That's pretty much what I'd like to see. I just feel some points are less liable to be put across as well if they're presented by someone who's linked to another group.
If the request is for standing, my view is that it would also accomodate those that don't want to stand. So toward the back would be standing tolerated, whereas toward the front would be seated.
I of course would accept the role but would have to demand first class airplane tickets. None of that plebeian coach nonsense for the likes of me.
If Amber Nectar and CI get a seat on the fans liaison group then I think it is only right that not606 do to. If not606 have a seat then it should be up to those registered on the forum to choose who will represent them at the meetings. I don't think it is right for the club to say who it should be. The representative should raise issues on behalf of the board and report back and have a sticky would be a good way of achieving that. I can see DMD's argument about the representative not being a mod but I'd rather we agree the mechanism for electing a representative and how they would take up and report back on any issues raised on the board first. Due to personal circumstances I wouldn't be willing to put my hat into the ring at this time, but thanks to DMD for the nod. I think Happy Tiger would make a good representative and I'd have every confidence he'd take his duties seriously. Pity he's said no.
Erm, no. I was the first to question it, that's all. I didn't ****-up, I read what was written and asked for clarity - presuming they were not nominations (as they were written) is second guessing and DMD is always so particular that folk answer the question; the answer I was given inferred intended meaning (as you point out), which was not at all clear - I seriously read that as two opening gambits in the proposed nominations; Happy and Obi. What do you reckon? Take your own advice and move on; I did.
I agree with your points here, especially the underlined sentence, as it makes sense to understand the boundaries of moderation. Unfortunately, in the whole wide world you had to go and make the same mistake as me, you weren't given the nod. Edit: Just a late thought - how does all of this demarcation and involvement sit with the anonymity of this board - a rhetorical question.
I read it as: if it happened Happy or me would be DMD's preferred nominations. In the meantime he was looking to gauge people's views on electing a specific not606 representative to see if there was general support for an elected representative.
The nod I referred to was because he thought I'd do a good job representing the board, not that I thought it was an actual nomination.
That's exactly how I read it. I simply asked if he had PM'd you to gauge if you would be prepared to accept nomination - should it happen. It's academic, as it appears you are not his nominations, simply examples of the type of posters he might consider suitable. The rest was always clear.
Okay, fine, that's what you meant. General speaking 'Giving the nod', infers more than thinking someone is up to it - it means giving approval to proceed, etc. Steve Bruce might just give the nod to Andrew Robertson in our next match - not only might he think him up to it, but he will definitely be giving him his permission, approval, nomination to put on the shirt and take part. To be fair I only mentioned it because the Wailing Jesus Proclaimer has decided to be a knob - the whole thing was adequately answered way back by DMD. I'll leave it at that, you're not nominated, no one is, apparently.
6. Campaigns Asset of community value application (ACV) has been submitted to Hull City Council. Hmmm interesting. When i questioned on here why ctwd were meeting with the council I was told it was only to try and broker a deal between AA and the Council. I suggested this was rubbish and it was ctwd's intention to get their name on it somehow as a bargaining chip to try and take a stake in the club. Whats the story now??
Making the KC a community asset benefits CTWD in no way, it makes the KC an asset of the community, not an asset of CTWD. Neither does it prevent any development of the stadium or the area around it, it merely secures the KC stadium itself as a community asset and prevents it from being anything other than a sports stadium. I can't see why any Hull City fan would object to this?
