If he tried to use the banners as an example, he'd be wrong for the same reasons you are. It can be put to bed quite easily as it's clearly document on many threads. Don't start that tedious crap again. If there's to be a discussion, it's better on to look at finding responses to some of the issues that are less well argued so far.
It's only tedious because you are too thick or too stubborn to consider a different point of view. As you have been consistently boring and tedious in swamping this thread with hypothetical bullshit, perhaps you would explain why his use of the banners would be anymore wrong? Yet again you either stupidly miss my point or you have made a decision to constantly misrepresent it. I have not said that I feel he would be justified in claiming the banner sponsors support his rebranding, so how am I wrong? I have said he might attempt to use it, just as he might attempt to use the ballot numbers and the so-called silent majority, in a backhanded manner to continue his name-change campaign.
Here we go again. As you keep ignoring. People had a free choice on the banners. Had the name added to the banners and people wanted it, it would have been on. The design simply didn't lend it to that. The name wasn't excluded, it just wasn't appropriate for the designs chosen. BT, your petty abuse has zero effect on me, it just further clutters your post and hides whatever point you're trying to make. Move on.
More alarming though is the OSC had a turnout of 51.8%, which concludes that the remaining 48.2% either couldn't be arsed to vote or are completely not bothered either way on the name change. If Allam chooses to use this as his benchmark, he could claim there is 'silence' albeit not quite a majority.
You could argue that the combined polling results of the HCST/OSC votes actually represent a more truer reflection of the Hull City fanbase and their opinion than a season card holders vote. They'll be many members of both groups who are pass holders,but they'll be those who aren't and those who are exiled but would have previously attended matches when they lived locally.Fans who would have been loyal to the club over a number of years as opposed to those pass holders who undoubtedly bought one purely for the Premier League. As a sample vote of the wider fanbase,it's hard to discredit when you consider the exit poll at last week's general election was pretty accurate and that was a sample of 22,000 votes from around 25,000,000+,a lower percentage than Hull City's support base. The FA will ignore any Allam argument about the credibility of these polls as the club refused to poll their own pass holders anyway,and these represent the only way the FA could gauge the supporters feeling on the name change.
There's a lot complaining that they only had six days to vote(after the forms were received) and that included a bank holiday weekend, some didn't get the form/email at all.
I've never ignored any of that as the free choice has never been an issue with me, it must be with you as you keep resurrecting it. My point has always been the principle involved, not the end result of those that wanted to pay for them; which why I have brought it up on this thread as my principle seems to be very close to the one you are now discussing. It is a nonsense that the banners could not have lent themselves to a simple inclusion of the words 'Hull City', but again, I am discussing the principle, not what transpired - just as you are. A lid could have been put on many things, just as you say. As for the abuse, you really should read the tone of your posts before crying to me about you having to be spoken to in the manner that befits.
Which may then conclude that my earlier figures of 82.9% NO & 16.7% YES truly reflect the fan base. I which case, you would like to think that the FA would use this information in its decision making process.
Which, I am sorry to say begs the question over the validity of the OSC results. A very marginal swing from the OSC could easily sway the vote towards a yes, but it becomes insignificant when both polls are considered.
You can't realistically just combine the votes as there's a fair chance of double counting. One being primarily a protest group gives it a bias.
I fail to see why not given that both groups were invited by the FA to offer a poll. As OLM has pointed out, it appears there is a significant amount of OSC members who were not able to vote (for various reasons), so are you suggesting we should only accept the marginal OSC result? Who is to say that if everyone of the OSC members had an equal opportunity to vote that the result could have swung with the YES vote? We will never know this now, but we can only consider those that did vote and therefore, in my opinion the figures stand, irrespective of any presumed bias.
The figures stand as two individual polls, with appropriate caveats, but you can't just combine them as there's no way of being certain if you're counting 1400 or 700 individuals.
The FA aren't daft, they'll look at the two polls separately and will be concious of the background of the two groups who submitted them.
Exactly the flaw I pointed out earlier in the thread. In which case all thing considered (bias & not being given the option to vote), neither poll holds much credibility and should then not be considered by the FA. Which brings us back to (the now irrelevant) vote by existing pass holders & customers, this being the only true reflection of the opinion of fans.
