CTWD response to the OSC declining a joint statement to the FA

I know people who run their own successful businesses-they do not spend time on places like this.
I tend not to take braggarts seriously-I fell for that one when I was younger and slowly the truth came out.
I doubt you know anyone in the ctwd organisers with the money making record of our owner.

 

I'm pretty sure none of them have a fraction of his wealth.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a fraction of their insight into running a football club.

(Sorry about your marriage, btw)

 

So I am told but that was when I lived in the East.
I am told they used to have public toilets there in the good old days but they needed to be demolished due to the actions of some of the locals(too close to the playground )

 

The now have a cop shop overlooking PP now.

So diverse.

 

Wow. So you're urging people to not do something which they obviously want to based on their principals, so that the numbers presented to the FA look better for CTWDs campaign? Just in case there's another poll of the OSC and the percentage against drops??

****ing hell, are things really that desperate now? Didn't the postcards swing the balance in your favour?

Principals eh? Who needs them?

 

I think you mean 'principles'.

 

American schools.

 

"Good Lord, what is happening in there?"
"The Aurora Borealis?"
"The Aurora Borealis? At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your kitchen?"
"Yes"
"May I see it?"
"No"

 

PLT I will answer you question as best as I can. having studied business studies at the University of Hull (but not one of his business advisors before anyone makes 23 from 2 + 2), I fully get the points you are making about researching name changes and business plans. Now just because he has not shown anyone to cost and benefit analysis of any studies (that has been carried out into the name change and market research in China/India/Indonesia - three countries which have a potentially huge customer base, and if people (ie the people who are experts in International Business) are correct about Indonesia being one of the next economic giants then there is the potential for investment in the club to come from there - either buying Allam out completely or for a percentage of the shares does) does not mean they are not sitting on his desk at Allam Marine waiting to be part of the overall case that he will make when he does his presentation/submission to the FA, as he will not want competitors (yes I'm using business speak for similar size clubs in the PL) getting the benefits of his research by releasing such data early.

 

Would that investment depend at all on us being Hull Tigers as opposed to the Current, more flexible Hull City, "The Tigers"?

I would suggest any serious business plan would not see that as a crucial element for investment. The current name and nickame is more value than the proposed one in that market.

 

Is the idea of 'getting far east interest' specifically fan-oriented?

This is proven to be not especially lucrative as folks out there buy snide knock-off shirts and DO NOT buy HCFC garden gnomes by mail order.

If the idea of 'getting far east interest' is with a view to getting MAJOR FINANCIAL BACKING then these things are done in private between a handful of directly-involved individuals, and tacky animal names are irrelevant.

ROI and personal prestige are usually the incentives, nowt to do with 'names'.

 

Remember what Nick Thompson said?

"We play as Hull City, but as a business, Hull City Tigers felt right"

Apparently businessmen will be more likely to deal with us now, because Hull City Association Football Club obviously sounds far less professional than Hull City Tigers

 

Think you just made that up as well didn't you?

As for running a business, I know a few of the CTWD guys do run successful businesses.

None at all. Which is one reason I'm not involved with CTWD and just offer my full support to them.

Your desperation would be funny if it wasn't such an important issue.

He's asked OSC members not to cancel their memberships so they still get a vote on any future ballot. He can't force them to vote 'no' to a name change so what makes you think they will as a result of OLM's post? All he can achieve from that is increasing the sample size which increases the chance of an accurate representation of the population. If anything it'd make the result less biased.

The sad thing is you're obviously a bit wiser than Patty or Pearson Park but you go out of your way to convince yourself of these nonsense conspiracies just to support the stance you want to have. Remember when you said the people who voted in the previous polls didn't exist except for in my head?

I don't even remember asking you a question

 

And you call them Steamed Hams, despite the fact they're obviously grilled.

 

It's an Albany expression.

 

You're suggesting that people who clearly have an issue with the OSCs stance on the name change, and their reluctance to stand up to the Dr would vote yes to the name change, and thus give a less biased result?

Desperation?

Obviously if a bunch of anti's left the OSC, any polls would simply reflect the views of the existing membership of the OSC. Sure, might be more in Dr Allam's favour, but do you seriously think it would be a huge swing and enough to warrant asking people to not make a stand, and to not doing anything "just yet until we say its ok"?

Apathy rules even CTWD? Don't do anything, we got your back?

Wouldn't it make more sense to get more people to join the OSC so that more people have a chance to vote in a possible poll, so rather than the current low numbers enjoyed by both OSC and CTWD could actually be viewed as representative?

My comment about your over active imagination (I'm being kind there) was to do with the fact that you think a 2k poll here, a 1k poll there, a 2.5k poll over there equals 5.5k views, when as I clearly pointed out it doesn't, because a large proportion of people voted in all 3.

 

I apologise PLT, the question I was answering was one from city1904 not yourself.

 

I think the point PLT is making is that the OSC at the behest of the FA agreed to ballot all the supporters attending yesterday's game. Preparations were made by the OSC but the ballot was called off when the club threatened to withdraw the OSC's privileges.

The questions I asked previously are still relevant.

Did the FA ask the OSC to ballot all Hull City supporters (not just its members) on the name change?

Did they plan to organise a ballot at the Chelsea match?

Did the club threaten the OSC to withdraw its privileges if they went ahead?

Surely a ballot of all supporters at the Chelsea match would have been far more representative then the total membership of the OSC and CTWD.

 

Obviously, I can't answer your questions Obi. I doubt anyone will either. I have one for you though that you should be able to:

Do you agree with OLM that members of the OSC who wish to make a stand against the club threatening the OSC by leaving the OSC, should stay in the OSC until after any further membership votes on the subject of the name change?