They were just my observations, I wasn't involved in running it and it's not my decision if it's dropped, though as I said, I think the FWG is a better option to progress it.
As it seems the action from the committee's been on its way since January, I suspect it has been dropped. It's a pity they've not deemed fit to mention it after choosing to get involved. You'd think mention on the campaign page would create the illusion they were involved though. I guess whittling down what the trust isn't involved I is useful for the suggestions on here. They can now be focused on what's left after the FWG and OSC have taken on their bits.
Aye it is clear if you want to read them, which is why I tried (poorly) to reason that the ownership of them was not necessarily that of HCST. The use of campaign is a misleading description and I fell into it for ease. The reality is that if you click on the Campaign drop-down on the black bar, then only 3 campaigns appear: A Living Wage For Hull City; Statue for Ebenezer; Anlaby Road Football Ground Project. Are these the current projects that HCST are steering themselves?
They are, though the Statue For Ebenezer campaign is just one we're supporting, rather than us actually being the driving force behind it. We should probably also add the Reverse The Rebrand campaign to that list.
It would seem the trust have killed one initiative by sitting on it, while leaving people to believe things were happening. Despite being in contact, and listing it in their campaigns, they didn't bother to tell anyone they've changed their mind and now feel it's better dealt with by the FWG. As most of the other campaigns on the website are other people's, it could be useful for the trust to clarify the advantage of the trust over the FWG.
I said I thought it was better dealt with by the FWG, the trust haven't said anything at all, neither have the trust said it's been binned. You're in an email group with all those involved, why don't you direct your questions at them, rather than posting on here where those involved don't post?
Bump - seing as it seems there is a determination to embroil the thread in a personal and quarrelsome campaign, I will bump this to try and get it back on track!
It's not for you to say if I'm in a group or not. As it's not something you're involved in, it seems more like you that shouldn't be posting. What you've put shows a big **** up from the trust in the way they've handled this. If it isn't that, it's you getting ideas beyond your station. As it is, I had contacted people in the group you're referring to, and they thought it was left that the trust were getting back to everyone with some work that the trust themselves pushed for. With hindsight, the FWG was certainly the right place. It would have had the progress minuted, rather than just used as a photo on a website of 'campaigns'. So, that **** up aside, what are the benefits of a trust over the fwg?
Part of it's down to the repeated problem of poor communication. Particularly when it's not clear if someone is responding as themselves or the trust. The replies show an attitude that should be unbelievable, but sadly isn't.
That’s a pleasingly amusing rant. Meanwhile, the facts… HCST was asked to facilitate a group to discuss ways in which the KC matchday atmosphere could be improved. HCST facilitated that group, made its electronic communications available to the group and a board member led at least one face to face meeting. That group came up with recommendations for action, some of which were not progressed as no volunteer from the group was able to commit to take them on. Has the atmosphere at the KC improved as a result? It’s impossible to say. But the establishment of a group was offered, and that is what happened. Is the group listed as a HCST “campaign” on the campaign menu on its website, and has it ever been? No. Can the above be regarded a “**** up”? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on all sorts of things. Meanwhile the Trust will get on with trying to make a difference using the limited resources available.
You should have started that with 'once upon a time'. I don't know where you're gettingbtgat from, but t's largely bollocks. The trust got involved in an existing small collective. The one meeting was left with the trust pushing for a survey that others felt was maybe not needed. The survey was produced and feedback given. It was left that the trust would get back to the group on the suggested changes, and asked them to hang fire til they had. A few prompts have been pushed since, with just another request from the trust asking people to hang fire as they were on with it. The next response is the comment today that it's not for the trust, but better the fwg do it. It is in the trust site under the heading of campaigns. There will be no improvement in atmosphere from it, because **** all happened as it was stalled. I'd say that's a **** up by most standards, either that or a deliberate block.
I see OLM concedes that the project was probably better handled by the FWG but wasn't it's last meeting mid-March, not exactly regular is it; it would seem there is still time to transfer the project ownership if that is still the desire - when is the next meeting? How successful was the FWG with the Away Supporters Initiative concerns? Didn't the ASI kind of take the steam from most other things at that time? Perhaps TOM could comment on whether or not the HCOSC might find it within their mandate to take ownership of this supporter/club concern? It would seem to be an obvious platform as they do have the inside track to the club and it is something that I would have thought as a decent community project for them. Let's see that nettle grasped. Have the club been involved? It just seems strange that they don't even appear as an elephant in this room's discussion. You are holding a conversation about something that the rest of the board have little or no understanding of how it has developed (AlRawdah made an effort and Dutch has then come in with his Dusty Cannonballs). As no one on here seems to have pressed on this Get The KC Rocking before now, maybe no one really cares too much, other that to use it as a stick to beat HCST with and to continue this pathetic campaign (correct use of the word) to discredit it or one of it's board. If someone has something substantial they are prepared to post about this affair then do so and open up the understanding, otherwise take it elsewhere, as 'Once Upon A Time' isn't going to lead to the rest of us 'Living Happily Ever After'.
Of that ^^^ tedious ****e? Nah, I tend to just skip over your posts, like ^^^^ that one, you rarely add much but a whine and whinge anyway.
Not like to not know what's going on, but ignore the posts and post a bucket load of ****e anyway. I would have thought you of all.people would prefer an open and honest answer, and be a tad peeved at seeing the group being misleading and arrogant in a way that they'd be screeching from the mountain tops had Allam done it.
Your first sentence is gobbledygook so I can't answer that. I haven't seen an open and honest answer from anyone yet; yours seems to be more convincing but no timeline and the fact you have held out on it for so long seems to be nothing but an argumentative ploy, rather than a constructive one. Why not do what you preach and resolve this by PM or email (you seem to be in the loop) and publicise the outcome when there is one? Doing it in this manner offers no one anything other than a long and tedious argument - we have had no specifics, no timelines, no real accusation, just complaint and brickbats. I do prefer open and honest answers which is why I find both you and the Trust very frustrating in this matter.
The long and short of it, is that the bloke who offered to lead this had a change in circumstances and is now out of country a lot, things stalled and nobody else stepped up to the plate so it went nowhere. There's a group of volunteers and an email group set up if anyone wants to take it on, but seemingly, they don't. The club were not involved, though they were aware of it (they read our website), I got the impression that they were suspicious of the trust's motives in getting involved with it (stealing the Ultras thunder), hence my opinion that it would have been better done through the FWG without the trust's involvement (certainly at the time), but that was just just my personal opinion, obviously another board member was keen to be involved in it.
It's still pretty poor to understand, although I certainly did not ignore any posts, but I think I might have deciphered it as one of your usual high-handed insults. So which of my points did you consider ****e and why? Was it: My questioning of the effectiveness of the FWG to take up the project - they last met last March, ffs, we're now in September; is it really operating with an effective timetable? I don't think so, do you? As the FWG hasn't met since March their effectiveness on the ASI (a PL initiative) might be used as a reasonable indicator as to how they are able to react. Do you disagree, why is my point ****e? What is unreasonable about the suggestion I have put towards the HCOSC? Can you explain what it is you think is ****e about this? Simple question, as everything is very anonymous, have the club been involved in the subject 'campaign', no need to identify individuals. It will help to understand the point you are pushing and the stance being returned. Do you know? Was is ****e about this? You might think me thinking you are just continuing an on-going campaign of criticism against the HSCT as ****e, you are entitled to, but more than me thinks that and I personally believe it detracts from some of your argument, although I know you would not agree; why would you? Like you I advocate discussion and I dislike people being heckled down, just dismissing their views as ****e - so why do you do it?
