As always, a post full of decorum and respect for all parties involved, something sadly lacking from the owner in his statements. I think that everybody wants to avoid the booing ever happening again as it is counterproductive for the team and whatever your feeling i'm sure that this is the case.
But you lot only want to watch the team play and win and we've established that booing does no favours for the team. Double standards?
Good statement but I've never really queried the guys running CTWD and certainly congratulated them in April. Its more a large group of people who align themselves with them whose behaviour can annoy me. The biggest issue to me is the 'we say no allam' chant. I've found it distasteful and unhelpful from the outset. although I don't want fans booing fans during the game whatever, there are a group that make their feelings known hence will have to accept that others may do by booing. A great touch from CTWD would have been to denounce this chant. Also, this division has been brewing a while on both sides. *some* anti-name change posters/fans have been rather snobbish in their 'we're louder so we're better fans' or 'we've been attending longer than you' (which is simply not true) attitude and hence only others opinion counts when it aligns to the anti-name change cause. (For details just see the congratulations offered for great first posts whenever it's anti name change yet if someone posts a football themed post, its often not even replied to). Just for transparency. I'm anti name change and have also been wondering if it AAs great tenure should be coming to a natural end now. However, I'm quite disillusioned with everything except what's going on on-the-pitch (both sides have annoyed me). That's why I don't really post on the name change fiasco. I'm sure some would rather I hadn't bothered this time.
it's not in the nature of Arab leaders to go quietly, it often requires a "Ku de Ta" (as it's known on here)
Mac3, a good sensible post but if you are anti name change & you have just kept quiet about it until now.. Why? Allam believes that it is a small minority who are anti, that is because a lot of people who don't want to change keep quiet & do nothing. If everyone just sat back & said I'm not getting involved we could be Hull Tigers by now. I would suggest that the quiet anti name changers should stand up & be counted so he see's that he isn't going to win. This isn't about singing a song or some clowns booing, it's about our club Hull City.
OLM's statement is a well written and welcome attempt to take some heat out of the booing situation, but I feel it does not go quite far enough. The singing of CTWD at 19:04 is seen by the silent majority as provocative and unnecessary. As OLM says, the name change battle has largely been won. It also has an "anti Allam" flavour which I and many others do not like. I suggest the singing of CTWD at 19:04 stops altogether - and then no doubt the booing will stop also.
I sing CITY TILL I DIE because it's a city song . Not because it's a protest song , so I will continue to sing it when anyone else does. I wanted AA to stay ! Until he once again came out with he will leave if the fa don't change the club name We're is HIS loyalty in that ???? He is kicking EVERY FAN IN THE TEETH by saying that again INCLUDING those loyal to him and those who booed . He cares MORE about the bloody name change then he does about ALL THE SUPPORTERS
Thanks. I had initially posted on this and gave my feedback in a thread to OLM when he asked for opinions on what not606 forum users wanted when he went for discussions with AA. I had involved myself but the incessant arguing on here just pushed me away from either side and at that point I stopped posting on this and didn't open many of the threads. But I did sing at 19:04 in the stadium, I certainly did not boo any others and would not advocate it (but I do understand it). I may or may not have got involved with booing the 'we say no' chant in the heat of the moment as I've always hated it, its too personal to someone who has given this city so much. Then to see all the posts on here fuming about the boos, stating people aren't fans and questioning who could boo the clubs name. Well I certainly heard the chant at other times of the match and it didn't get booed. Nobody booed the teams name, they booed those protesting. Back to your original point though, you're right, if everyone was like me, may be we'd be supporting Hull Tigers by now - which is a long way away from what I'd want. I just can't align myself with CTWD, mainly because of many of their followers rather than those leading the group.
Booing is for cowards. I'm sure some of perpetrators just like a good boo,and it's the only time they are prepared to use their voice at football match. As some on here have already suggested,if they want to show their support for Allam,why not sing, we say yes Allam, or Allam till i die ? It's my opinion that the reason that was the first time they've booed, in all the time we've sang at 1904,is purely down to the money spent on excellent signings on deadline day. You've been bought chaps !
Great statement, we know the fans are split and getting behind the team is the main objective, I know many don't want the name change and i can understand why, at the same time again despite what many think on here there are many who are getting behind Allam because they know football wise he has backed SB incredibly so again i can see why. The main thing and hopefully this statement will help towards the fact that during City games we should all be has one and booing is not the right way to go about it. Starting tomorrow at Newcastle talk and moan has much has you want before and after the game but get behind the lads has one and cheer them onto victory
Can someone remind me, just when did CTWD suggest fans sang We Say No Allam ? I have sung City Til I Die at 19:04 ever since the protest began but never we say no Allam. On Tuesday night it was definitely boos at CTID & I never heard a single We Say No
I'm amused by the ridiculous notion that CTWD can magically command people not to sing CTID at 19.04. Even attempting to would have looked rather overbearing which is probably why they didn't. CTWD isn't some sort of totalitarian regime that can issue orders to a stadium full of people. Nor would it ever wish to be, I shouldn't imagine.
CTWD haven't it's just followed by the fans who've had enough of the Allam spin I guess. I agree with the points made that the boo boys are just fed up of the chants at 19:04. Also it was probably a reaction to Allams spending so yes he's bought them. Regarding them being fed up they are no where nearly as fed up as I am of Allams daft rants
You're right that they can not command the supporters, they can ask though, just as they did to start the protests at 19:04.
It makes me laugh that people think it is anti-Allam chanting rather than pro-keeping our name chanting 'We say No Allam' is anti-Allam ( but quite mild ) , the chanting could be far far worse
The reaction to the chanting could be far worse as well. How far do you think a civil war should go before EVERYONE loses?
There seems to be some that are determined to link not wanting a name change with being against the Chairman. It isn't, it's simply against the name change, anything else read into being against the name change is simply guess work or mischief. Even "we say no Allam" isn't so much against the chairman, it's more just about his decision.
Usual twisting and shifting. If ctwd are pro Allam and anti name change why have theynever suggested singing a pro Allam song?
