Alternatives

[Evington]

Seems to the OSC constitution requires changing or people need to grow some bollocks and stop hiding behind something that "mentions support".

 

[spesupersydera]

I maybe wrong and have had the wrong perception, but right from day one back in the late fifties early sixties, I was always under the impression that when joining the OSC you were in a loose way joining the club. Therefore always expected the OSC to be towing the party line so to speak.

That is still by perception, and why I have never joined over the years, as I never wanted to feel that I might be part of something that certain thing I was against. It may well be possible that member are against many things the club did, and to be by default seen to be part of an organisation that had to go with things they maybe against never appealed to me.

I joined the OSC for a year to allow me to take part in the name change vote - what a waste of ****in' money that was! The OSC majority voted against the name change yet the hierarchy of the committee chose to ignore it, and still some wonder why the OSC gets ****?

 

[John Ex Aberdeen now E.R.]

I joined the OSC for a year to allow me to take part in the name change vote - what a waste of ****in' money that was! The OSC majority voted against the name change yet the hierarchy of the committee chose to ignore it, and still some wonder why the OSC gets ****?

That was my perception of how things are, hopefully there is a wind of change happening, but it still appears to be something that doesn't fit well with me.

 

[The Omega Man]

I joined the OSC for a year to allow me to take part in the name change vote - what a waste of ****in' money that was! The OSC majority voted against the name change yet the hierarchy of the committee chose to ignore it, and still some wonder why the OSC gets ****?

No one who was on the board at that time is in office now.

 

[Evington]

I joined the OSC for a year to allow me to take part in the name change vote - what a waste of ****in' money that was! The OSC majority voted against the name change yet the hierarchy of the committee chose to ignore it, and still some wonder why the OSC gets ****?

Same here.

 

[dennisboothstash]

I joined the OSC for a year to allow me to take part in the name change vote - what a waste of ****in' money that was! The OSC majority voted against the name change yet the hierarchy of the committee chose to ignore it, and still some wonder why the OSC gets ****?

I did the same
To be honest I can’t quite recall what the OSC said but I do think the majority vote was reported at the time so it didn’t feel like a waste of money to me (maybe I’m wrong though?)

 

[balkan tiger]

I did the same
To be honest I can’t quite recall what the OSC said but I do think the majority vote was reported at the time so it didn’t feel like a waste of money to me (maybe I’m wrong though?)

From the FSF site.

Hull City Supporters’ Trust polled fans in April 2015 with 770 member votes cast. 764 (99.2%) said they wanted to retain the Hull City name, while only six voted for Hull Tigers. That was based on a pretty high turnout of 71% of members.

Hull City Official Supporters’ Club also balloted members, with 704 members voting, of which 459 said “no” to Hull Tigers, with 240 saying “yes”, and five spoiled ballots. Not quite the landslide that the trust saw but still pretty overwhelming.

 

[spesupersydera]

I did the same
To be honest I can’t quite recall what the OSC said but I do think the majority vote was reported at the time so it didn’t feel like a waste of money to me (maybe I’m wrong though?)

The result was indeed reported, but not 'acted' upon - I recall the OSC spokesperson Bernard(?) getting a bit of a grilling on Look North from Pitbull Levy as to why the result wasn't allowed to stand, despite the clear NO vote majority, I actually felt for the poor bugger as he tried to trot out some cringeworthy excuse. As an outsider I can't understand why the OSC would have had the vote, since their mandate is to back the club and its ownership - the only conclusion I could come to was that the committee didn't fully understand the depth of feeling against the name change and went ahead expecting a different outcome. It's all water under the bridge though 'tash, we're just scratching at old wounds; as T.O.M. says, all those involved have been replaced and 3/4 years on we are where we are ...

 

[Fez]

Going on past experiences it may be best just to tell the club to **** off with their consultations and keep out of it.

Aye, supporters groups and SAG, too; or maybe they don't count....

 

[balkan tiger]

Aye, supporters groups and SAG, too; or maybe they don't count....

I know it's something you have advocated for a long time. I have given my opinion plenty of times.

 

[TwoWrights]

From the FSF site.

Hull City Supporters’ Trust polled fans in April 2015 with 770 member votes cast. 764 (99.2%) said they wanted to retain the Hull City name, while only six voted for Hull Tigers. That was based on a pretty high turnout of 71% of members.

Hull City Official Supporters’ Club also balloted members, with 704 members voting, of which 459 said “no” to Hull Tigers, with 240 saying “yes”, and five spoiled ballots. Not quite the landslide that the trust saw but still pretty overwhelming.

764+459 = <300, according to 'some' quacks!



The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.