OLM you do not decide what I do or think and I deeply resent the fact that you felt you could represent my views. I think Craig has got you sussed.You know Craig-the poster you had a go at. Wind my neck in?!-you are really funnily clever-or the opposite.
As far as I recall OLM had more posters accepting his position as spokesman than against. It may have been the majority of a minority, but still a majority, and if it's good enough to get governments elected...........
you have curious ideas about democracy. more people agreed with him that disagreed with him and he went along to the meeting knowing there wasn't 100% agreement. there are people on this thread refusing to say what they think but still claiming their views are in the majority. you get what the voters for and if you don't vote you get what you're given.
Well other than the fact that this is yet another pointless and meaningless poll, you know, like previous ones, which the esteemed OLM pointed out at the time. Not voting on this ****ty one won't make one iota of difference to anything at all. This poll, and the others like it are bugger all to do with democracy, but all to do with waving virtual penises around.
i have been trying to summarise all positions succinctly with the aim of creating a poll to see what the overall views are and to find out what the majority view is. is that something you would take part in? i could do with help in summarising all possible positions. would you be prepared to help with wording? i want it to be a poll that everyone can take part in without pressure. it won't be today.
I see you have wussed out again OLM...the real poll to put up in these circumstances would be: If Allam gets his way and changes the playing name to Hull Tigers... 1) I will not be attending any matches next season 2) I will continue to attend matches next season This is where you find that the 1's are the real minority but of course all your AFC chums would abstain from such a vote.
We need one, and it would have to be a long one. You need all options from "prefer to keep name but will keep going if changed" to "I won't buy another ticket if it changes" to "I'd like to see it changed to see if it works" and bla bla bla.
3) I agree that probably less than 5% of supporters are FOR the name change 4) I'm neither for it, or against it. 5) I am not for Hull City Tigers, We are HULL CITY... We are THE TIGERS 6) I have been consistent with my responses 7) I refuse to comment on this topic anymore 8) Who's Shane Long?
I guess I should be flattered that you have painstakingly taken the time to cut and paste all my posts into word documents so you can re-regurgitate them out of context. Others would find this behaviour desperate. However if I were a wind-up merchant, it would prove that I'm a very good one to get under someone's skin so much that they take the time to do something so extreme. You should have just made a hitler paraody. It would have been funnier.
"For me, the definition of a wind-up merchant is someone who says something just to get a reaction" "I'm fine with being called a wind-up merchant"
or another option; AS WE FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT THIS NAME CHANGE IF THE FA APPROVE THE NAME CHANGE, WE WILL SET UP A CLUB LIKE THE PROTESTORS AGAINST THE GLAZIERS AT MAN UTD DID AND SUPPORT THAT CLUB (HULL CITY AFC), wonder if they would be so brave to do such a thing and how many supporters this splinter club would have
I believe I must vote for both options presented, as both satisfy my desire that neither the word "Hull" nor "City" should be removed from our playing name. The combination of the 2 words identify where the team is domiciled, where attending supporters gather to watch the teams home matches. I would not vote for an option which excludes either of those 2 words. Given that any team playing with a round ball, with the maximum number of players allowed on the field of play per team can only be 11, by default they are playing Association Football. Hence the appendage "AFC" is somewhat redundant...almost irrelevant if the ball on the pitch is of the round variety. Most importantly, I want my team to survive. Past & future history of my club during my lifetime will always remain with me, and with those who've had the misfortune of listening to me go on & on about their history. If the boat is rocked too much there is always the possibility that a benefactor will pull up stumps and walk away, particularly if there is evidence of signs of irrational thinking. However many compliments are thrown in the direction of a benefactor, if tunnel vision is involved all those compliments are lost in the mist. I admire the efforts being put forward by the "City 'Till We Die" consortium, but fear a backlash that may be more damaging to the future history of my club. By all means carry on the good fight, with dignity, but be cautious.
This isn't a criticism, but can someone explain why the second choice is not Hull Tigers? That's what the good doctor is proposing (he's not saying Hull City Tigers he reckons we're that already), and a few more percent of people would be against if that was the poll, IMHO.
which name , company , club , or playing name ? ... as far as I know he is changing the company and club name , not the name you see on sky sports etc ... prove to me otherwise .. ask the FA what our "club" name is right now .. and watch your whole protest blown out of the water
