CTWD publishes its draft vision, aims and objectives

It seems that anything that doesn't fit into your skewiff view of things is beyond you, so you resort to snide remarks; but that is par for the course.

As this is the 'official' CTWD question page I will try and make this simple, by asking them:

Do the campaign group, known as City Till We Die (I believe it is not yet a trust?) have any form of official communication with the football club, Hull City AFC?

Can CTWD clarify whether or not communication, that has been mentioned in posts on this board by OLM, was through their official channels or on an ad hoc basis through the personal and unofficial contacts of OLM?

If CTWD do have official communication with the club, is it recognised by the owners?

 

Why on earth are you draqgging me in to questions you've got for CTWD? I just assumed you were drunk last night.

In case you are asking me, to save you dripping on about not answering, I'll repeat what I put previously, I am aware that CTWD talk directly to the club through meetings and also through emails and phone calls. Sometimes this will be OLM, other times as CTWD.

I know for a fact that CTWD have a good relationship with the club. On your last point, issues raised with the Club by CTWD are put to the owners if their decision is required. The owners support the meetings.

I have a few issues with how that's done and some of the things discussed, but I've tried to keep that out of this discussion as I believe they're separate.

 

Jesus.

This will go on forever with you pair.

My money's on Fez eventually drawing the line, refusing to carry on, on page 38.

 

There is nothing more to be said until CTWD answer my questions.

 

I genuinely thought he was pissed last night, yet I still tried to answer his bizarre ramblings as clearly as possible.

It looks like I was right, and for some reason he was asking me CTWD questions.

Have the last word fez.

 

I just assumed you were being your usual self, obtuse and evasive; I was right.

 

It would appear that it was you that was pissed as his ramblings appeared well thought out, unlike a lot of yours.
At least his so called ramblings as you put it made sense unlike yours.

 

So well thought out, he was asking the wrong person.

 

Does that include the questions he asked you?

 

For the sake of clarity Dutch

You said-As for alternatives, there are many, even within the trust route, which is why I'm interested.

You said-Another consideration could be along the lines of pressure groups that gain more influence outside the system, than they would have if they were elected and bound by rules and conventions.

You said-A seat on the board is one way of influencing a club, but it's not the only way.

He said-you keep intimating that you know of many different alternatives to the CTWD stated strategy - yet you never expand, do you?
He asked directly in Post 284-
For clarity, would the various other arrangements you have referred to offer anything more, or would they offer something less - like no place on the board?

Just in case you missed the questions that is

 

Actually Robo, I did expand as much as I felt was appropriate. This thread's primarily for CTWD to ask people about their suggested aims and objectives. I asked for some clarification on the subject of trusts, and by way of clarifiying, commented on other methods.

There's no point going much further with that until CTWD comment, as some or all of them may be dismissed as irelevent with a brief statement and anything else would disrupt the thread...well ok, disrupt it further.

 

Maybe you should have this as just a question to CTWD forum and get rid of all the arguments to another dumped forum as at the moment it looks like the Dmd and Fez forum.

 

It's a question for CTWD on a CTWD thread. I can't help it if a couple of posters get confused.

 

I haven’t got the CTWD login details with me at work, but given that this thread has careered out of control I thought I’d try and answer some of the key points raised so that there can be some clarity as to what CTWD’s position is. If necessary, I will copy and paste this posting and send it from the CTWD account tonight.

Contact with the club – yes we have contact with the club, through the Fans Group and through ad hoc discussions that individuals may have. Our beef with the Fans Group last Tuesday is that it was the club’s marketing man that chose who from CTWD’s committee attended, not CTWD’s committee. We will hopefully iron that out – but we had several people round the table this week and we assume that will continue.

Supporters’ Trust – I’ve sent links to various pages on the Supporters’ Direct website, some of which go into considerable detail and show the model constitution for Trusts to adopt. It is our intention that we go down the route of setting up a Trust affiliated with Supporters’ Direct – this is what practically every other Trust has done, their expertise is invaluable and they can provide funding (from Premier League grants) for tasks that would otherwise cost Trusts. We are finalising some Supporters’ Trust FAQs, these will be published next week and will provide more background.

