John Hawley

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
FAO HCST:

"If they want to express their feelings they are free to do so, either outside the stadium or pay to take space. Seriously they are welcome to talk to the stadium management about buying a space for a permanent banner, ten times as big if they want. I am a supporter of democracy, I have no problem with that."

Assem Allam, December 1 2013, talking/gibbering about the banner at the City v Crystal Palace match of the previous week. Is £2,500 enough?!




The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brownbagtiger
They can't encourage any more empty seats. Soon empty seats will out number the occupied seats, there can't be much of a swing required?
 
James Smailes @James_Smailes
Not had confirmation from Hull City, but it seems that while John Oxley told me he was expecting a ban after his protest he won't get one.

John won't be invited back as sponsor or be a guest of the club anytime soon, but will be able to attend matches still. Sensible outcome

They would just look more stupid if they banned him.

Which is why it's so surprising that they haven't.
 
John Hawley always does that job and even when its bloody freezing he still has his big white shirt on.
 
They would just look more stupid if they banned him.

Which is why it's so surprising that they haven't.

John Oxley has now been told he's banned.

Daft ****ers really aren't helping themselves <laugh>
 
He said to Burnsy that he has been banned fro

Did John O have get in joined up writing or was it just a crayon scribbled note ?????

It was a photo of the KCOM on a round sign with a diagonal line drawn in red crayon across it.
 
Presumably the current owners have seen the popular support of the sponsor and his gesture, and the way it has echoed round the media.

Classic morally bankrupt regime: punish the malefactor to warn off others.
 
That's unfortunate though not unexpected.

But they really are bastards aren't they. Why a complete ban? It's totally unnecessary, he held up some fabric for god's sake. He broke no laws and didn't endanger anyone's safety (apart from possibly his own). I know he was expecting a ban but that's not the point.

[HASHTAG]#allamout[/HASHTAG]