Name change discussion

[swftiger]

60-40 is not a massive majority. They still have 40% of their members to consider. Or you would lot just disregard them as not important and not worthy of your time?

Seems it's too hard for you to understand, CTWD is a single issue (lol) campaign group, everyone signed up to it are focussed on one single (lol) thing. The OSC is not and nor should it pretend to be. It's really that simple.

Any sign of an apology btw for accusing the OSC of not publishing their submission?

The submission didn't disregard the the 40% but gave little emphasis to the 60% majority against.Saying look at the polling figures and not making any comment on the vote hardly instills any confidence in the OSC of which I'm a member.
The poll was on the single issue of the name change and nothing else.

 

[originallambrettaman]

Any sign of an apology btw for accusing the OSC of not publishing their submission?

Did anyone accuse them of not publishing?

I just asked if they would and now they have, I've commended them for doing so.

It looks like everyone is now publishing their submissions, except for the club, which is a shame.

 

[HebridesTiger]

60-40 is not a massive majority. They still have 40% of their members to consider. Or you would lot just disregard them as not important and not worthy of your time?

Seems it's too hard for you to understand, CTWD is a single issue (lol) campaign group, everyone signed up to it are focussed on one single (lol) thing. The OSC is not and nor should it pretend to be. It's really that simple.

Any sign of an apology btw for accusing the OSC of not publishing their submission?

Considering that it was a poll of the OSC,the tamest of supporters groups,and the fact that it was conducted after the owner had threatened to pull the plug if he didn't get his own way,I thought 60-40 was quite telling.In any election such a split would be considered decisive but the part of the submission that they've published does its best to be totally non-commital.I appreciate that they are not really in a place they want to be but they have let down 60% of their membership here by pandering to the 40%.

 

[originallambrettaman]

I suspect the FA are well aware of the situation the OSC are in and will judge their submission accordingly.

 

[Fez]

60-40 is not a massive majority. They still have 40% of their members to consider. Or you would lot just disregard them as not important and not worthy of your time?

Seems it's too hard for you to understand, CTWD is a single issue (lol) campaign group, everyone signed up to it are focussed on one single (lol) thing. The OSC is not and nor should it pretend to be. It's really that simple.

Any sign of an apology btw for accusing the OSC of not publishing their submission?

An apology for accusing someone of accusing someone for not publishing their submission when they had not accused anyone?

 

[Fez]

.



.



.



.



Ask Obadiah, it seems the OSC would tell you they were inaccurate.

This post was intended to be a bit of a light-hearted response to the equally light-hearted dig from Chazz earlier; although the last line was a truthful reflection on what I had read in the posts.

On the contrary. I'm just saying if you don't believe OLM or me ask the OSC whether we were offered something extra to keep us quiet. They also attended the meeting.

So I believe you are saying no in your first three words then agreeing with me in the remainder, in that you recommend the OSC as a point of reference to verify accuracy over matters of that sorry meeting. What's all the fuss about?

 

[PLT]

PLT there is only one organisation with the names of the season pass holders the club. How could any group outside of the club ballot season pass holders?
20,000 opinions being sought outside a football ground prior to a sell out match? Sorry but I can not see any club allowing that to happen, no matter what the issue. Anyway, I can't make all of the matches, so,why don't I get a vote? I'm a pass holder. I think the club was right to say no to a ballot on that occasion, but wrong not to ballot season pass holders. It may have been wrong to threaten the OSC as reported but actually if any organisation tried to do the same wouldn't the club have a say.

Yeah I misread it actually so I've just deleted my post.

It was never a season-pass holders vote so strictly what the OSC said about that was true. It was going to be a vote for those attending the Chelsea game, with tickets/passes checked.

However I maintain it's disgusting that the club deliberately prevented an attempt to consult the fans properly as requested by the FA. We all know it was for no other reason than they knew they'd lose.

 

[Fez]

I believe the unpublished minutes are an embarrassment to CTWD, but not the end-of-the-world. Minutes could and should have been issued with a disclaimer that they were incomplete in the order of omitting reckless comments about HCC and the Allam family finances; those comments made by Assem Allam. That much is now in the public domain so hey-ho, what a lot of fuss over nothing.

Also I think it did get a tad personal and that isn't great. I believe OLM made a commitment to represent this board and he announced it in a way that we might one day realise was a justifiable bending of some facts. OLM did make a pledge to not be embroiled in any form of NDA and he did say he would return with a full account. The mutterings of a lunatic took, I think, everyone by surprise - not least, again I would think, the Allam family members themselves - hence the subsequent request for redactions.

I did not intend to bring up the minutes again, but Chazz's bit of fun and OLM's slightly bizarre statement about the OSC made it unresistable. But enough now, the minutes are no longer needed; equally, the vilification of OLM is misplaced, undeserved and unnecessary - it is Allam who must be focussed on, a man who thinks nothing of venting his spleen in front of supporters who he has already insulted and nothing of discussing family finances in front of strangers.

There is a simple lesson in all of this do not trust the man one solitary inch.

I see the club ownership model is working very well at Swansea!

 

[The Omega Man]

Yeah I misread it actually so I've just deleted my post.

It was never a season-pass holders vote so strictly what the OSC said about that was true. It was going to be a vote for those attending the Chelsea game, with tickets/passes checked.

