No one has said a trust is a bad thing. I put the low take up down to them having a chairman who thinks Allams a ****. That is no way for a representative to behave. He has now been elected for a year? That has limited/stunted the positive effect a trust could have., imho.
A sup A supporters trust is a great thing. I do not think that the take up is poor, what is poor is that not enough want to be actively involved in anything voluntary no matter what the group.
"The take up being poor" is from other people not me. I know how it is and will be, i would hazard a guess at around 2000 members after a year and holding at that level. And of those only a few will want to be on a commitee of any sort, most will be happy to pay their subs and do no more than that. I agree 100% with your point about how few get involved in anything. You can be as sure as eggs are eggs that if this few willing volunteers gain a benefit for all, no one will come and say oh no I don't want that benefit as i didn't join your group.
So you want to be able to control or dictate the opinions of everyone who can be arsed to do something? Will you leave anyone any right of individual opinion?
Yes I really do think that the trust does not appeal to the majority. If you can recall, this has been my one and only stance throughout. A single agenda protest group even when it moves forward will, always have the same difficulty. No matter what the issue or the club.
I'm not denying anyone a right to anything.,why are you suggesting I am? I also don't want to control or dictate anything either. Again, why are you suggesting otherwise? I'm exercising my right to not join something because the bulk of the committees have negative views I don't share and I do not trust the trust. Why are you demanding I join it?
Have you really asked that? Are you really so ****ing stupid that you think that is a reasonable question? You really have gone down the drain and need a serious pause before you make yourself a laughing-stock. Anarl, themsen - you're a proper Ull lad aren't you! No; you saying something neither makes it fact or truth. The main thread of your comment has been to criticise CTWD and now the Trust for not using the position of the HCST to further your complaints against the seat move. You constantly get confused in your timeline and forget (I am being generous there) when CTWD became a thing of the past and the HCST became a thing of today. You have regularly used your observations to highlight that the Trust will not be effective as it tainted by the touch of CTWD, yet you continually whinge about not being granted their good graces to further your complaints against the club - a complaint fairly limited in scope, yet you have elevated it to some hugely critical failing, which it is not. You say you did much in progressing your cause, but I can recall little other than the whinging; are you seriously telling me, that with your common standing and broad association, you lacked the ability of forging your own link to the hierarchy of Hull City AFC - these same folk who, you now inform us all, are keen to progress your initiatives. FFS, if you want folk to be more accurate in their assumptions, then try offering more information and a few public domain names to explain your position better, because your constant sniping, seconded by Chazz and his childish comments, gives your point no credibility whatsoever. I think, when you talk of HCST being defensive, you really should look at how you conduct your own little campaigns; you certainly don't like being challenged, do you.
It is only a problem for those who cannot be bothered to read the articles of membership and intent, for those who cannot position it in the real world of football and everyday life beyond it, but, I suppose, it can be made into a needless problem by people who have a reason to doubt the purpose and integrity of the Trust. Perhaps those people should speak up about their concerns or explain how they would launch a Trust, indeed do this in a time of very difficult supporter - owner relationship issues; in fact, as they seem to have good relations with the club and a new found faith in them, they could start something to rival the body they criticise - not too much to ask as they obviously have a very lofty view on all of this.
There has been some work done, but, that besides, do you really believe you are allowing this embryonic, part-time group of volunteers a reasonable time to develop their approach and capability? There have been some mistakes made, shocked and stunned, hey? Let us not forget the name-change and the need for those individuals to take centre-stage and organise a campaign against that name-change, a campaign and group many of us welcomed - did you, should I look back and recall how you felt about the Allam family? The 'some' you speak of are those who did more than internet sniping; some of it was OTT but it was an emotional time and many shared those feelings - did you share those feelings, did you do anything?
You're arguing against claims I haven't made and repeating the same misinformation, even though the facts have been clearly laid out. Once again, I didn't ask CTWD to use their position, just a point of contact already in place. I am in favour of an organised supporters group. If you want to debate, at least have the dignity to from the factual position, not some fictional waffle.
Was it the Trust then, or was it a single issue campaign group against the proposed name-change, something that made those driving our campaign against name-change persona non grata with the club and, unsurprisingly, unwelcome in any communication with Allam (let's call it that, not the club). Folk knew this but expected these volunteers to speak and be the key link to the club. Can't you see how stupid that is?
Who was it, you tell me, what did he/she say? Let's not have these back-room comments on here, let's get it out in the open, as their names are willingly in the public domain. Obi, puts . . . I am not sure what your case is I disagree with CTWD . . . . then join it in it's infancy and make a difference. I do not want to be represented . . . . . that was a mistake, but the democratic vote will and must carry sway - did you vote? But, then again, he is a ****, isn't he? I believe that a trust . . . . the majority of who, the nameless crowd who don't subscribe to it's membership of the named individuals who do? There are different groups . . . but they don't represent me, do they represent you?
Just to be clear, which name change you talking about? CTWD or the club? That statement could apply to either.
Happy Tiger said: ↑ I would love an actual supporters trust that wasn't a thinly veiled anti Allam organisation led by someone who thinks our owner is a ****. How else will you ever get such a diverse group to meet your requirements? As I've said somewhere else, it might help if folk differentiated between anti-club and anti-Allam; at the moment I have no problem with anyone being anti-Allam, but seeking to work with the club. Where have I demanded you join it, why do you say I have?
I asked earlier, but it seems to have been lost in the thread somewhere. Why are there now ten committee members when there was originally only going to be "no more than nine"?
I can barely contain my anger about it. No doubt they’ve given an extra cushy number to one of ‘their’ mates – creaming off expenses whilst surfing the gravy train to destination gullible sod. It’s a ****ing disgrace.
