City Till We Die advert in Hull Daily Mail urges fans to vote 'No' to Hull Tigers The Hull City supporters group City Till We Die has taken a full-page advertisement in today's Mail setting out the reasons why it believes fans should vote 'No' to Hull Tigers in the club's ballot of season pass holders. The appeal, printed on page eight of the paper today (Tuesday), calls on fans to reject the name change plan of club owners Assem and Ehab Allam. The advert can be read online here - http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276270/binaries/CTWD.pdf In the advert, the City Till We Die group says: "All City fans should be grateful for the Allams’ legacy – appointing Steve Bruce, winning promotion to the Premier League and making an FA Cup semi-final. “None of those achievements have anything to do with changing the name to Hull Tigers. The success, the financial stability, the Wembley trip – these have all been achieved by Hull City.” The group argues that their opposition to the Tigers rebrand is not a personal campaign against the Allams. “This vote is solely about a change of name,” the statement says, and adds it is unlikely the Allam family would “just walk away” from Hull City. Hull City have opened a ballot of season pass holders over the plan to change the name, which the Allams believe will attract investment and sponsorship. The ballot follows a recommendation by the Football Association's Membership Committee that the Hull Tigers proposal be rejected when the FA's Full Council meets on April 9. Fans have a week to cast their vote for one of three options: • Yes to Hull Tigers with the Allam family continuing to lead the club. • No to Hull Tigers. • I am not too concerned and will continue to support the club either way. http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/City...tory-20847092-detail/story.html#ixzz2wxwp7Q32
Still peddling that lie I see, despite the recent evidence to the contrary (handing over the "minutes" of the meeting that would allegedly cause the Allams harm and doing every single thing you can to undermine them) and the huge number of personal attacks we've seen on this forum from your members. The next line, if you were being honest should read "Dr Allam is lying about walking away, he won't and we're prepared to gamble it all by calling his bluff". Even with the underhand approach of one person sending in 10 "No" votes, you're in real danger of looking irrelevant and very much in the minority.
We were told we were getting a vote on the name change, what we're actually getting is a 'vote for me or the puppy gets it' vote and we're trying to bring it back to being a vote on the name. I said handing over the minutes could damage the club, I've corrected you on that twice now. If I was being honest, I'd say 'Dr Allam might want to walk away in 24 hours, but anyone with half a brain knows that's not a practical proposition'. Who's sent 10 underhand No votes? We are in the majority, the club knows it, that's why they couldn't offer us a free vote on the name, they now have no chance of ever proving the mythical silent majority.
I used this a long time ago, just as I used emails and membership to the Supporters Federation and CTWD, along with endorsing the key petitions, etc. If your posting of this was intended as some sort of 'go on then!' it is ill-considered, as I was addressing a point to the membership group of which I am a member. Any complaints sent to the FA, at this late stage, would be akin to a fart in a thunderstorm.
The majority are the "not fussed about the name, I'll support the club regardless" which is why you never wanted that as an option.
If the options were Yes/No/Not bothered, I'd be a lot happier than I am with 'vote for me or I'm off' bollocks that we've ended up with.
Forgot to respond to this, apologies, it was 12 not 10. Naturally you won't see anything underhand about that of course and you'll still claim that all the no votes are representative yadda yadda yadda but at least we now know whatever the number of No's are, it doesn't actually represent that number of people. So ta.
Doesn't that also mean that whatever the yes's are it doesn't actually represent that number of people?
Don't be silly. There is only one ballot paper for each set of corporate seats/boxes. So whilst I no voter has submitted 12 votes there may be 2 yes voters submitting 24 yes votes. You may not see anything wrong in that but I do. Even if all corporate votes were no it still wouldn't be right.
You couldn't be more wrong, there's more corporates that will vote Yes, than will vote No, so you should be happy about this. Personally, I think the system in the Premier Club is ****ing ridiculous, but then everything about this ballot is ****ing ridiculous. The fact that the ballot isn't anonymous has put some corporates in an impossible position, this is from CI - Just to set this straight, I am dead against the Hull Tigers name and would vote against it, if I could! The things is that the company I work for do a hell of a lot of work for Allam Marine, and we have several seats in the corporate area of the ground, which are in our companies name. Now a ballot letter has been emailed out asking me to put on them our season card numbers, company name and address. I simple dearn't risk completing a form and putting No To Hull Tigers in fear of retribution from the Allams and them removing a contract from us. In my opinion this isn't a fair ballot at all, how many more companies or individuals will be in the same situation as myself I wonder? Shabby as ****.
If one person/company has paid for those collective tickets then they deserve to have their proportional vote - why wouldn't they? Or maybe you are using the same principle that means the owner, who has bought the right to rent those seats out, is not entitled to determine his own business future. This is why the argument is flawed; it is only about history, heritage and protecting them from transient, unscrupulous businessmen; once you move onto anything else it can come back to bite.
It doesn't quite work like that though, I sit with my son and have done since the KC opened, yet he doesn't get a vote, is that fair?
Of course that is shabby, but, unlike the proportional voting, it is a shabby result of the way in which the ballot is being conducted. This shabby outcome is because the man has shabby scruples, he has no conscience in terms of business propriety. This is a key reason those minutes/records should have been published and used as leverage for him to act in a decent way. In November, for instance, you called for a ballot, you could have used that as a way of challenging his integrity. The owner has always shown a total lack of regard for others in his world of business, he does not get worse, he simply gets more careless of opinion and more cynical in his actions. Stop fighting the name-change, that is done; divert the campaign to the real problem, his real motives and his cynical arrogance in achieving them. He still believes he can, I have no doubt about that.
His football club might be the least of his problems, he's probably about to lose half his staff to Siemens.
Are they corporate/block purchases? If they are I would think that the person who owns them has voting rights, as it would be unreasonable to take it to a further level. Would your son vote differently to you, or indeed, would you allow it with a ticket you have purchased. I understand the principle you are highlighting, but I think it is more than a tad petty. If you must strike at any element of the ballot then focus on the shameless oversight and it's potential for negative repercussions. Or treat it with the contempt it deserves and get your dusty cannonballs stacked ready for the next stage.
He would vote the same as me, so in my case it doesn't affect the voting, but there's plenty of families of four around me, they might not all feel the same way and there's plenty of companies with six seats, which may have the same six in them every week, but only the name on the account gets to vote and he votes six times. Though it's somewhat academic, as the whole thing is a complete farce anyway.
I was just talking to my son about the advantages of increased skills demand eventually leading to other companies moving to a burgeoning skills pool. But, as you point out, there is always a bit of early-doors positioning and that usually has a victim. It would also be good for some of those blackmailed corporate suppliers to have a chance to assert themselves as well. What a damn fool of a man he is when it comes down to getting the most from a community.
