. Its going to be closer than that.
We (If we had a vote) assume no such thing by abstaining, we would simply be refusing to use a vote in a deeply divisive ballot.
If there was to be a mass refusal to vote then you would have a case to make but it's never going to happen, just like the talk of a mass boycott of going to the games sending a clear message to the Allams it will always be undermind by those who support the team not the owners... to call for abstaining will only split the vote 3 ways instead of 2. I think you will agree that the olive branch that the Allams have offered is in actual fact a stick with **** on both ends. Many have convinced themselfs that which ever way the vote goes there will be further negotiations to get better concessions, it's almost like they have never seen the Allams in action before. And we haven't even started on the name change stuff yet.
My main point has always and only been that the ballot should not have been accepted, on from that I simply disagreed with those who say abstention is wrong. I don't believe there will be a mass anything. I don't believe the Allams and do not trust them. I think people should do what they believe is right... ...even though some will be wrong.
