As I understood it, your main point in the OP, was that like minded fans should be assisted in getting to sit where they wanted, with the people that they wanted around them, in the hope that this would right some of the wrongs of the initial seat move and in turn improve the atmosphere. This was discussed at last nights meeting and it was agreed that CTWD would do what they could to assist with this, as it's a perfectly reasonable request that will hopefully benefit some fans. I'm still unclear about what other specific issues you have, if you're referring to coming up with chants and telling people how to support the team, I neither think it's practical to do this, nor is it the role of a supporters trust.
OK sorry, you don't think yourself as very clever. Fair enough, how about your question what was it ?
In which case, CTWD's reply is poorly worded, as it reads as though the action is limited to an email asking if members are bothered by the evictions. Clearly, those left as members that are affected would be a relatively small number. I would have thought CTWD would see it as an avenue to show it represents fans and possibly gather more members. I haven't told anyone how to support the team!! I've offered a couple of thoughts for debate on things that could be possible to help improve the atmosphere . I said others could have better ideas. That's something I reckon the Club would be happy for a fans group to consider and offer cheap to implement suggestions. They seem to assist other small groups. Rather than an email to members, what about encouraging a discussion on things that could improve the atmosphere and help the team as well as possibly gaining new fans and potential members. Isn't that a part of what a fans group is and how it represents the views of members?
Sometimes well intentioned people can become victims of their own well meant actions; I would prefer CTWD to focus on exactly what their end product will be, so we can judge whether or not they will be a credible Supporters Trust and representative fan group. As far as I am concerned they are still a single issue campaign group (a volunteer one with limited resource of funds, time and manpower), against the name-change debacle, until such time as they can issue to their membership their proposed constitution; which is when I will feel more able to question them - if appropriate. Has that small group been successful, do you have more information on what they have done and what they have achieved? Is it necessary for two volunteer groups to chase the same ends, when diverse objectives might, perhaps, achieve more? Is your insistence on being answered by the CTWD address truely necessary or reasonable, or is there another point being made? Just trying to understand your position as it is a tad confusing.
The CTWD group that campaigned against the name change has gone. This group has different aims, but in my view, should be focused on representing fans, and able to demonstrate that they have the support of fans. I'm of the opinion, the best way to show if they're a credible representative fan group is to represent fans. Before anyone says it, no, I don't mean do everything I ask. I would just like to see fans being listened to without prejudgment on their 'motives'. That could increase manpower as often, the best people to progress an issue are those affected enough to raise it in the first place. . In my view, any drive to be a trust could be complimented by a parallel campaign acting as a point of focus for fan and supporter issues. I don't understand why that's a problem. As for the CTWD thing, yes, it has caused issues in the past where comments have been made by people that are members, but it seems that's not always an official comment. That leaves CTWD saying they weren't aware of things as no official email was made. I think it's also useful as the club read the board, so it would clarify if an issue is on from the group, or if it's an individuals personal wishes.
I think it is more the case that one (the campaign group) is not yet quite gone and the Supporters Trust is not yet quite here. The whole rationale of the group's change is to become a supporters trust, so I would have thought the imperative would be that single-minded objective; at least until the new trust and it's constitution can be unveiled with a decent degree of completion. I can understand your thoughts on fan representation and agree that folk with a vested interest make useful allies, but, sometimes they can sort their own issues more easily and with direct cooperation of the club - which is what I thought you said had happened. So why the need to Labour something that is in hand? I suppose it can be hard to differentiate between official and personal, it takes practice; something we have had, from time to time, but, in the case of CTWD it is easy to remedy in a number of ways.
There are a number of issues arising from DMD's opening post. The first is the allocation of passes in N5 next season. The new passes in N5 could be solely for those who wish to move from another stand into the new Bunkers. They could be allocated to those already in the North Stand first leaving any unsold passes to be available for the rest of the ground/new supporters. Or a mixture of both. CTWD could try and help the club satisfy both sets of supporters. The second is how to improve the atmosphere. We have people who wish to sing in all stands but we haven't worked out a way making it work. I don't think telling them to move to the North Stand is the best way forward. Trying to organise, with the help of the club, a singing section in the East, and possibly the South, may be a way forward. In the meantime getting the North, East and South stands to start co-ordinating their songs would be a small step forward. In my view both issues are something a supporters trust should take up. I don't see why CTWD cannot try and co-ordinate the singers in all four stands to start singing together, at least some of the time.
