We are at cross purposes here Fez. I pasted the post to highlight that you had discussed the subject with DMD and I thought you had forgotten. Next time we meet ask me for the truth and face to face I will tell you everything that I already have said or posted. You can ask with the relative you know present and he will vouch for me. There is nothing of worth hidden by me, everything I knew or know is already out in the public domain now. Misguided, misled, whatever, my creditably is suspect and others are held in total high regard no matter what. Oh well, as I like to say what do I know eh!
You can only read what is posted, deal with the facts and try and use experience to suss the backplot. I think AA has caught so many up his his lies and manipulation that no one, amongst them caught up, really know the truth. I think AA comes into this bracket too, as he has frequently puffed out his chest and uttered absolute nonsense. That is not a sign of stupidity, it is a sign of arrogance and total contempt for us, his customers and anyone else who may have an interest. In business, when someone is blatantly and shamelessly telling lies, you would be well advised, if possible, to avoid them. If not possible you should manage them and their lies, Chase down the lie and make them face their own lie or withdraw it; then deal with the reality. History would show how effective this can be, or how disastrous not doing it can be. I think you are are a good man who has got too close and too involved. Allams lies and manipulation has spoiled your vote. I have never spoken about individuals from CTWD and I have only ever had one PM each from OLM and Obadiah, so I don't understand your last comment. I admire the name-change work of CTWD, although I ask them plenty of questions; they have always answered me promptly and respectfully - why shouldn't I respect that? Perhaps it's because I have no aspiration to look at forming a Supporters Trust. It's all a pointless distraction for me, as the name-change is my focus.
Not sure if this has been talked about in this thread but whats to stop mr Allam to make a second application for a name change when this season has finished . As long as it goes in before april next year and with passholders now been given a vote we could see it all happen again for the 2015/16 season
As I said, it's not as clear cut as that. Finance and costings can be discussed, but if it's a concept rather than a clearly defined proposal, it will be amounts in principle rather than a firm offer. The offer to fund an investigation was also in the HDM.
Fez, I had an aspiration, that I would be involved in a Supporters Trust for Hull City AFC. At a push Hull City. I would never aspire to be involved in a Hull Tigers Supporters Trust. After Supporters Direct informed me that they will only work with Tigers co op, there was no point in progressing. I was asked for my advice and this still happens. I believed until October that a development partnership could work. I did not join CTWD for the reasons below, but in October a series of events took place that changed the reason. Protest in the ground was associated with CTWD, I was told in no uncertain terms by my co director not to join CTWD. I was very pleased that supporters would be meeting Assem Allam. It was a move in the right direction for supporter involvement. I have always said that the name change argument has to remain independent from any supporter investment, it cannot be linked either way pro or anti. That doesn't mean that a view cannot be expressed, but that for example CTWD's plans to work with Assem Allam in the future do not square with the actions that were undertaken in the name change debate. If you look back at the posts about the KC development the figure of £120m kept cropping up. I had calculated that £15m could be raised through a supporters trust, but around October a series of reports came out and it looked that in order to raise enough rental income a development twice the size of the KC site would be needed. Developments were failing, due to increased material costs. The meltdown at the co op bank (the leading supporters trust loan supplier) was the final straw for me. Ehab stated that the club would not be loss making next season and that he was looking at a shortfall of £10m for the next. That means that a supporters trust does have a chance if that figure is correct. But the very first step is for it to be at least on speaking terms with the club owner. I challenged posts made on here. You questioned why I did so. I challenged them because they said things that were wrong. Working with Supporters Direct.....wrong. Tigers Co op and CTWD already together......wrong. And you know what Fez, I have to ask these questions. We already have a supporters trust, what have they been doing for all of these years? Where were they when the club was facing administration? Finally why has CTWD maxed out its membership at around 2000?
