No, that's the point. I don't. The FA will require reasons to turn down the owners request, not reasons to allow it. That must irritate CTWD, and I can understand why, but nevertheless that is the current position.
They'll need both, but as I understand it CTWD are far from irritated. As it's you making the fuss in favour of the change, I'd say you do need to back it up, as those against the change are backing their arguments up.
Because you need to sleep on why you are in favour? Or just need the time to think of a reasoned response other than "cos it's his money"
On todays terms it's old, but you have a point. Like I said, it doesn't matter how many ask for compromise when there is only one party listening. Compromise will only strengthen the next problem he has for us. Don't deal with a terrorist, which he is, but in a business sense.
Did he do that; I don't recall. Mel can waffle with the best of us, but I have never had a single reason to question his honesty; his sanity, yes, but not his honesty.
I don't know if he did it deliberately or knowingly but he didn't respond when questioned about it on a couple of occasions. He suggested AA gave his interview with the Independent a fortnight before it was published & was publishing was held back deliberately by the press to inflame the situation. When questioned how he knew this he was quite insistent saying he'd been told & had had it confirmed by the club. This information was not true, AA gave the interview in the week before it was published. I questioned him at the time using his quotes & later on, I think this thread. He responded to neither. Either he's been misled or he's tried to mislead others. I drew my conclusion from his lack of a response.
For reference, in case he does. http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/241396-Police-today?p=5783105#post5783105
Cheshire Ben, I was informed that Assem Allam gave a series of interviews, going from memory I recall that it was two weeks before the Liverpool game. I was told that Assem Allam was furious not about the quotes but about the timing of the release. There had to have been at least a conversation after the Palace match, with someone but was it Conn, I accept that reading the article it reads post Palace, but the point is that the they can die quote may have been made earlier. The other thing is that Assem Allam was adamant that he hadn't spoken to Conn after Palace, I do have my doubts about that, but the anger by all accounts was genuine. I dropped out not because I couldn't win, but because I felt obliged to, but it doesn't matter so much now.
The FA don't require reasons to turn down the request, they don't require reasons to approve it. They have absolute discretion. Absolute discretion means its their organisation and they can do what they want. Nobody can tell them what to do. All they have to prove in court, if it comes to that, is the decision was rational. They are collecting evidence and hearing all sides. The wheel is in spin and we'll soon know the result.
The 'they can die when they want' quote was released the day after the interview took place, the journalist met with us immediately after he'd interviewed AA, to give us a chance to respond.
I cannot argue with that OLM, nothing was lost in translation in what I posted. I was introduced to the person for the first time before the Liverpool game, in fact I was introduced to quite a few people for the first time at that match. Assem Allam enjoys talking to the press, he believes that he has full control over what he has said. It would not come as a surprise if he has a different recollection of when and who he spoke to nor would it come as a surprise if his version had to be put out by staff. If I posted something that was not true, it was not intentional, but I have learnt for my experiences with this. It has happened since, twice, but I did not post anything as it did not make sense and there was nothing to back up what was being said. There is always the ego aspect of this OLM, it's easy to get your ego fed in situations like this and perhaps with the they can die point, that happened. But it hasn't happened since and certainly will not happen again.
Council: Hull City 'Tigers' name change 'not a matter for us' THE city council has chosen to sit on the fence over the increasingly divisive issue of Hull City's proposed name change. In its official response to a Football Association consultation over the idea, the authority says the name change "is a matter for the club's owner and supporters not the city council". However, some individual councillors have come out against City owner Assem Allam's proposal to switch the title to Hull Tigers. Councillor Terry Geraghty, cabinet portfolio holder for sport, said: "My own personal view is that I'm against any change of name. I first went to see City play in 1946. It was City then and it should be City now. "Back in the 19th century, our forefathers fought for city status for Hull and I think it would be an insult to them if this was allowed to happen. More recently, we have fought tooth and nail to be the UK City of Culture in 2017. "If the club stays in the Premier League then surely it will get all the worldwide publicity and exposure it needs without having to change its name." During Thursday's full council meeting, a motion by Conservative group leader Councillor John Fareham, which included a call for the authority to support the "traditional name" of the team, was defeated in a vote. A Liberal Democrat amendment, which also opposed any name change, was also defeated. Both were voted down by the ruling Labour group, which objected to other parts of the motion. Cllr Fareham said the club's current name could be lost forever if the Football Association accepted Mr Allam's controversial application. "Any owner can be here today but gone tomorrow," he said. Lib Dem Councillor Steve Baker was more critical of the way the council's official response to the Football Association [see below] had been handled. It was written by chief executive Darryl Stephenson on behalf of council leader Steve Brady without being shared with other councillors until Thursday's meeting. Cllr Baker said there should have been more consultation with councillors and supporters before an official response was submitted. "When Hull FC decided to change their name, it was different," he said. "The council funded and built the KC Stadium. We are all shareholders in that stadium and, as such, we should have had a say in this issue. "There should have been a proper consultation with fans and councillors. To simply delegate it to the chief executive is an absolute disgrace." Cllr Brady declined to give his personal view on the name-change proposal when asked by the Mail, saying it was "not the right thing to do". However, he said the council's neutral stance was the right one to take. "What I can say is that, with the club doing so well in the Premier League, I do congratulate the club, the manager, the owners and the fans on the success they are enjoying." Hull City Council's official response to FA THE official response from Hull City Council chief executive Darryl Stephenson to the Football Association said: "Thank you for your letter of December 20 to the leader of the council, who has asked me to respond. "The city council is keen to raise the profile of Hull and there is no doubt that the award of UK City of Culture 2017 has been instrumental, as has having Hull City AFC in the Premier League. "While we are, of course, aware of strong feelings in the city regarding the potential change of name of the club, we feel, as we did when one of the city's rugby league clubs changed its name, that is a matter for the club's owner and supporters and not the city council." http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Coun...tory-20466624-detail/story.html#ixzz2qvw1Mwx0
