The EFL requires that supporters trusts are included in dialogue. That doesn't mean other groups can't also be involved of course.
Does that have to be the recognised trust registered with whoever it is or can other supporter groups qualify?
Speaking of the OSC, haven’t seen any wash the allams feet or similar events recently. Has their membership realised it’s as pointless an entity as the SPL and numbers dried up or something?
We are rattling on here as if Allams are going to ballot us over who we prefer. I have now listened to everyone's views in an attempt to try and form my own opinion about who would get my vote. It seems there's a choice between a Saudi Prince (who could be close to the royal family and loaded or he could own a local store, but culturally either are likely to hold more extreme principles than our present owners) linked to Duff or a discredited chancer and crowd funding group linked to the Trust. No sooner have I sorted my dream team, which is a merger of Duff/Trust/****ing loaded but left wing rebel Saudi prince who speaks out against their regimes human rights record. Than we have the 3rd bid. Allegedly the front runner. I'd like to think AP is somehow involved as he always is, but they are US based, He has no historical link there. Basically we know **** all about any of the deals on the table. It is suddenly a Sellers market. It worries me that this buys Allams time. To me, as parachutes came to an end, they were always going to get rid. They are now losing a lot of money per week (parachute payment were always going to be factored into the sale). They run it for the stakeholders (as it suited them, they would always be true to their word about it). This would always be their tipping point. We need to avoid Bowen suddenly returning to form and adding millions to the asset column. Also Harry needs a dodgy couple of months with Man Utd sorting their defence. The worry for me is That it could become an auction (within days, second group's £45m bid gazumped Duffs £40m). Remember 'They run it for the stake holders' . That extra £5m buys them a lot of weeks of losses, and gives them hope that others may even join in the bidding.
The first name change campaign was won by CTWD. It became HCST in the aftermath of that, and then the second name change attempt and all the arbitration bollocks happened once the trust was in full swing. Supporters Trusts are recognised by Supporters Direct. Only one per club. Clubs are welcome to involve whatever supporters groups they want, as long as it included their trust if one exists.
When the ****s finally do one and I return to home games, will my HCST card get me into games for free?
I actually tried this and it certainly won't. To the delight of one fellow poster, I mistakenly picked up my HCST card instead of my pass on the way out to a game.
I thought the EFL said this In June 2016, following the Government’s Expert Working Group on Supporter Ownership & Engagement (EWG), in which the EFL played an active role, clubs introduced new regulations requiring clubs to engage with their supporters in a structured and regular manner. Clubs are required to meet with a representative group of supporters at least twice a season to discuss significant issues relating to the club. The framework for each club’s specific consultation strategy is to be documented within its customer charter. For its part, the EFL will meet with the supporter organisations at a national level and club groups on an ad hoc basis whenever needed. No mention of Trusts, just that they are required to meet with a representative group of supporters. And from a meeting in May EFL Supporter Engagement. It should be noted that trusts are not specifically mentioned https://supporters-direct.org/assets/media/articleFiles/file-LbZHOMpIhZNq.pdf Geoff Bieby added that in his experience, Hull City were effectively meeting their regulatory requirements by holding meetings but not taking heed or following up on any actions or suggestions stemming from engagement meeting. John Nagle (Head of Policy), pointed out the EFL can only provide the framework for the engagement to take place but can’t force the club to act on it. So, based on all of the above, they can meet with any fan group
Not sure why you’re so keen to try and prove the Hull City owners shouldn’t have to meet Hull City’s biggest fan group, or should meet some lickspittles instead, but you’re wrong... Club Supporter Engagement In February, the Minister for Sport and Civil Society, Tracey Crouch MP asked The English Premier League and the English Football League, and separately, the two national fan organisations: Supporters Direct and The Football Supporters’ Federation, to report back on the results from the first season (2016/17) in which all 92 professional clubs needed to meet the EWG’s requirement for club leaders (owners/senior executives) to engage in structured dialogue with a representative group of supporters (including the Supporters’ Trust). What follows is a summary of the feedback received from each... https://assets.publishing.service.g..._data/file/670100/ewg_progress_report2v4.docx
Not really. When HCST was formed, Supporters Direct pointed out that the old Tigers Co-op was still technically a dormant supporters' trust. It had been kept alive whilst inactive by a couple of supporters in case one was ever needed again. This is why CTWD and Tigers Co-op merged to become HCST. HCST couldn't have been recognised if not.
Depends how you read it. It says they should engage in dialogue with supporters groups (including Supporters Trusts). That can be read as Supporters Trusts must be considered and not excluded from consideration purely because they are Supporters Trusts. The club can choose which ever group they wish to have a dialogue with, Seniors Fan Group, Disabled Fans Group, GBT Fans Group...Or the OSC. It is a fair assumption owners will include Supporters Trusts which are not at odds with them in discussions and exclude those that are. Same as they would with any group.
'all 92 professional clubs needed to meet the EWG’s requirement for club leaders (owners/senior executives) to engage in structured dialogue with a representative group of supporters (including the Supporters’ Trust)'. Seems pretty unambiguous to me, it doesn't say it's optional.
