CTWD publishes its draft vision, aims and objectives

I never said how large these organisations are. They are many and vary in size, if the government in London want a viewpoint i presume they go to one of the larger ones. If HCC or the Hull Daily Mail want a view on cycling they go to a smaller local one, Cliff Pratt's club on Spring Bank if it exists. My point again is small numbers of people often speak on behalf of many, who may or may not have been canvased for their opinion. OLM posted earlier about how few members some football supporters trusts have, but they are still the ones the club talks to.

 

SO you are saying only the people with **** all better to do are protesting.

 

You are attempting to distort my argument, then reply that. **** off.

 

No that is what you said i did not distort it in anyway.

 

Goodnight gents

 

Point out where the abuse is he swore at me,i never slung abuse at anyone so point it out where you saw it.

 

Its called apathy and its spreading.
I don't know if you know about the poll tax, millions would have been much worse off but a lot less went and did something about it. Fortunatly enough got up and did something, either demonstating or refusing to pay and it was scrapped. Do you think those who would have been much worse off but did nothing were happy ?

 

There is plenty probably that are not happy with the route change you have done.

 

Mark Gretton's ability to represent anything at all in relation to Hull City supporters is no longer tenable, am I wrong?

CTWD lied to everybody about releasing the minutes of the first meeting with Assem Allam, with hindsight, do you feel this was a mistake that cost you a significant amount of trust?

Do you have any plans to share these minutes with any mere mortals/plebs etc?

Are £2 paid up members able to see them?

 

I think it is wrong to be pedantic about how protest groups are structured and effective. Issues can start at any number of levels through any number of causes, the process is dynamic and on going events can mean that different levels of focus, let's say local and national, can come into play at different stages, depending on developments.

As for credibility, who is to say how that is best achieved. There is an ongoing discussion, all the way up to and including government, about the issues of supporter protection and involvement, at the same time we have our owner dragging on the name-change debacle; so is it not reasonable to expect that local, regional and national voices could become loud from time to time, the lead being swapped as and when? Credibility will not be bought, it will be earned, just as it was when the name-change was defeated at the FA.

The make up of the Trust will become clearer as time progresses, the reception for it will become more evident and telling, just as the individuals concerned will face much closer scrutiny. In the meantime the Chairman should think hard and long about how he should deal with the question mark over his judgment - it is key to the integrity of the group.

 

Yes, you're wrong about Mark. All it shows is he has a poor sense of humour.

The paid up members can't see the minutes unless the current committee changed that. I don't see any reason to change the decision we made but I'm no longer on the Committee so you may get your wish one day.

If I recall you asked me a question about the accounts which I provided an answer to. Did you give me the courtesy of a reply?

 

I believe many will believe you are wrong in your opinion. It was a crude (I'm not a prude, but there is a time and a place) and deliberately offensive statement to the head of the business that owns our football club; a club, business and person who his organisation (membership) purports to seek civil and constructive communication with. Perhaps you would be good enough to explain how this sets a the right tone, standard and basis for civil, if not amicable, communication with the owners?

If you do not see this as a problem then I, for one, am very relieved you have stood down. It is indefensible and requires a response from the office of Chairman. I am a member and I expect nothing less.

 

What Obi describes as poor humour is seen differently by a current committee member :

That's from OLM on CI.

So yeah, we can pretty much all go **** ourselves unless we agree with this slick, self serving bunch with massive delusions of grandeur.

Now do you see why I don't trust them and like pointing out their faults? I would really like a supporters trust and these superfans will destroy any chance of it becoming a decent reality. Then they'll blame everyone else.

 

It was a present so, unless you know otherwise, Mark didn't write the inscription. Mark put it on twitter because it appealed to his sense of humour. To me that showed poor taste and a poor sense of humour, nothing more.

Does making that one, or maybe two mistakes, mean that all the good work he does for CTWD goes out the window? To me it doesn't. Just my personal opinion.

It may give the CTWD committee a problem but that depends on the reaction of Assem Allam and the football club. As the photo was published months ago, all that may have been sorted privately. It would have been how I would have dealt with it.

There is no indciation in anything OLM has posted to suggest the club has an issue over the hipflask.

I presume, as you feel that strongly, you've written to CTWD as a member asking for a response.

I'm sure you are not the only one to be very relieved I stood down.

 

As usual, I don't even think you know what you're angry about.

 

In his defence, we all make stupid mistakes.

Mainly when young, inexperienced and trying to impress.

Unless he's a 19 year-old then it was a serious error of judgement and one which will he probably regrets.

 

As usual you're confusing angry with bemused. Simply reporting the facts. Obi sees tgis as minor, a number of us do not. We think it reflects badly on the integrity of a chairman and his organisation. If CTWD want to be taken seriously they have a lot to learn. They also appear to be as guilty of exactly the same things aimed at Dr Allam. Name changes for better appeal, jokes taken the wrong way, half truths, smoke and mirrors. The bug difference is Dr A has actually achieved something hugely positive and to all our benefits on here. CTWD still has a lot to prove and are currently engaged positively with a much smaller number than the Allams, despite all the noise.

Have you had any positive input to this thread?

 

The thing you don't see is that the Allams have done loads, more in fact outside of the club but for the benefit of the people of Hull than CTWD has or ever will. Want to talk about scoffing at someone's efforts in doing things for other people? Give me a break.

Scoffing? How about proudly displaying that hip flask
On Twitter then refusing to explain, apologise or even justify? I guess anyone outside the clique is only worthy of contempt and just a means to boost egos for you lot.