I'll rescue your post in a second Fez.
The future situation is some unknown and unpredictable event that may change my opinion. It doesn't need to involve AA or anybody currently at the club, it could be a completely unrelated situation. To go to an extreme, let's say Tiger Beer for example came along in 6 months and wanted to sponsor the club to the tune of £100M a year, dependent on our name being changed for the duration of the 3 year contract, at which time it would revert back. I might at that point think that a deal that clears the club's debt and provides financial security for several years beyond it is worth a temporary change. If the majority of CTWD were against that deal I wouldn't want to be a member as I would then feel I was having to campaign against something I felt was the right thing to do. There will be less extreme, and more likely situations that could occur where I might want to take a different stance to the one CTWD did. It is nothing to do with this situation, where I've already said I'm against the name change, and more to do with not tieing my position to others in the event of future situations.
How can they be taking me for a fool when they're not actually telling me anything and I'm not in their side? I've already said I'm against the decision unless someone can show a benefit.
I really didn't think it was that difficult to understand the difference between someone being against the decision and sticking their fingers in their ears whilst going "la la la I'm not going to believe you what ever you say you're wrong and you're lieing", and someone being against the decision going "if you think it's a good idea, then show us and convince us as to why". Both are against the decision, but only the second is actually challenging AA's move in a way that undecided people will engage with, when he's unable to show benefits people will question the point of the change and be against it. Two sides slagging each other off just creates apathy as the undecided look at it like a bunch of school kids arguing in the playground.
What absolute nonsense. You are talking about a fictitious deal for a ludicrous amount of money, that will be made
after the name is changed. You say it would be changed back, but to what, as it would already be Hull Tigers. Do you not think that the most unimaginative marketing person could conjure up a similar association by maximising our nickname? You are clutching at very thin straws and to be honest, it's embarrassing.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but if the name-change would be acceptable in six months, after it's change, then it cannot be unacceptable now; in which case someone holding that view is not against the name-change, surely. I call it sitting on the fence with no real conviction, which is fine, but not if you claim to have some!
They have told you lots, but you are not listening - listen to the interviews again; read the newspaper articles that ridicule what they have told you. Ricardo, this is hard work, just go back read and listen again and then come back and tell me then he (Allam) has told us nothing.
'la la la'; you're having a laugh aren't you? We have tried to get sense and honesty for months, we have had no success - he won't even talk to us, he prefers talking at us. You have a very self-righteous opinion of your position and you have not been able to show me one single fact that justifies that. Read those interview transcripts or listen to them; check back on the chronology of his lies and deceit, then, if you are still of the same mind when confronted by his deafening silence, make yourself comfortable on that fence, it could be a long wait.
There's none so blind as those who will not see.
)
