Yes, which I posted not too long ago - repetition gets criticised; although I believe the Supporter Committee meetings are a club / league / FA requirement that the club must invite the Trust to and are, in that way, killing two birds with one stone.
I think it has been more than adequately covered on here, by every POV I have seen, that to reverse the rebranding of the club's name is simple, quick to carry out and key to moving forward. I have also seen it stated by the Trust. So tell them in polite and straightforward terms that the invitation is welcome and a positive thing, but the simple name change needs to be instigated by them, rather than talked about - a genuine sign of their sincerity is required, there has been too many false starts. Do that, or something of equal measure and I would then applaud the Trust going to the meeting...
Is that not what’s happened, there’s now a deadline of the end of this month for the Club to refer to us as Hull City again?
There is no requirement to have any specific supporters group at any meeting. The Supporters Committee has no formal power in the governance of the club. It is a forum and it’s members only are representative of the supporter base. Although they are Supporter Representatives , as there is no ballot to elect them, they should be seen only as representing a particular stand. They are very short term members of a committee that only serves to provide a consultation medium that is the requirement under 112 of the EFL regulations. There is a requirement under this section that the owners of the club or their representatives must attend meetings with supporters twice a year. Although the committee has the normal etiquettes reserved for meetings, it really is the club seeking to consult rather than a meeting of equals. The supporter reps do not sit on the committee in an appointed by peers position, they are invited and the club can withdraw that invitation at any point as long as it acts reasonably. Too much importance has be placed on these meetings. The club is only required to consider any proposals made and it is not obligated to ny decision made by the committee. When the club says it will do this and that, it says it to the whole supporter base and not to the indivuals on the committee. As for the recent meetings, I believe that the protests had an impact and the owners reacted to them, but the lack of numbers at the march, has now discounted that reaction and the owners may not feel the need to attend anymore. I also believe that the club will do its best to honour its commitments, it really has nothing to lose by it.
"I also believe that the club will do its best to honour its commitments, it really has nothing to lose by it" The club has already lost hundreds if not thousands of paying supporters, many of those forever because of the Allams pig headedness and stupidity. Honoring their commitments to change back the things they should never have changed in the first place will lose them nothing more than face.
You may think so I don't. I was trying to think of a way to explain it clearly the best i can do is this. You buy a new car but after a short time you feel the dealer cheated you so to get your own back you don't go back for it to be serviced, then years later when the engine is knocking banging and smoking you go back and ask them to change the oil. It's too late the damage is done, it's not an improvement doing what you should have done years ago.
Actually just reading your post again, if the club has lost thousands of supporters some forever, it needs to have a product that appeals to new supporters, maybe if it gets promoted into the PL it might fill a stand or two with supporters who don’t give a **** about the clubs name, concessions or the crest.
No, this4 has not just commenced, a number of meetings have been attended (even after obvious piss taking) - that's the very clear difference. What if another meeting is called, more moving of coats (you can hardly call them goalposts)? Maybe I'm wrong, if so great, but it just seems like they've brought in a sharp operator to string it along further - I'm sure they have a very good idea of their timeline. I know you don't agree with me, but I'll ask you the same questions I asked, Dennis: What have the meetings achieved so far? (Please don't come back with this latest set of promises, that replace earlier mouthings.) Why are the club hosting Supporter Committee meetings?
Fairly sure that if a Trust is in existence then it must be invited to take part in the support meetings. I don't have the time at this moment to verify, but I do recall someone ITK stating that there was a contractual obligation on the club to facilitate this. I think the club has real incentive to been seen to be honouring it's commitments, but how it does it is another matter. Far too much trust and assumption, not enough caution and lessons learnt.
Fez, that would only apply if there was only a trust and no other organisation. Supporters Direct have a stipulation that only one supporters group will be recognised by it and HCST is that group because it is actually Tigers Coop still. Being a trust has no bearing on being recognised by the club. Another trust could be formed, but it would not have the support of SD.
That's not strictly true. Tiger's Trust merged with CTWD to create a new trust which with the demise of the Tigers Trust was recognised by Supporters Direct.
The Tigers Trust is based in the Airco Arena and is nothing to do with CTWD. Supporters Direct accepted that the moribund Tiger Coop would become viable again if it merged with CTWD and as it was one of the founding members of SD it did not want to see it fail. A member of CTWD met with SD In Manchester and was told that CTWD was not a single agenda group and that it was providing extensive community activities. It pledged its support and that was key to the merger. CTWD published that it had the support of CTWD before it was agreed and a regular poster on here apologised for it. Look at the records in companies house Tigers Coop is still in existence it’s trading name is Hull City Supporters Trust.
Isn't the formal name for these meetings, as the club is required to facilitate themj, The Supporters Liaison Meeting (Committee); if a Trust is in existence, it must be a part of it. Can't be arsed to search.
No a group or individual can be excluded if there is a good reason no group has a right to be invited. There is no reason that there could not be two trusts for one club other than financial. The cost of the legals is high and SD provides free legal support for one trust per club. There is no legislation in place yet, but what if there was a Supporters Community Interest Company and also a Supporters Trust for the same club which would be the one recognised?