Hull City AFC (DMD) - Apologies if the previous post was not clear, it did state that we'd discuss the mechanics and practicalities with James Mooney and would then try to rectify any issues that fans had, obviously not something that could be achieved by simply sending out an email. In this instance, in addition to emailing all our members, we will (via social media) open this up to anyone with seating issues, including non-members. This is, of course, all dependent on James Mooney being willing and able to help address such issues. The purpose of our accounts on the message boards, is for us to directly answer any questions raised and to hear any suggestions, which will be discussed at CTWD meetings. There will be further threads on specific issues, such as the name of the new trust, but for now people are more than welcome to post and discuss any issue they think we should consider.
It's still missing the main point, which isn't seating issues, it's atmosphere. That was the topic I specifically asked to be put on the agenda. It looks to me as though (once again) someone is trying to second guess what I meant, rather than just reading the words. Here's the quote from the start of this thread with the explanation removed. I'm not sure how I could have made it clearer.
For an item to go on the agenda, it needs to be a specific item for discussion, rather than a vague concept. If you have specific suggestions for things that could be done(or if anyone else on here has), then by all means put them forward. Nobody has tried to second guess you, there was nothing unclear about what you said, it simply wasn't practical to put it on the agenda as proposed.
Can replies be from CTWD to avoid later confusion please. It's CTWD I'm asking, not OLM. Ta. CTWD replied saying they'd put atmosphere on the agenda. The request is clear, if there were doubts, then there's been plenty of opportunity for CTWD to ask for clarification. Second post, in reply to 'atmosphere' being put on the agenda.
This was confirmed as an agenda item - "The opening of N5 to season passes holders does give an opportunity to move things around and to rectify some of the mistakes made in the previous seat move and hopefully further improve the atmosphere as you've outlined." Specific items only can be proposed for a meeting agenda.
So the rest of the clarification was ignored? How on earth is the atmosphere going to be improved if we can't talk about it? Atmosphere's not a vague concept, it's a fundamental part of the fans match day experience. I would expect a fans group to discuss 'atmosphere" and listen to suggestions from members to see how it can be further discussed and improved. So, enlighten me, how does CTWD propose to allow members to look at atmosphere? Is it only single measures that can be proposed, rejected or supported by the committee?
Who said you can't about it? You can talk about it all you like, as can anyone else who wants to contribute and once the debate has generated some ideas, they can be discussed. All ideas are welcome, but so far nobody has come up with any(other than the one issue that has been addressed already) and CTWD don't have to 'allow' members to do anything, they're free to do whatever they like. As has been clearly stated, all things raised on these threads will be presented at the meetings for the committee to consider.
You all know that CTWD responses are OLM using his telephone voice and talking through gritted teeth, right? Just as an aside, I'm not feeling hugely "engaged" by CTWD and this attempt at connecting to the fans. I realise people have jobs and lives etc, but running a trust isn't easy I imagine, so maybe some consideration could be given to doing this better at your next meeting.
So, the several threads on here where people have come up with suggestions don't exist? Or, is the "all things raised on these threads will be presented" referring to some specific CTWD (or OLM) method for these issues to be raised with CTWD formally? It looks like it's as I suggested, only very specific, stand alone suggestions can be made, to be accepted or rejected for support by a committee court. A fans group needs to be able to show it represents members. There are opportunities to do that ad they're being missed. The reasons can only be guessed at.
I know others that feel as I do, but look at the responses and say "what's the point", the groups not for us. It's losing potential members for the sake of some discussion.
All issues raised on the threads on here and other boards were written down and a copy handed to everyone at the meeting and we went through them one by one. Those issues were not listed by me, they were not in any way vetted, they were just presented as they were, the only thing I did was to propose in advance of the meeting that we acted on the seat move issue. We've set up accounts and invited comments from our members and non-members alike, we've then gone through everything raised on those threads at our meeting, it's completely wrong to suggest that we're not listening, or that there's any issue being raised that's not being listened to.
