"It will provide a vehicle for supporters to take part ownership of the club in line with Dr Allam's wishes" Read more: http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull...tory-20221835-detail/story.html#ixzz2nAkWRIj5 If it's what the good Doctor wants I don't see a problem. Who would not believe that having an elected supporter representative on the board would be nothing but a positive outcome? I believe there's a vocal bunch who appear only too happy to criticise the people involved rather than what they are attempting to achieve, it's personal & not subjective. Fortunately for supporters of the campaign, the people who have led the way are reform-minded & proactive, this appears to annoy those who prefer to just criticise, create myths & do nothing, an approach which is simply ridiculous, it's the myths that stall the progression.
Craig just asked a straight forward question.. Trouble is he's not that bothered about the name change so he gets lots of stick.....as does happy Tiger. I must say I like happy and craig and late night bus.... I'm not bothered by the name change either. CTWD = to much anti Assem Allam stuff for me and others I know in the real world. Roll on Saturday. Another premier league game . Watching our best team ever playing under our best manager ever. Great stuff.....
I have read enough abuse thrown at our owner on every footy site on the internet . And in the real world Always from those who support CTWD
If a fans group gets someone on the board then they should really be putting two people on it. One executive director and one non-executive. The executive director is the one everyone is seeing as being a representative and a member of the group so I won't explain that. The non-executive directors on a board have no say in making decisions, they're just there to make sure that the board are acting in the manner the shareholders expect them to. They have to be independent, but clearly having all the NEDs chosen by one section of the board could create suggestions of a bias.
as ctwd knows abuse isn't going to win him round, is it? as for abuse, allam is rather good at generating pr disasters. he's the one saying screw the fans.
Look......I'm not the brightest But. If the fans own the club Or part own the club.. Who pays the wages ? And the bills ? And comes up with cash for new players That's one of the things I don't understand. Isn't it a case of Mr Allams stays Or some other super rich owner / invester comes in with him. F knows.... Back to doing my washing.
As the stated aim of the Allam family is to make the club self sufficient, whether the fans have a stake or not is irrelevent, the funding for wages and player signings in future will need to be generated by the club.
That's a separate issue right now. You can't dismiss an idea on the basis that we need someone to do something they've said they have no intention or ability to do. Allam has already said (in the Peter Levy interview early in the season) that after this season he has no more money to put into the club. So to say that he won't give the fans a shareholding because they'd be unable to provide the ongoing funding that he's going to be isn't valid reasoning. If he isn't doing it why would the other shareholders be required to as part of getting the shareholding?
As you well know it wasn't a reasonable question. A reasonable question would have been how much have you raised and what has it been spent on. Your question was loaded to imply it was spent on trips to London and drink when you had no idea what we've spent the money raised on. OLM has told you how much the flag cost. We have paid for and handed out 30,000 leaflets. We have paid for and handed out 9,000 badges. We have paid postage to send badges and scarves all around the world as a glimpse of our Facebook page shows. We also have money in the bank to pay for our future campaigning activities. We are all volunteers who have put hours into the campaign, all unpaid, and dug into our own pockets to do so. So next time you want to ask a reasonable question please do so with a bit more respect to the people on the committee. You may not agree with what we do but I think we deserve a bit more consideration for what we do.
Why is it a separate issue, the club needs to be self sufficient and this is the reason (part of the reason) for the proposed name change, to try and generate funds. I know the arguments against this and I agree that funds need to be sourced from somewhere else, but I don't see the CTWD Co-op being the answer. He wants to try something new and different, there's nothing to compare this to to say whether it would work or wouldn't but someone in the next meeting with him (if there is one) needs to have alternatives for him to think about otherwise he will go ahead with the name change regardless as his advisers have told him this is the best way to go.
He hasn't got any advisers, this is a one man show. CTWD want to work with him to develop fan ownership, to mediate with the council to facilitate further development around the ground, to improve the quality of club merchandise, club marketing, club sponsorship and anything else we can do to benefit the club. That has to be more attractive than a pointless name change.
So it will be a case of flog off all our players on a decent wage and replace them with cheap options. And end up back in division 4. The Allams don't know if the name change will bring any extra cash, And no one has ever proved it won't. And CTWD don't know were they will get any cash. I think I prefer to go with the name... Rather then have fans running the club with no cash.
As much as he will not entertain CTWD. CTWD dont want to work with him. You want full control of the club. Exiled off CI is driving this. He wants Mr Allam to walk away after giving the club to you for a pittance, as his legacy in CTWD literature. I think CTWD have made a massive mistake. They should have stuck with anti name change. To now move on to wanting full ownership of the club has led to a lot of waverers questioning their motives. You say there is n o evidence of Hull tigers making money. What evidence is there that a raft of people are ready willing and able to give large sums of money to a Supporters Trust ownership?
Certainly applies to a public company but you will get very few private companies that will allow interference where there is a dominant owner
I am in a dilemma here, I have no problem giving money to CTWD, But why would i want to buy shares in a club called Hull Tigers? If AA wants us develop fan ownership of the club then for me it has to be with us buying shares in Hull City AFC not Hull Tigers, What is Tigers Co-op and CTWD stance with this? How can CTWD talk to AA if the name change goes though? If CTWD/ Tigers Co-op want funding from me then it has to be funding to buy Hull City AFC and not Hull Tigers! I will happyly set up DD to buy £500 plus shares a year but iam not buying shares in Hull Tigers
