I'll stand corrected, but I think the fa requirement is for fan consultation, rather than specifically a poll, so there are perhaps other options the Allams could offer anyway. In that context, the 700 v 18,000 argument becomes more pertinent.
Just some people on Twitter, I haven't counted them and I can obviously only see people I follow, or who follow me and tell me there was an issue.
There is actually no FA rule on fan consultation(there is a Premier League one, but not an FA one), but the FA report on the FA Council decision stated that the club should have run a poll of season ticket holders to get their views.
Or we could assume that as the OSC has been a longstanding fan group with no assumed bias, and that their poll is closer to the true feelings of the fans (taking the point of missed votes out of the equation). I would be interested to hear from the OSC what effect the option to vote had on new member applications. What % increase did the group have after this was announced? As HCST was first in existence as a protest group, any increase in their membership after the vote option becomes immaterial as they were already considered bias. Unless you consider some may have paid £5 as the cheaper option as opposed to £8 simply to vote (yes, I know we have been here before).
The FA will be well aware that the OSC, as with all OSC's, are beholden to the club, they are not an independent fan group(and will treat the poll accordingly). Equally, they will be aware that the trust was born from the CTWD campaign group and will also treat that accordingly.
I would like to think so too. In which case, with all due consideration, we will hopefully be playing as Hull City AFC and put this whole nonsense behind us. Although I fear it will leave deep scarring on the terraces.
I stand corrected, so hooray for surgical boots. I've just reread the award for arbitration and it does specify a ballot of season ticket holders. I didn't realise it had to be done under the auspices of the FA too, so I guess that means he can't just write his own choices.
But back full circle, that's the precise position we're in at the moment, but the name is still being changed.
In reality OLM its **** stirring isn't it. Lots become some and let's face the fact that they could post a tweet to you but found an issue with using an email vote.
do you mean the one where the Corporates were forced to vote Yes and anyone who voted No but added with the Allams was discarded - I think we all know it was totally discredited as Allam bullshit
That particular tweet to me wasn't someone on Twitter saying they couldn't use email themselves obviously, they were just pointing out that not everyone is online and there wasn't much time to send back the hard copy. Aren't you surprised the turn-out was so low?
My question about how many could not vote is still valid. So now its gone from lots who could not vote to some presuming that members who did not get a postal vote might not be able to go online. **** stirring OLM. Nothing more or less. As for disappointing turn out, not really. I would have been more disappointed with the trusts turnout myself.
Okay, so it's not lots, I didn't go searching Twitter, someone just brought it up. If I wanted to go ****-stirring with the OSC, I'd starting talking about the fudge that will be their FA submission, one that I'm pretty certain won't accurately reflect the views of the members who've just voted? (I'm assuming you've seen it) You're not disappointed with the OSC's 50% turn-out, but you think the trust should be disappointed with a 70% turn-out?
You had to have your membership number to vote by e-mail. As some OSC memberships are for 3 years, I assume some couldn't find their number. Very little time was allowed for postal votes so I assume some thought they weren't going to make it. Its a low turnout compared with last year.
I couldn't remember my number but, in fairness, OSC got back to me within a couple of hours when I asked them for it (by email which is how I voted...dead easy).To my embarrassment, I ended up not voting in the HCST ballot...nothing sinister...I was on holiday. You'll never get 100%.
Where the **** do you stand on the name change Mel? You've been asked this same question many times before and I've found your replies to be rather ambiguous. Your posts on the subject consistently challenge those of the HCST or CTWD. You are often rightly accused of sitting on the fence. Which side of the fence you sit on is anybodies guess? You started a thread the other day,"Not in my name" and you didn't reply to any one of three pages of responses, which is a bit ****ing rude isn't it? Ooh do you know what? I'm going to come right out and say it man. You are a phoney intellectual and you don't even have the balls to put your flag up on a ****ing football forum. **** stirring? How very dare you?
You surprise me Kempton, I have never posted in support of the name change and it was only recently that I felt that if the name change went ahead, I would still go, but that has changed, I will not renew my season card next season. As for not replying to the thread, I drove up to Hull after posting. I got home on Sunday night and my first post was today. I can generally read the threads on my phone but when I try to post the text box jumps all over the place. Two trips up totaling 1000 miles of travel needs to be paid for. Its odd that I am a phony intellectual in your eyes. You are right of course, I know nowt and would never think that I know better than the next man, so being called a phony actually does not bother me. I am just a bloke from NHE who has always had to hard for a living and if I have some intellect, it has not done me much good has it. Its good that you have so much faith in the trust to always say and do the right thing, well done you for always seeing them in such a perfect light. I find your blind faith refreshingly innocent.
