Name change discussion

Last night I spoke to the daughter of someone very heavily involved with the club and Assem. He has said that if it was about money it would have been binned off long ago, it is purely due to his dislike of the council that he is continuing with it. There have also been processes preparing for Allam to leave the club if he chooses to do so.

 

The Tea Lady's daughter?

 

In the words of Mandy Rice-Davis " he would say that wouldn't he?"

 

The really bizarre thing is that anyone might have thought it is about anything other than HCC and his spoilt development ambitions. What is poor is that no one directly addresses the issue in a robust way; not a journalist, not those 'voter's he speaks to, not HCC and, sadly, not CTWD.

 

Spot on Fez. I’ve wondered about and wished for the same.

I do recall in August a female journalist from RH (can’t remember her name) challenged AA and he responded quite aggressively to her. Another string to his bow I suppose.

Since then, it’s just been interview after interview of pandering but also allowing him to create the story with his sometimes belligerent and often contradictory words.

With regard to CTWD, I think their stance has been spot on. Despite the temptation to stick it to AA and the malicious (anonymous) accusations on this forum and beyond, I think its enduring moderate approach has been correct and will ultimately win through.

 

CTWD have undoubtedly taken the right approach.

Do you really think the FA would take them seriously if they were salivating with blood lust for Allams throat?

Putting together a reasoned and level headed dossier along with carrying out a level headed campaign under strong provocation and twattery may well be the clincher saving our silly pointless name.

If both sides were spitting their dummies out the FA wouldn't take anyone seriously and the situation would be judged entirely on different merits, with probably wouldn't favour us.

 

Why does it take someone to be 'salivating with blood lust' to pose a simple question and challenge a weak and dishonest stance. The owners have based their strategy on a lie, so expose it. If you believe you cannot do that with reasoned argument then you should not be in the debate. The CTWD campaign has relied on a numbers game and that is easily argued and flawed; the real argument is that it is pointless and that argument has much more credence if it is bolstered by what is considered to be the real reason - something, apparently, the owners have voiced to FA voters. Move away from your own backyards and no-one has a clue what the truth is and the owners are all too aware of that. What is this idiocy that allows Allam to attack the fans without a measured response, in kind? How many threats must they make before you call their bluff? Why are they being granted the courtesy usually offered to a fair and decent adversary when they are not? This is about the HCC relationship, property development and the frustration of an egotistical man; that must take centre stage rather that the bullshit arguments about massive Asian finance.

Edit: Why would the press take up an argument that the single-issue campaign group do not consider important or relevant to their campaign?

 

It's not just a numbers game:

http://notohulltigers.tumblr.com/post/76430502831/frequent-answers-questioned

 

I see heritage and history wrapped in moving feast of numbers, I see nothing of the ridiculous first meeting and his broken pledges, nor do I see any mention of his troubled meeting with HCC, or the lack of response to the very open and frank response of Terry Geraghty which undermines their credibility - or it would if used correctly.

 

Obviously it's just one example of their communication, but it demonstrates they have argued the daft points others have made. I don't suppose there's much to gain from highlighting Allam's lies, and probably a fair bit to gain from staying calm and reasoned throughout while Allam flaps about in his interviews.

 

I suggest you read the CTWD submission to the FA. The spat with the council is mentioned several times.

 

Lies should always be challenged in any debate, but why do you constantly write with an inference that to challenge Allam means you must not be calm? There have been plenty of instances where an implacable calmness lost a fight due to the lack of a killer instinct. All metaphorical of course; well kind of. You write with a sense of authority and experience that your logic fails to live up to.

I am aware of that, but you tell me how many of the sound-bite public (and press) have troubled themselves to read that. The fact it is quoted 'a number of times' infers importance beyond its wider transmission to the footballing and fair-play world. The old argument that there must be a relationship after this is poppycock, as his own argument that it is a dissenting minority bites him in the backside. Burying the truth is much the same as telling the lie.

 

Fez I don't disagree with your point. I don't think I wrote with a sense of authority at all. It certainly wasn't meant to come across that way.

 

This is an 'us and them' situation; to believe it isn't is burying your head in the sand. They attack the position and credibility of CTWD and you can only defend your position by being vociferous or silent, either is a you or them situation - they want a name-change, you don't. I have seen enough comment from CTWD members and its officers that disparage the Allam's and the strategy they wish to implement in their business, so this so-called non-personal angle is a myth - it is simply polite and non-aggressive at face-value.

They do not come across as frustrated or challenged. Like you, they maintain their argument of the numbers game; an argument that, if taken on your membership numbers, favours them. Their strategy, in playing the poll card late in the game, is well judged, but they can withhold it for later if the FA act against them.

The Allam's, as has frequently been said, are less interested in the name change than their spat with HCC, so why ignore that in day-to-day activity, when it is core to your FA submission? Is it not possible that the name-change and their lies surrounding it can be dealt with in equal measure? What do you gain by not highlighting their duplicity; after all, you have no credibility in their eyes.

 

There are individuals very close to both the club and council who were consulted by the FA. The FA were made fully aware of the circumstances in written submissions.

 

I wouldn't say the spat with the Council is the core of our submission. To me the core of the submission is that Hull City represents a community and that a football club isn't just a business, it represents something special within our City.

The reason he wants to change the name is a side dish. The main course is Hull City is the thread that links generations of supporters and shouldn't be broken without our consent.

Before any says hang on we're having a ballot remember the circumstances surrounding the vote. Ehab thinks the FA will so no, so we have a full page ad and a major interview saying we've putting the club up for sale unless we get our way. That isn't consent, that's blackmail.

 

So how do you view someone saying "If you change the name, I will stop supporting the club"? Isn't that also blackmail?