In other words there was no real proposal, just a discussion where parties were jockeying for position before real negotiations began (only they became acrimonious bollocks) - which is exactly what was in the HDM - there was no 'real' offer made. The position of Assem Allam and the terms he was (supposedly) putting forward were clearly unacceptable. I don't disbelieve you, regarding the inquiry, but I don't get the HDM up here and I don't recall it be mentioned on Newsnow, NOT606 or anywhere else. I would be interested to see the context in which it was offered, as Allam has a track record of manipulation. I have Googled (Allams offer to fund inquiry, etc) as well as I am able and have failed to throw up anything, other than this: http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Rejected-Rosedowns-plan-Hull-City-owners-Assem/story-17264053-detail/story.html This shows an earlier HCC thorn in Allam's side, another disassociated property development, on Cannon St, refused. http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/nov/12/tiger-economy-hull-city-assem-allam-asia This is closer to the bone and does mention a "committee of inquiry", it does not say who would fund it and it also says Brady made no comment, other than to say: "I am willing to meet with Mr Allam at any time to discuss his proposals." If you take the trouble to read the full article, it demonstrates just how disingenuous this man is. He is clearly confused or deliberately misleading everyone; it is also very clear from subsequent interviews that he has no compunction about misrepresenting the facts, ignoring reality and using unethical methods to achieve his goals. But it is this statement that sums up his contempt for us, the supporters - he had had plenty of feedback by then, as the article states: So this "committee of inquiry", if indeed it was offered/proposed, never had any substance, just a throwaway comment; did it have all of the credibility of his ballot, or was it one of his random claims that we all raise our eyebrows at? Whatever the case, he is not credible, nor are his claims, unless they are backed up with substantial evidence and this is not - unless anyone can find something else.
Fez, there were several firm* offers made for various options proposed. Mr Allam offered to fund an independent inquiry into the whole affair. You can choose to believe that, or twist as you have in the last reply, that's your choice, but there it is. *The reason it looks like it conflicts with the earlier reply is that the concepts the offers related to were open to discussion. It's the lack of an absolute proposal that seems to be the issue. I still marvel that the man that made the derisory comments at the suggestion of an ice arena and swimming pool is suggested as the chairman of a sports complex possibly being built nearby. Quite a coincidence.
I'm not speaking for the rest of the committee but for me its because I haven't pushed it. It started as a single issue campaign aimed at getting the FA to say no was considered. The question of what happens to the committee if the FA did say no. The decision was that we would seek a merger with the Tigers Co-op. Our invite for individual membership made that clear. If it happens and the merger takes place, it will be up to the new supporters' trust to make a success of it. I felt the task of talking to the club would be easier if the new supporters trust represents a broader section of the fans than just CTWD. Whether there will be a period of reflection and reconciliation if the FA say no to Hull Tigers will be down, as it always has been, to Assem and Ehab Allam.
Obi, I put have put forward a suggestion for a "fans conference" several times. The question still remains, why has it stuck at 2000? Putting aside people like me, why are so few people in Hull not dipping into their pockets for the £2? Again Obi its not a knock at CTWD. The same can be said about OSC, £8, falling membership (according to some). Is there actually an appetite for involvement in Hull City? I would say that personally the one big plus from all of this is that younger supporters have become involved and engaged in the process, the foundation for a new generation of activist supporters could have been laid. Maybe the baggage of the past could be put behind and old feuds between those involved in Hull City supporters groups, forgotten. The common goal for all is after all to see Hull City flourish. With or without the Allam family.