A seat on the Board – we simply can’t offer a meaningful detailed answer on this issue, we can’t say what a seat on the Board would mean for a Supporters’ Trust, or what it would entail, or how much it would cost, or who would be that Board member. For the simple reason that no offer has been put on the table, nor will it be for some time, we assume. Our approach to any offer to take a seat on the Board, should it ever arise, will be to compare that offer to our stated and agreed aims and objectives – and if the offer meets those objectives in the round (not just the one that says “get a seat on the Board&#8221 then we will consider, in dialogue with our members, whether to accept that offer.

There is no assumption that the Trust chairman would be the person who one day assumes the seat on the Board. It would be a member. It would need to be a member who has the best blend of skills to contribute to Board issues and fight the Trust’s corner. And it would be selected democratically by the Committee and most probably the majority view of the entire membership.

Thanks for all the contributions to this thread, which will be reported back to the CTWD committee for discussion. We aim to start some new threads for discussion next week.

 

Appreciated Al. I don't think it needs reposting with the other log in personally.

 

Noted DMD.

 

Thanks for your response, AlRawdah; I agree that I see no purpose in repeating the post.

I have pulled out the element of your response that relates directly to the point I am trying to understand, see it below.

Okay, but that is not as clear as it might seem, as my point and questions have always been about ‘official contact’.

If necessary I can and will trawl back when I have the time, but I am certain that OLM has stated more than once, on various threads that the club does not speak to CTWD – this was one of the reasons given for not having any direct involvement in the seating fiasco; I am sure many will recall this.

You, AlRawdah, say that ‘yes we have contact with the club, through the Fans Group and through ad hoc discussions that individuals may have.’ My question is whether or not that contact is made directly to the CTWD group on a formal basis, with the full blessing of the owners or whether it is an ad-hoc, informal arrangement through, for instance OLM and his personal contacts, which would avoid having the full blessing of the owners and would render any claims to official contact baseless – if you like it is no more than a pals network. If it is informal and no more than a pals network I would suggest your statements are misleading. In the same vein I have seen it posted that in no way is it thought possible (by CTWD) that the owners would consider giving CTWD a seat on the board - I think most folk who have followed the whole name-change debacle realise that anyway. I would suggest that to have official standing and recognition with the club your communication channel should be accepted throughout all levels within the club – so, is that the case, is it official or is it a substitute, work around the obstacles (the owners) pals network?

Perhaps I should point out that I have no issue with the Pal's Network, in fact I very much doubt there is any alternative at this time; what I do think is that the situation should be very clear and unambiguous, so that folk, when deciding whether or not to be supporttive of your Trust proposal, have all of the facts to hand. If there is a phoney communication line, that the owners know about and turn a blind eye too (my suspicion), which you (CTWD) and some within the club are manipulating to move forward then let us all have the facts so we can all turn a blind eye to the phoney communication line in a phoney name-change campaign.

I appreciate the remainder of your post, as it pretty much substantiates what I have said elsewhere - when I was drunk, allegedly!

 

Thanks OLM. Adding to that:

The club had no contact with CTWD prior to announcing the stand move - official or unofficial.

As OLM says out invite to the fans' group is formal, albeit offered a little nervously by a member of staff that few to extreme lengths to avoid the risk of irking his bosses. Fair enough I suppose given their reputation. Other contacts are more one to one and informal, discussing issues that matter to CTWD. Does that constitute a pals network? I e no idea, I'm not really sure what that means. Certainly some CTWD officers could never be described at "pals" of key staff but there is communication nonetheless.

Does CTWD have official standing and recognition with the club? Again, I'm not sure what that truly means. But they communicate with us and invite people they know to be our officers to their events - so I guess that implies a degree of official acceptance of our status as a supporters' group.

 

I have a hunch James Mooney will soon be out of a job.