However I maintain it's disgusting that the club deliberately prevented an attempt to consult the fans properly as requested by the FA. We all know it was for no other reason than they knew they'd lose.

The FA wanted consultantion and it is up,to them now. I suggested a ballot at the turnstiles, but it got knocked back on here. To be honest, no matter what the results of any poll each side will manipulate the percentages or numbers and whilst polls are generally good indicators, they have to be clear.
The OSC asked a simple question and got a reasonable response. I personally found the HCSS poll had too many choices.
Could the club have lived with the result of a season pass poll against it?

PLT could I ask you one thing, become more active in the OSC. I don't know what your view is on this but I believe that the OSC needs people like you and if you have been involved in the past, forget any differences and start a with a fresh outlook.

 

[The Omega Man]

Fez, Tiger Filey didn't deserve the lashing he got from OLM.

 

[originallambrettaman]

Fez, Tiger Filey didn't deserve the lashing he got from OLM.

I have no problem with Filey, we have a lot in common, but a lot of what he posted on the HDM site was out of order and he deserved being pulled up on it.

He has apologised for some of what he's posted and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Muffinthegoat]

Fez, Tiger Filey didn't deserve the lashing he got from OLM.

I've found that Filey is old enough and wise enough to look after himself on here. He's got a great outlook on life and doesn't take any of this too seriously.

 

[Fez]

Fez, Tiger Filey didn't deserve the lashing he got from OLM.

It's down to Filey to deal with it, if he feels he was wronged. I think it is better to focus on the name-change and the tosspot who started it all.

I spent Monday to Wednesday with a mixed bunch of Spurs fans who all thought us a decent team and safe for staying up - they didn't agree with the name-change, but didn't really understand the ins and outs of it - but they did by 3am Wednesday morning.

 

[Obadiah]

This post was intended to be a bit of a light-hearted response to the equally light-hearted dig from Chazz earlier; although the last line was a truthful reflection on what I had read in the posts.



So I believe you are saying no in your first three words then agreeing with me in the remainder, in that you recommend the OSC as a point of reference to verify accuracy over matters of that sorry meeting. What's all the fuss about?

I don't think there's any fuss. Some people accuse me and other members of the CTWD committee of doing some secret deal with Assem Allam. I was just pointing out that if they are serious about finding out whether such an offer was made they could ask the OSC as they also attended the meeting.

If they just do it to wind me and OLM up then fine.

Its up to you whether you believe me or not, nothing I can do to alter that.

 

[Fez]

I don't think there's any fuss. Some people accuse me and other members of the CTWD committee of doing some secret deal with Assem Allam. I was just pointing out that if they are serious about finding out whether such an offer was made they could ask the OSC as they also attended the meeting.

If they just do it to wind me and OLM up then fine.

Its up to you whether you believe me or not, nothing I can do to alter that.

There's nothing to believe or disbelieve, I only referred to the OSC as being a second opinion on the meeting, as they attended; that is also what you did, which is why I used your comment in a supportive context.

It's all getting a tad fragile, Obadiah; I find the suggestion of some secret deal bizarre, you should ignore it. I also think that the focus you and OLM have offered for information and debate, of some elements of this debacle, has gone beyond playful jibes to unnecessary scorn and abuse.

Like I said, ignore it, that's just the way it is, somethings will never change, don.t you be . . . Oh dear!

 

[Obadiah]

There's nothing to believe or disbelieve, I only referred to the OSC as being a second opinion on the meeting, as they attended; that is also what you did, which is why I used your comment in a supportive context.

It's all getting a tad fragile, Obadiah; I find the suggestion of some secret deal bizarre, you should ignore it. I also think that the focus you and OLM have offered for information and debate, of some elements of this debacle, has gone beyond playful jibes to unnecessary scorn and abuse.

Like I said, ignore it, that's just the way it is, somethings will never change, don.t you be . . . Oh dear!

I'm not really fragile and I'm surprised I've come across that way.

A walk along the beach on Sunday morning will do me the world of good, especially if we get a result.

 

[Fez]

I'm not really fragile and I'm surprised I've come across that way.

A walk along the beach on Sunday morning will do me the world of good, especially if we get a result.

.

 

[originallambrettaman]

CITY STAR OF '50S AND '60S SAYS NO TO HULL TIGERS

Between 1952 and 1964, Brian Bulless made 326 appearances for Hull City AFC (scoring 30 league goals), placing him eleventh in the all-time list of appearances for the club. So we’re delighted to be able to tell you that he says “No To Hull Tigers”!

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Fez]

CITY STAR OF '50S AND '60S SAYS NO TO HULL TIGERS

Between 1952 and 1964, Brian Bulless made 326 appearances for Hull City AFC (scoring 30 league goals), placing him eleventh in the all-time list of appearances for the club. So we’re delighted to be able to tell you that he says “No To Hull Tigers”!

You must log in or register to see images

Good to see Brian has still got the same teeth and looking fit as a fiddle!

 

[The Omega Man]

CITY STAR OF '50S AND '60S SAYS NO TO HULL TIGERS

Between 1952 and 1964, Brian Bulless made 326 appearances for Hull City AFC (scoring 30 league goals), placing him eleventh in the all-time list of appearances for the club. So we’re delighted to be able to tell you that he says “No To Hull Tigers”!

You must log in or register to see images

Have the Senior Tigers made any official comment on the name change?