Your position on Supporters Trusts are of no concern of mine. I have simply held the consistent view that a Supporters Trust would have no impact or benefit in fighting the name-change - my single issue objective! It appears you have come around to that same conclusion; eventually. I also said that anyone looking to enter a minority partnership with the Allams would be totally bonkers; I still think that. "Protest in the ground was associated with CTWD, I was told in no uncertain terms by my co director not to join CTWD." I think you will find the protest was associated with anger against the name-change, not CTWD. If my memory serves me well, CTWD made a strong point of distancing themselves from in-ground protest, other than the 19:04 chanting of an old, well established football chant. They made it clear and asked their membership and beyond not to take any part in in-ground, disruptive protests. I really can't see how your personal membership of CTWD effects your business - unless your business is looking for advantage in that market. In any case, as I said yesterday, your level of posting involvement and what you talk about, under a poorly protected anonymity, kind of compromises any other thoughts of distancing yourself. You really should back off and let it develop. "but that for example CTWD's plans to work with Assem Allam in the future do not square with the actions that were undertaken in the name change debate" I don't know what they (CTWD) have to do to stop you posting this nonsense. They have always said in their official statements that they are a single issue campaign group and that single issue is to stop the name-change. They have said they wished to do it whilst working to give Assem Allam their ongoing support and gratitude for his other work with the club and they made it very clear that any other, on-going objectives would be considered only when the name-change campaign was concluded. If you read their statement about the purpose of their next general meeting, I really don't know what else you expect from them. This is nothing more that a very petty point poorly made. Figures from you, Ehab or anywhere else are best backed up with some form of evidence, as there has been far too much nonsense written and lies told. All of the points you have picked CTWD up on they have answered. If you believe they have told lies then put it in a post with full supporting evidence. "And you know what Fez, I have to ask these questions. We already have a supporters trust, what have they been doing for all of these years? Where were they when the club was facing administration? Finally why has CTWD maxed out its membership at around 2000?" Okay, you had to ask them, so let's try and find an answer for them: "We already have a supporters trust, what have they been doing for all of these years?" - I don't know; what have you been doing? "Where were they when the club was facing administration?" - many of them were probably attending games, putting money into buckets and enjoying the football. What were you doing? "Finally why has CTWD maxed out its membership at around 2000?" - because of the apathy of folk in general. People see that there is a strong group of people who will do the fighting and they let them get on with it. The petition was a different kettle-of-fish. From your earlier comments it might be believed that you did not join because your co-director told you not to, is that right? I don't want you to answer the three questions I have asked you, just as I think no one needs to answer the three questions you have asked; I really don't know why you think they were worth asking, to be honest.
I don't take anything you write as a knock against CTWD. I accept we share a rough vision of where we want to end up. I got involved with CTWD because I wanted to stop the name change. I haven't been involved in any fan group before and was quite happy posting away on CI. As I've said before my time as a campaigner is coming to an end. I think there is a good chance that the FA will reject the application and I hope for a period of reconciliation between the club and the supporters who opposed the name change. One of the main reasons why CTWD's membership is around the 2,000 mark is that we haven't pushed it. We live in a time when joining things and getting involved is often a distraction from sitting in front of a computer/mobile phone/ipad/etc. The same problem I suspect the OSC faces. Most of the active members being in the mid-40s or above. People turn up to hear the players and not join, etc etc. Rome wasn't built in a day. We have a section of noisy, young supporters some of whom have campaigned against the name change. As you say the seed corn for the future. The key to the future, as its been for the past three years, is Assem Allam. If the FA says no, is he going to throw his toys out of the pram again or is he going to look at building bridges with CTWD and the council? Who knows? I'd like to think he'll take a step back and say I can build a great club here, but I need some help.
The point you added in your subsequent edit is exactly the point I made - there was no firm offer made; there was no 'twist', I dealt with the facts, as you have now done. I have dealt in all manner of sales and it is my experience that folk can bump their gums all day but there is never a proposal unless someone makes one and there is no deal until it is accepted and signed. Assem Allam is a very shrewd businessman with poor ethical standards of dealing with people - but, of course, that is just my opinion. The other thing I have learnt over time is that coincidences in business should be met with more than a whiff of suspicion - I know what you mean.
Nope. You're twisting again. It was a firm offer, in fact it was several. It should have formed the basis of negotiations. The rest is just pedantry.
Where are these offers? HCC made it clear they would not sell the stadium, so on what basis were the proposals made when AA had washed his hands of HCC. Were they firm structured proposals or hypothetical what-ifs? I'm curious that this has not been a key talking point. Questioning a view is not twisting, saying it is kind of ends discussion. Perhaps the proposals (really, a number of them?) were as well structured as the ballot. All I am saying is that I would not discount there were proposals, but their worthiness for discussion is a different matter, if I am to consider the integrity of their track record in all of this.
is it just the name change? Would you accept the name change if it meant we could still play in Hull, or would you accept playing in Melton if we were Hull City?
We're not going anywhere, so it's a completely academic question, CTWD don't take a position on things that aren't happening.
