Yes, absolutely, as I have never seen the point of carrying grudges. The important thing is to get the club back to being a credible supporters football club and to heed the decision of the FA and drop the divisive name malarkey. I can see no benefit whatsoever in doing anything other than that. It's down to them, not the supporters, to create change for the better; although they will find very good support prepared to give their time and knowledge to a shared goal of making Hull City a happy and successful club.
Not for me. We have another chance at the big league. We may not get another if we lose this one. Amber Nectar nailed it in their podcast yesterday. The last time we were up, our owners' focus was not on making this club the best it could be. The name change was tried, and it was rejected. Rather than move on and try to develop from there in another way, the powers that be decided to move on with petty, divisive action to spite their customers. Even if that was retrievable, then have now shown that they believe that punishing the weakest part our fan-base is acceptable for the actions of a small group of adults (and that's if you believe their reasoning. If you don't, they have just been spiteful to the weakest.) I don't trust them, I don't believe they have the best interests of this club at heart, and too much damage has been done already. They can get their investment back with interest now. This is the moment they can be rewarded for saving us from administration in 2010. They should take this opportunity and leave with our thanks for that. If they stay, it will only do more damage.
This, so long as it includes major u-turns (membership scheme, collaboration with Council, Airco, name, etc etc).
For a second there, I thought Olive Branch was a player we were being linked with. Or a new potential owner.
If the commemorative stitching on last Saturday's playing shirt is anything to go by, I think you'd have more luck finding an actual olive branch on the moon! I might have said yes with a large pinch of salt before the membership scheme stuff. Not anymore...
It amazes me that people still think they're decent overall and just have one or two daft ideas. Everything they do is negative. You never hear from them just saying the normal things that football club owners say. It's always either proposing the latest controversy, defending a previous one or attacking those who fought against it. Sacking someone, raising prices, cutting costs and corners here and there to save £2.50 per season. They're horrible. Like gangsters the way they operate behind the scenes, bullying and threatening people to get their way. There's more than one person I know of who has spoken out against the Allams publicly and then had organisations that they're involved with tell them they've been threatened by the Allams and told to have a word with the individual in question. Their slimy tentacles are all over this City. They use their money and power to influence everyone they can. Someone recently said to me in conversation that if you lived in a less stable country, being an enemy of the Allams would make you fear for your safety. I found that entirely plausible. They're not just well-meaning but a bit silly as some people think, they're malicious. People put some of it down to '"they're just businessmen" but that doesn't explain it at all, there's plenty of kind and generous successful businessmen. Most businessmen wouldn't dream of doing the stuff they've done.
The advantage for them was that it ended much more quickly. As soon as they were relegated and attendances fell off a cliff, Tan apologised, changed the kit back and amended the badge.
Sometimes you just need a fresh start. For the club's image and also to excite people in general. I feel that way with both owner and manager.
please log in to view this image Allmes Vs Hull City AFC fans REASONS FOR DIVORCE - UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR As one of the reasons for divorce unreasonable behaviour is the most common ground for divorce in UK divorce law and solicitors are frequently asked what constitutes "unreasonable behaviour". As you will already know, divorce in England & Wales is based on "irretrievable breakdown" of the marriage but this breakdown must be proved by evidence of one of five "facts":- (1) Adultery - they went off with 'Hull Tigers' (2) Unreasonable behaviour - Name change, 'die if you want ', East Stand Gerrymandering - Price Increases, Airco, Ticket/Toilet Gate , Stalinist change of name on everything they can - 1904, concessions etc ... (3) Desertion - Where have they been this season? (4) Two years' separation with consent - just go (5) Five years' separation without consent go on, go on, go, keep going Three of these grounds - desertion, two and five years' separation - involve considerable periods of delay before obtaining a divorce is possible at all. At least two years in the case of the first two and five years in the case of the last. Similarly, the parties cannot rely upon adultery in a divorce petition if there has been none. This means in a divorce unreasonable behaviour is the method of choice for most couples who want an "instant" divorce in cases where no adultery is involved. In the divorce process people often approach a solicitor and say they want a divorce based on "irreconcilable differences". This happens so often that it is perfectly obvious that there are very many couples in this position. They are in an unhappy marriage and want to bring it to an end. This is perfectly natural and understandable. Nevertheless, it is not possible to obtain a divorce based on "irreconcilable differences". We think that is wrong but there it is - what UK divorce law demands is rather different. To obtain a divorce on the ground of unreasonable behaviour English law insists that (a) that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and (b) that one of the parties to the marriage has behaved in such an unreasonable manner that the other finds it intolerable to live with him or her. Or, at least, that is what it requires if divorce is sought on the ground of unreasonable behaviour. Although this sounds rather a difficult thing to prove the reality of the matter is that the courts do not set a very demanding standard and in practice it is not normally too difficult to find some examples of "unreasonable behaviour" sufficient to satisfy a court that a marriage has broken down. The courts adopt a realistic attitude. They know that if one party to a marriage feels so strongly about it as to issue a divorce petition the marriage has irretrievably broken down so far as that person is concerned and it would be futile to pretend otherwise. The courts therefore adopt quite a relaxed attitude to the exact type of "unreasonable behaviour" which one has to allege in order to get the divorce. It is important to understand this.
Like DDD says a clean slate is probably best all round. IF (big IF) they dropped the name change boolocks and the rebranding, it would be a positive step. Eternally grateful for bailing us out, 2 promos FA Cup final and Europe, but could you really trust them in future? Not me.
One of the problems is that they are surrounded by sycophants who will never give them honest appraisals or straight answers because they are afraid of getting the tin tack or losing their favoured status as recipients of the Allams' largesse. Who knows if the Allams have any concept of how unpopular their ideas are or how much division they have caused? Or maybe I'm being too charitable here, and despite their coterie of arselickers, they know exactly how much pain and unhappiness they cause people.
