HCST Statement – Current Issues at Hull City Following Hull City’s latest update on ticketing, branding and the club crest, HCST would like to make the following comment. As a Trust, we welcome the involvement of the Football Supporters Federation (FSF). We hope that their participation can result in meaningful dialogue, which can only be a good thing. We don’t wish to dwell on the insinuations made towards us in the club’s statement. We’re only interested in seeking solutions to the aforementioned issues and will not get involved in further growing the divide between club and supporters. Speaking of solutions to those issues, we’d like to refer supporters back to our proposed ticket model - http://hullcitysupporterstrust.com/wp-content/uploads/HCST-Proposed-Pricing-Model.pdf - which was presented to the Supporters Committee back in December, and was drafted to ensure it was cash neutral to the club, based purely on membership income and estimated membership numbers. We are of the opinion that the vast majority of supporters would be happy with this proposal if it was implemented. There would only be relatively small increases for adults in some areas, offset by the full re-introduction of concessions for the young, old and disabled. The ticketing situation needs to be resolved with the utmost urgency. Continued delays in settling on a reasonable solution are just driving away more supporters all the time. Also back in January, HCST and other supporters committee members were presented by the club with a one page document - http://hullcitysupporterstrust.com/wp-content/uploads/Hull-City-ST-Brand-Guidelines.pdf - outlining the club’s branding guidelines. We produced an alternative in the same format and presented this to the club. We see no reason why this cannot be implemented immediately. HCST also welcomes supporter involvement on the crest design. As a starter, how about this one - https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b7/c5/a4/b7c5a4a50e4383daf37a09a27ea7d38c.png We maintain that all of these issues can be addressed easily if the motivation is there from the club to do so. This needs to happen as soon as possible to prevent further loss of supporters and start bringing back some of those who have been lost over the last few years. By implementing a ticketing structure such as that proposed by us, ensuring that the club consistently refers to itself only by it’s real name or nickname, and reverting the crest back to one which is associated with happier times for the club (before the change which no one had asked for) would be an easy way for the club to take a big step towards achieving this. http://hullcitysupporterstrust.com/hcst-statement-current-issues-at-hull-city/
I didn't have to give notice, the annual term for corporate memberships just expired, I just had to to tell them I wasn't renewing.
At the 1989 League Cup Final I had the drunken pleasure of letting Moynihan exactly what I thought of his plans for ID cards. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
No need to agree to disagree on anything. I thought we had a reasonable discussion, but you chose to insert two low digs. Crack on, the last word was yours, I'm sufficiently astute to realise it means something to you.
And the reality is that they jockeyed the support into a position that whichever way it turned they were open to such remarks. What the owners might (or not) claim should have had no bearing on the decisions made by supporters - that was simply giving them the oxygen of authority.
What about the reintroduction of the use of Hull City? I know it’s not completed by a long chalk, but at least it’s started Do you think that would have happened without the Trust turning up to meetings?
Yes, eventually; it's all a part of their tactic and will aid any eventual sale. They're not doing anything they don't want to do. Rebuffing the dialogue and meetings, initially at least, would just as likely of accelerated the process. I do recall, you might too, that some of my biggest critics on this were, not so long ago, saying that there should be some token of reinstatement of either name or concessions before any further collaboration could take place. I think you are accustomed to, and understand negotiations from your career, so, perhaps, you realise that negotiations can start well before the two teams sit down together. Open dialogue was never a must-do, just as the initial thoughts on some form of a trigger action were sound in principle. If those original thoughts had of been followed through on, I strongly believe that everyone would have been clearer and better able to make their membership decisions much earlier. The Ballot was their delaying tactic, that is all.
A sensible statement as usual by the trust, but as other have said, in particular Fez, all this is just delaying tactics, as was the offer of an amnesty which was just designed to avoid any demonstration when the Queen visited. Even though the pricing plan suggested by the trust was very sensible, the Allam's will never accept it, as it would appear that they have given in to something the trust had suggested. These 2 are nothing more than a pair spoiled children, that want to get their own way come what may. They are actually enjoying having the power to affect so many peoples lives, they seem to get some sort of thrill from it. They really are sick in the mind.
You were wrong, you can keep patting yourself on the back, but you’ll still be wrong. The Trust handled things exactly as they needed to (scarfgate apart).
Why is it that when I have an opinion that isn't proven wrong, sticking with it is 'patting myself on the back'? You have been proven to be drastically wrong over some elements of your opinion, yet you never concede that. You really are an hypocrite.
I completely agree the ballot was a delaying tactic, but I don’t think the naming issues would have moved on at all without the meetings. That’s because I’m not convinced that the owners are going to do anything other than hang out until the parachute has dried up and I don’t think from their side any trigger action is necessary because they don’t really want anything else triggered. It’s one of those occasions that time won’t tell though. We’ll probably never know
Yes, it's nearly all opinion; some would do well to remember that. Concessions are still a far dream and they were the priority, the name-change was always said to be a mornings work. The badge was never really an issue for many; certainly not a burning one. I'm really not sure what some are claiming to have achieved except being hugely frustrated and indignant at the way the Allams have played them. Yet OLM accuses me of patting myself on the back - Alastair Campbell couldn't have spun it better. I'll not be adding anything further to this ballot / Allam issue as I think it is done and I really do not set out for an argument, just an exchange of opinions, as they vary to different degrees on different aspects of this debacle. This board has a small number of posters who seem to think they know it all, but, time and again, they get so many things wrong, on so many threads. To disagree turns into personal vendettas and insults, which is nothing more than a measure of the social media needy nature of those involved. I've had enough of it and will withdraw from posting.
My understanding of the financial side is poor. Are you suggesting they can legally transfer the debt from a company they own to a management company for the council which they manage? Surely that can't be legal? Councils will surely have safeguards against that happening. Surely? Please?
The law of common sense would indicate your thought is correct - to transfer debt in that manner can't be legal, not even in a corrupt state like Russia ffs
A mortgage on the lease would have to be guaranteed with future ticket income, they might have a bit of an issue with that at the moment.
