It wasn't formally a trust but CTWD had taken a decision in principle to merge with the Tigers Co-op. I would have thought a group that aspired to become a Trust representing Hull City supporters would have tried to help those affected by the seat move. As I was physically shattered after the campaign I can understand why a small group of volunteers didn't feel like doing anything more, but it was a lost opportunity. One that caused some misgivings from people I would expect to be generally supportive of the aims of the Trust. It may also have helped build a relationship with the club. I've said it many times, CTWD could have asked for supporters to have the opportunity to move en-bloc, or be given first dibs on space places in the East Stand when the time limit for renewals expired. Neither of which would have meant scaling the battlements. It didn't happen and we'll live with the consequences. If I've understood Dutch correctly this is what he tried to do on a more modest scale for the people he knew. If the club rejected the approach then it would have been their loss and they would have had to stand by their decision. I suspect they may have welcomed the help in dealing with the fallout but we'll never know. I don't think trying to help supporters is stupid.
I still strongly believe that those of you in E1 to E3 were/have been sent to the naughty corner. Mr Allam branded CTWD as hooligans and we know how pissed off he was re the banner at the Palace game. He picked up on some ideas banded around by various groups for years that the North stand should or could be our kop end. Everyone supporting that idea was expecting all the North end. But he gave you half of it and he gave it so late there was little time to get organised, the season ticket deadline was close so it was a take it or leave offer. Any negotiations which took place after the anouncement were just a token show, it worked even better for Allam when the police ( ? ) said due to segregation issues the home fans couldn't have all the North end. Maybe in the stadium the atmosphere is now better, but on the telly the visiting fans seem to be on sceen most of the time whilst the home fans are rarely shown. And I think that last part is what Mr allam wanted, no more City banners on screen.
The structure of the committee has changed, were the members consulted and does this new post have a specific role? Perfectly reasonable questions to ask of an "open and democratic organisation".
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. PLT on here read back. Obi, puts . . . I am not sure what your case is Again read back I disagree with CTWD . . . . then join it in it's infancy and make a difference. Wasn't it you who made the point that the trust was new etc. 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? It wasn't a mistake, it was deliberate and no I don't think he is. 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? What about the 1200 who were members of CTWD and haven't joined the trust? There are different groups . . . but they don't represent me, do they represent you? I am a member of one group and an officer of another, so yes these groups do represent me. But one point I should make is that I do not represent them on here.
i have now laboriously ploughed my way through this thread. I attended ny first match at Boohferry Park in the 1950s and have never belonged to any group in all that time. Suddenly, everyone is ranting about trusts and groups and factions and forgetting that we all, allegedly, are football supporters. Now we have CTWD who are now not CTWD but have joined the Co-op to become a Trust which is not trusted because its directors want to run Hull City despite th fact that the new chairman of the Trust thinks that the old chairman of Hull City is a xxxx for wanting to change Hull City's name but who was happy to change CTWD's name - probably because it was a sound marketing ploy. I think I understand.
As you can see from my post #47 on this thread, I already have. I shall quote the appropriate parts which have led to my confusion again for you. "elect a Board of Directors nominated from the current shareholders – this election will be for up to nine board members, and will either require a vote for (if more than nine candidates) or an approval of (if nine or fewer candidates) each person standing. A further email will be sent out shortly on this subject;" http://hullcitysupporterstrust.com/agminvite/ 11/02/15 "There are up to ten places on the Board available, so at the moment there is no need for a full election vote at Saturday’s AGM. However it is important that all shareholders know who the Board Member candidates are. To this end, all candidates will each introduce themselves to the AGM before the meeting ratifies (or not) each appointment to the Board with a show of hands." http://hullcitysupporterstrust.com/candidates-for-board-of-directors/ 20/02/15
If you read the rules on the website, it states that the Trust can have between 4 and 10 elected board members. So the suggestion there was a need for a vote for more than 9 board members was a mistake.
So anybody wanting to be on the board made it known on Saturday then there was a show of hands to vote which of those made up the ten. (But only ten wanted to?)
It will be in the published minutes - yes the meeting was invited to approve the ten people that volunteered to form the Board.
Even though one and all recognised and accepted that the club (owner) hated and ignored them? So, with all of these disaffected supporters who complained quietly through DMD on here, those involved needed to ask other supporters to do their legwork, even though the communication channel was non-existent? It's just bloody daft. Would you really ask someone for something when you know full well they won't listen? Shame on you, nor do I and that is not what I said; I referred to the method that was craved, a bloody pointless one.
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. PLT on here read back. What did he say that was worthy of your comment? Obi, puts . . . I am not sure what your case is Again read back Just tell me, it must be clear, isn't it? I disagree with CTWD . . . . then join it in it's infancy and make a difference. Wasn't it you who made the point that the trust was new etc. It is new, but its aims and objectives are well stated and have been around for some time now. 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? It wasn't a mistake, it was deliberate and no I don't think he is. Well I think the Flaskgate incident was a mistake and should not have happened (it was obviously deliberate as not many folk could accidently get that engraved, could they?), amazed you think it was okay. We disagree on that then, as Allam has all of the hallmarks of a classic . . 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? What about the 1200 who were members of CTWD and haven't joined the trust? What about them? It seems like they are more that didn't carry as you suggested; folk have made their own decisions and there has been no rollover on membership as you suggested. There are different groups . . . but they don't represent me, do they represent you? I am a member of one group and an officer of another, so yes these groups do represent me. But one point I should make is that I do not represent them on here. You totally miss the point, which is that a group only represents it's members, even though some non-members might adopt their principles. Your groups do not represent me., do they? So why do folk expect that the HCST claim to represent all Hull City supporters? It's bloody nonsense.
From my post on 08/04/2014 "Next will we see the revenge of Assem Allam, moving E1 and E2?" The campaign was in full poll mode and I suppose it did not register, but the writing was on the wall (or banner). The truth is that nothing was done about the move because those that could have said something about it at the time supported the move. That is why DMD and others lost faith, they felt that it was important and others with more influence within CTWD did not.
