Again, rather than consider the points, you make assumptions and pompously dismiss the comments. You say the Trust is for all not just an individual, but in over a year of asking, you've yet to demonstrate how you know what people want. You've jumped in over Airco, but were ignorant, if not obstructive towards City fans evicted with no consultation. You made no attempt to find out what fans wanted at that time. To dismiss my views as simply being related to those failings is wrong, not only that, it's negative. Have re-read of the points I make and consider them relative to the title and content of the op. You come across as having many of the same attributes you accuse the Allams as having. The OP says it wants to give the fans a voice. How do your replies support that? To claim you speak for fans, and dismiss comments as you do, is breathtakingly arrogant and in my view, foolish.
Nope. The seat move was just one of a number of symptoms. It's missing so much to make the mistake of believing it's the issue. It's why I didn't mention it. It's a distractive red herring thrown in by OLM. The seat move itself was only ever a tiny part of the problem, despite the spin others have tried to attribute to it.
Dutch, have you officially approached the Trust with issues? You are aware they were formed after you were evicted? Are you a member?
Isn't discussing it on here approaching the trust with issues? Sometimes it's hard to tell which hat they're wearing, but if they're posting information on the Trust on here, surely they welcome comment and feedback, irrespective of anything else I'm doing. At the end of the day, I don't start a thread about the trust. I reply to a small percentage of the posts relating to it. The implication seems to be, it's fine for trust posts, but anything that's not supportive is deemed obsessive. Surely, comments are just that. If my opinion's wrong, it's an opportunity for the trust to reinforce their position. Equally, if I'm right, it's a sign of a good group if they can be seen to take such things on board. Olm simply dismissing it, and claiming to be just a poster not a member, as and when the situation suits is disingenuous.
There's offering feedback & comment & repeating it to the point of tedium. You've left your feedback, you've made comment. It may be better for you if you contact them direct ( [email protected] ) or maybe register with the forum on their own website & open a discussion there. Repeatedly going over the same vague points on here does your cause no favours. That's my feedback to you
I disagree. If the trust post on here, whichever hat they're wearing, then this is the same as sending an email. In fact it's better as it gives the opportunity for live, public discussion. If the replies on here are an example, an email would be futile anyway. The trust shouldn't be beyond question, especially if they're posting on a public forum. In reality WE are the trust.
Today: "Here is the weekly update of the Trust's activity and stories on our website. Well, there’s no question as to what the big news this week was. You’ll already have read the press statement we sent youin this regard (if you missed it, see For the love of City). If you haven’t already done so, we’d also recommend you look at the arbitration document itself on the FA website. It’s a fascinating read. If ever you wanted to know what the owners of our club think about you, you’ll find that answer here. As you know, the club has been indulging in “name-changingby stealth” since last April. As our press release stated, we can also speculate that – were it not for our pressing the FA not to wait until the end of the season to release the arbitration decision – it may have been about to embark on a name-change application by stealth as well. For the record, we think Malcolm Clarke of the Football Supporters’ Federation has been harshly treated – who’d have thought that someone from an organisation that promotes the greater involvement of supporters in the governance of football would say that, well, fans should have a say? There’s one good thing to come out of this – more supporters have joined the Trust and our membership is now approaching 800."
It would appear that regular readers of these posts have been given the impression, from your posts, that the seat move was a major part of the problem, so it is good that you only consider it a very tiny part of the problem. Perhaps you would be good enough to outline what the major part of your problem with HCST is? I think it might be sensible if you concerned yourself with matters within the timeframe of their existence, which really is not very long. If you have old issues with CTWD, perhaps you could make it clear what you expected a single-issue protest group to have done for you. I think this is comedy gold; pot, kettle, getting blacker by the day. At least OLM does not move, delete or edit the posts of others to influence his conversations. Perhaps you should consider that unless you see a post made by HullCitySupportersTrust, then you treat it as a post by the anonymous board member who made it - that is a great deal clearer than a moderator mixing moderation with argument, when it suits him.
I think that's spot on. I got the impression they offered up Malcolm as a sacrificial lamb. Something for the Allams to use to walk away from this with some form of dignity. I can't see rejecting that going down well.
You may be right on that, Dutch. I felt the FA gave Allam the chance to withdraw/retreat quietly and graciously. He didn't avail himself of that option. So.........
