It has become a protest song, particularly when sung at 19:04 after a 10-second countdown. I don't even sing it at home games because where I sit is possibly the quitest part of the West stand. There are always going to be people who don't sing it at home, but it's sung much louder than any other song is ever sung at home games and by far more people. As I said before, the 19:04 song is the only one I've ever heard sang in the West at the KC. At away games where everyone sings it's hard to find anyone who doesn't sing CTWD. It seems like pretty much every person has a scarf to go with it and the view of the pitch becomes obscured for those few seconds because of the sheer mass of scarves in the air. People in the home ends can be seen turning away from the game to look at us, momentarily surprised to hear us suddenly become twice as loud. There's absolutely no debate about whether or not a majority oppose the name change. It's almost unanimous and there's plenty of proof of that. I can't for the life of me understand why a few of you are so desperate to try and continue such a pointless and weak argument.
The problem is that, unless you were there, it couldn't be heard; then you agreed to the redaction, now the whole issue is confused, divisive and damaging, when it did not need to be. What else of importance are we missing, misunderstanding or just generally being thick, obstinate or unsupportive about? Why on earth did you believe there were sufficient grounds to with-hold such a key piece of information from your members and did you not consider their request for redaction as outrageous and manipulative? You have continued to feed the monster. u
I don't quite understand your position. There's nothing new coming out, several boards had summaries of what was discussed at the meeting and that was one of the elements mentioned almost straight away. The only difference seems to be the initial summaries said full minutes will be produced, but it's been said several times why that has not happened.
Let's say that a ballot could be organised at the next couple of home games - in theory it is possible, just need some election booths and voting cards plus a box to put the card into, what percentage of season ticket holders would vote AS it would need 90% turnout to give a proper indication of fans' feelings. Now when was the last time anything (apart from North Korea elections) got that turnout - even Union Strikes don't get that (and that is a similar thing in terms of strong feelings). The mind does boggle that since the issue was raised with the FA, they still can't define consultation. Surely if it was an important issue (going to get some brickbats for that phrase) then the FA governing board would have been arranging meetings with their most important bods to come up with a definition of the phrase "Consultation of fans", but as far as we are all aware we still have the "We'll come up with a definition when the first meeting comes up"
Oh I never thought of it like that. You're right of course. Less than 5% (by a long way) of the fans should dictate what the majority of the fans think and do, and of course CTWD is acting in purely the best interests of the club, with no hidden agenda and no plans for partaking of fan ownership, nor do they want to oust Dr Allam. We should give up right now in the face of such finely argued and presented facts. Thank you for that. Any news on an announcement yet for a Bartlett or Pearson reappearance as the champion of the fans?? I didn't realise there was a poll that had responses from the majority of the fans, and that it was almost unanimous, could you point me to a link for that, and I'll issue an apology forthwith. You're also right that there's no debate, especially with you.
Given Mr Allam's not even a majority in his own house, I think the CTWD position's slighter stronger than his on the 'majority' issue. Unless of course you're aware of a poll that shows that's different of course.
How many votes do you think he has in the running of his club? All of them maybe? Are you aware of a poll that's had responses from 24K + fans?
No, but we're trying to get one, why don't you email the club and tell them to hurry up and sort one? Many of us already have.
As you say there are no polls that show a majority of Hull City fans opposed to the name change, just as there's no poll that shows a majority of fans in favour of it either. In fact the four independent polls have shown a clear majority of those inclined to vote as being opposed. Assem Allam could stop that tomorrow by organising a ballot. I don't think he will, so it will be left to the FA to decide what to make of it all.
Erm I did answer you if you mean this one: The only other post from you looked like trolling. If my previous response was too detailed for you, I'll do a shorter version: 1. The polls already conducted were done in places where the results mean nothing because they were targeted at CTWD "strongholds" or where supporters of said CTWD hang out, or worse, where mischief makers could chip in. No control, and a sample of people who are known to be against it. It would be like asking Leeds fans who they think is the greatest team in England. It's also a fact that the Anti's are more likely to be proactive on pointless polls than the majority, for reasons already discussed many times. This is why I think they're meaningless. This was a stupid question. 2. Oh, you want my opinion on this? I firmly believe, based on the evidence I've seen supplied to me that a name change would give a positive effect on club finances. Happy now? I'll share more info on 2. when CTWD releases full minutes from their meeting with the club.
Can you arrange these three words, to form a common phrase.. Straws At Clutching Nobody has put forward any evidence at all yet.
