Dutch, if you're canvassing opinion on the next banner, why not take suggestions and then do a poll with them? Like Hat does with COTM and like you did before for this same purpose. Then if there's a next time, dig the list of suggestions up, see if there's any new suggestions and have another vote, minus the last winner obviously.
If you create the thread I will add the donate button to it. I'll keep an eye in this board over the coming days.
Pride of Yorkshire in black and amber and the club badge has to be the new design. Anyone who has followed City through the divisions knows we have been told for years that every other Yorkshire club was at some time "The Pride of Yorkshire" except us. Well we have been the undisputed "Pride of Yorkshire" for nearly a decade now so it's about time we started ramming it down their throats.
How do they all know what to do? Our lot struggle to get the banner around the corner at the KC, never mind do that.
You have a point but I find it far more relevant that the name of our club seems to be getting dropped by all suggestions, past and present, on here. The old banners are done, but not dusted, but they are what they are and where they are, which is a shame; time to move on to these new ideas. NOT 606 is nothing more than a conduit for bringing together ideas and opinion (no disrespect meant to a very good site), but what about our club's name? Surely, whether anti or pro name-change we should be proud of our name and reasonably expect to see it on at least one of our banners, the next, maybe - but which name, the real one or the false one? Or are we avoiding the name as we know we would lose whatever cooperation we now have from the club hierarchy? I fully accept that the whole idea of it being NOT606 was so it would not be factional, pro or anti name-change, but I think that it is and cannot avoid being so. Having belonged to and supported the campaign group fighting the name-change, having read all of the insults, lies and deceit thrown at supporters by the club hierarchy and having seen that we are still far from any conclusion on the matter, I am really very uneasy in continuing (me personally - everyone has their own choice to make) to provide funds for banners that explicitly omit our name and certainly to be nothing more that a supporters continuation of the toxic name-change that the club continues to proceed with - we are Hull City in anonymity. I think this initiative is quickly moving into a contentious position that the club are sitting back and laughing at, we are doing their name-change marketing for them - 'Why is the name important to the hooligans, when they do not pay for it themselves' could be a typical observation of the fool who owns us - but would he be right??
There's so much of that that's as wrong as when you first alleged it. My offer still stands for you to join me at the ground so you can put your thoughts to the people concerned.
The donations button I create could at the same time ask for the donator's banner preferences, as long as we can create a pithy description of each flag that donators can understand. If one or some of those banner options includes the name Hull City, the desire for that kind of flag could be ascertained.
Although what the point is of offering a banner option that the club is highly unlikely to accept, beyond simply making a point, is a matter for debate.
If you do that then it becomes a system of buying a say in the design. That may have its merits, but it's a long way from the original concept of everyone having an input and it wouldn't be representative of the board.
Cheers Al. that sounds like a good option. As far as having Hull City on it goes I doubt it's an issue for a larger one, as long as it's not part of a protest message. There's no problem I can see with it being on smaller (6' × 4') ones. If someone wanted their own individual banner, done to their own design, I'm sure mauled could oblige.
I see what you're saying, but it would be representative of those that donate. Plus the options would have been voted for by the board. I guess it could put mauled in a position for which he creates first though. What are other people's views? Discussing the problem of which to do first may be academic if we only raise enough for one.
What is wrong with my opinion, does it have to conform with yours. Why should I meet with folk at the club to discuss the name-change? Has the owner changed tack, has he dropped his application, will he allow a banner with Hull City (AFC) on it?
Who said there was anything wrong with your opinion? It's some of your facts that are debatable. I keep saying the owners have had no involvement, and there's nothing to stop a banner having Hull City on. There's been a fair few in the ground this season . I've suggested you come and ask the people themselves as you don't seem to believe me, so it seems pointless and tedious in the extreme, me trying to explain the same thing over and over again to you.
Exactly, so why offer anything further until the name-change issue is put to bed - unless there is an acceptance for no-to-the name-change supporters in pushing their objections to one side and allowing Allam a moral victory - why the haste? Why don't the club/SMC carry out the site survey that is required, then identify preferred display positions, then sort sizes, materials, fixings, etc. and then do a (staged) costing which can create a funding proposal that can be put to us and others? If the club will not fund the survey then that is another consideration. It's a fairly simple progression.
