I think all members of the OSC should remain members, irrespective of how they feel about the threats. I wouldn't join the OSC but I have no problems with other people joining. There should be room for us all.
The OSC should be informing their members of what is going on, having rejected an FA request to ballot everyone attending yesterday's game, they should be telling their members why they have done so. They haven't even told their members that their chairman has resigned yet.
http://www.hullcityosc.com/featured/alan-johnson-mp-meets-up-with-the-hcosc/#more-2038 No much of a meeting by the sound of it. Would have been a great chance to urge AJ to mediate between the Corpo and AA.
No I don't think any significant number of people would vote yes because most realise it's preposterous. I don't think there'd be a big swing either way even if it was a big proportion of the 1800 OSC members that cancelled their membership because there aren't enough people with your view, thankfully. OLM said OSC members might be cancelling their membership and advised them not to do that because it would cost them their vote in any future OSC ballot. You tried to twist that into him trying to influence a poll when all he's doing is increasing the sample size. Research basics tell us that a larger sample size gives a more accurate representation. There'd be no other effect. As for the last bit I don't know where you've got the idea I wanted to add all the polls up as seperate views. When did I say that? Yes to all. OLM - as I keep saying it was all going to go ahead but the club refused point blank and insisted it didn't happen. I don't suppose they have any legal grounds to do so but the OSC are at the mercy of the club as we know. So in a sense they did refuse but it wasn't really a choice, and until the day before the game that ballot was going ahead.
I'd love for the minutes to come out. Like you I've no time for Allam any more and I'm all for anything that exposes him for what he is because for me, far too many people still believe his word is good. However I respect the view of people like OLM and Obi, they know what's in the minutes and if they say it'd damage the club to release it then fair play to them. I wouldn't be able to refrain from posting it if I knew what was in there so I respect those who do. One thing I'd like to know though is who actually took the minutes? Was it someone neutral, someone from the club or from CTWD? If it was a neutral then you'd think they could release the minutes through the media or something and make it nothing to do with CTWD, if it was someone from CTWD then releasing it will achieve nothing because the usual conspiracy theorists will say they just made it up.
Releasing the minutes will cause no more damage than there already is. Releasing the minutes will end the speculation and allow supporters to form an opinion from the information they were promised on more than one occasion, both before and after the meeting. What suddenly became so bad about what was said that it took days to sink in? If it smells of fish . .
Absolute clueless bollocks. You're just repeating the same thing again and again, despite it being answered when it was actually relevant.
Stuart Blampey - if I infer right from one of your posts you believe that members of the CWTD group could run the club better than Allam, two questions for yourself to answer honestly. If you had been part of the new board of directors who would you have appointed manager when Nigel left. Secondly how would you and said new board gain the investment needed to move the club forward - and don't reply this mystery investor who you happen to know, as where was he to buy the club before Mr Allam purchased it.
That's a poor response and I don't understand what you expect to achieve by it, except the loss of credibility it deserves. This is my recollection of event: It was declared to us (NOT606 members - on here) that there was to be meeting between the club (AA + ??) and selected, specifically invited guests. The purpose of the meeting, it was thought, was to discuss the name-change. We were told, by OLM, that he (OLM) had been specifically invited, by an Ash Lord email, to represent NOT606 at that meeting. There were a few posters who were sceptical about whether or not the invite was genuinely issued to OLM, or to NOT606 as a group - OLM maintained it was his invite, no evidence was produced (I don't recall any) to prove it and there were rumblings of mistrust. Personally, I saw it as a done deal and I had (have) no reason to distrust OLM, so I gave my support to his attendance. Prior to his attendance, OLM made it clear that he would issue full feedback on the meeting he was to attend on behalf of the NOT606 membership. Once attended, he posted that a full and detailed record would be posted 'in a few day's , and then it became minutes from CTWD that would be issued. The next stage was that the minutes never materialised, nor did a full and detailed summary of the 'bizarre, rambling and strange three hour meeting'. When challenged by me and others, the initial reason for non-disclosure was that a CTWD vote could not carry publication. (A hint of early disagreement in the ranks, perhaps). So, Dutch, unless you or OLM can disprove my version of events, I believe you owe me an apology; as I don't believe my post was 'absolute clueless bollocks' at all, was it? I am not trying to trip anyone up, as I realise that things are dynamic and can quickly become blurred in how they have evolved; which is exactly why full, truthful and transparent minutes should be produced on a non-selective basis. I think it would also help if folk think back before they shout at others.
You've posted the same thing in several different ways and had it answered in as many. As I said, clueless bollocks.
people invest in clubs for one of three reasons - 1. they want to be involved in football - 2 they believe they will get a return - 3 they are a fan of the club - there are not many who invest in football who do not want a say in how the money is spent or a significant involvement in the running of the club - Allam does not want to relinquish any of his power but he wants someone to pump a significant amount in - the only person or entity that is likely to do that is a sponsor - the only reason that a sponsor would want the name changed would be someone linked to a sponsor like Tiger Beer - otherwise there is absolutely no point - if there was a sponsor waiting in the wings then we would know already because Allam would be convincing us to accept the name change- there isn't one, all we can attract is Cash Convertors - Allam hasnt really the money to finance a Premiership club - if he wants to keep us here then he either needs to dig deeper out of his own pocket and stop pretending it's a gift when it's a loan because he's really ****ing us up or relinquish some power and/or sell because he's in real danger of damaging this club Pompey style - the name change stuff is just a load of bollocks really, he's created a financial mess that his ego won't allow him to admit to - continued success on the pitch is all a sponsor wants - at the end of the day no-one wants to be linked to a loser so Tiger Beer will only ever want to invest if we are in the top half for a prolonged period of time - Allam needs to change his stance on funding the club otherwise his only legacy weill be bankruptcy
No, this is your style; try dealing with the details, everything I have posted can be verified. This is the first time I have posted anything about the 'before and aftern' positions - show us all otherwise. You just seem to be in the mood for an argument; do us all a favour and don't go there.
I'm not looking for an argument, you just seem to want one by asking the same daft question in as many different ways as you can until people just get bored of answering.
DMD please give it a rest.Fez is making relevant points .If we could SEE the FACTS written down we could all draw conclusions based on the facts .Without the facts this is a nonsense issue.
Pearson would never have left- he'd have been given the funds and resources needed to get us up which he surely would have done. I'm not sure we are going forward at the moment. We appear to have a massive massive debt which hangs over the club like I don't know what. A very dangerous situation given the eccentricity and peevishness of our current owner. I never thought I'd see the day when I'd wince as we prepared to buy 2 multi million pound strikers. Where is the money coming from? How much do we owe now?
If we owe AA more and more, the debt gets bigger and bigger. As it gets bigger, it becomes more of a risk to him and to us.
That's the point, either no one is answering, or the answers don't stack up. My explanation of the chronology and nature of events is pretty damn accurate and it makes some answers and statements appear dubious in their accuracy and honesty. I think this needs to be sorted if further trust is to be invested in the campaign. You may think the questions daft, but you shy away from offering any straightforward answer that contradicts my timeline and version of events. This really is a simple thing to do if I am so very wrong. But I'm not, am I?