Happy with your reply to no. 2, I only asked for an opinion, although I would be interested in the evidence supplied to you as I haven't seen any myself. The question for no. 1 was equally as straightforward, it said "based on the polls already conducted". I know it's not a court of law, but a simple answer to a simple question........
As the owner has said there's no money from him after this season anyway the question is demonstrably misleading. Unless something is published which shows where any financial benefits of the rebranding lie then there should be no mention of finances in the question. AA now saying he's found money of his own but will only loan it to the club if there's a name change would also be misleading. It would suggest if he's not allowed to change the name he'd screw himself over on the £80M he's already loaned us, and completely ignores that we're only 2 or 3 years away from needing the club to be self sufficient anyway, so talk of future investment from the owner is irrelevent when it's shortly going to be against the rules for the club to be funded that way. The renewals typically come out in February time. If that's when the FA are doing their consultations with groups why not add it to the renewal form? The decision won't be taken til later anyway, so they can just get the results nearer the end of the renewal period. I'm sure if AA thinks it's only a minority then his refund in the event of a name change offer could be repeated, and even included on the form. (you could have 2 sections to the referendum issue, the first about what you think the name should be, the second a straight yes or no about whether you want your application cancelling if the name changes). That way seems the most cost effective way of the club doing it in a way which ensures maximum participation. It will cost nothing more than the already required cost of sending the forms out, and by including it in the same return means minimal effort for fans to take part. There'll be a small time taken up when processing the returns, but for any poll of season ticket holders you'd have that time. My guess would be that since they're asking for unredacted minutes except for the bits that relate to sensitive information (family matters and club finances being intertwined) that the claim if they were published would be that more had been redacted than needed to be because it didn't fit with CTWD's view. I'm against the name change at the moment. I'm not a member of CTWD as my decision is based on the facts that have been presented and not on the emotional/historical element of it, and as such if benefits to changing the name could be presented I would be in a position where I may wish to change sides in the debate, where being a signed up member of CTWD would compromise that ability. In the mean time I'm happy to support the campaign to keep the name, because as the non anti-name changers keep saying, there are no pro name changers, only people who don't care. If it's a choice between pissing people off for no benefit and in order to please only 1 person, even if it's just a minority I'd rather the club not piss them off. Afterall, none of the fans will be upset if we don't change the name will they.
Oh good, are you satisfied with the amount of money Hull Tigers will attract? Is it more than £5 million? More than £10 million? More than £15 million?
I think he should share the information as it would definitely sway people to the pro camp, especially the "not that bothereds".
The only poll that is really of consequence, is the one that the OSC conducted. Roughly 10% replied and of those that did reply there was a 2 to 1 majority against the name change. The results of the poll where made public and Assem Allam has been made aware of the result. There is a problem with this poll as the results can be read in a different way, dependent on how you want to present them. 2 to 1 of those that voted where against the name change. Out of 1800 who had a vote only 10% voted against the name change. If this is a representative figure it could be said that: If the 18000 season pass holders where balloted only 1800 would vote against the name change and that is evidenced by the amount of members of the CTWD group. It could be the case that as many as 90% of season pass holders are either supportive of the name change or are not interested in the issue to enough vote. THIS is why ballots and petitions are problematic. The problem is not in what the results say, it is in how and by whom the results are interpreted.
There are going to be ballots at the Chelsea game. The FA have asked CTWD and the OSC to conduct their own consultation and present it. My understanding of it is that they've asked CTWD to present their case but that the OSC have been asked to carry out an impartial ballot opened to all fans as well as representing their own members through a separate one. Stating a load of facts in a sarcastic way to try and take the piss doesn't stop them being facts. The only bit which isn't true is that there's no plans for fan ownership, which there obviously is and which would be great for the club, far better than one power-crazed loon in sole control. Why would a poll need a majority of fans to vote on it to be valid? That isn't how any kind of democracy works. People chose not to vote or were unable to for whatever reason, but those who did vote showed a huge majority against the name change in numerous different polls. You're not seriously suggesting that there really is a majority of fans who want this name change but happened not to vote? Amber Nectar did some sums and worked out that the chances of that being the case in so many different polls and it worked out at something like 1 in 20 million. In fact it's way longer than that. Click here if interested in the full thing in context. Or indeed if you're Happy or Chazz and are desperate to find something wrong with it. Total bullshit from you again. There were polls from the OSC, the HDM and not606 which are all perfectly neutral and all showed clear majorities against the name change. You just make stuff up! I don't get what you hope to achieve, are you hoping that the odd viewer might read only your post in isolation and think you've got a point? Everything you post is immediately addressed and filed away as bullshit.
