Olive branch

[Arnold_Lane_HCFC]

You must log in or register to see images

Allmes Vs Hull City AFC fans

REASONS FOR DIVORCE - UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR
As one of the reasons for divorce unreasonable behaviour is the most common ground for divorce in UK divorce law and solicitors are frequently asked what constitutes "unreasonable behaviour". As you will already know, divorce in England & Wales is based on "irretrievable breakdown" of the marriage but this breakdown must be proved by evidence of one of five "facts":-

(1) Adultery - they went off with 'Hull Tigers'
(2) Unreasonable behaviour - Name change, 'die if you want ', East Stand Gerrymandering - Price Increases, Airco, Ticket/Toilet Gate , Stalinist change of name on everything they can - 1904, concessions etc ...
(3) Desertion - Where have they been this season?
(4) Two years' separation with consent - just go
(5) Five years' separation without consent go on, go on, go, keep going

Three of these grounds - desertion, two and five years' separation - involve considerable periods of delay before obtaining a divorce is possible at all. At least two years in the case of the first two and five years in the case of the last. Similarly, the parties cannot rely upon adultery in a divorce petition if there has been none. This means in a divorce unreasonable behaviour is the method of choice for most couples who want an "instant" divorce in cases where no adultery is involved.

In the divorce process people often approach a solicitor and say they want a divorce based on "irreconcilable differences". This happens so often that it is perfectly obvious that there are very many couples in this position. They are in an unhappy marriage and want to bring it to an end. This is perfectly natural and understandable. Nevertheless, it is not possible to obtain a divorce based on "irreconcilable differences". We think that is wrong but there it is - what UK divorce law demands is rather different.

To obtain a divorce on the ground of unreasonable behaviour English law insists that (a) that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and (b) that one of the parties to the marriage has behaved in such an unreasonable manner that the other finds it intolerable to live with him or her. Or, at least, that is what it requires if divorce is sought on the ground of unreasonable behaviour. Although this sounds rather a difficult thing to prove the reality of the matter is that the courts do not set a very demanding standard and in practice it is not normally too difficult to find some examples of "unreasonable behaviour" sufficient to satisfy a court that a marriage has broken down. The courts adopt a realistic attitude. They know that if one party to a marriage feels so strongly about it as to issue a divorce petition the marriage has irretrievably broken down so far as that person is concerned and it would be futile to pretend otherwise. The courts therefore adopt quite a relaxed attitude to the exact type of "unreasonable behaviour" which one has to allege in order to get the divorce. It is important to understand this.

Bleedin hell Guv - have you got personal experience of divorce? Bitter !!

 

[Ron Burguvdy]

Bleedin hell Guv - have you got personal experience of divorce? Bitter !!

Just my club - 'bitch' tried / trying to take it off me, even tried to change the name of the 'bairn' ...

 

[TIGERSCAVE]

If the Allams where to introduce concessions and drop talk of a name change(which shouldn't really matter too much anyway as its not going to happen). Would people be willing to support them in light of their how good they have been in other areas?

Absolutely not..... its in their DNA.... they walked in saying we are not football people, we want to make a gift, leave a legacy, what they have left is halitosis.

 

[hovetiger]

If we gave them an olive branch they would use it as a stick to beat us with

 

[southerntiger]

If the Allams where to introduce concessions and drop talk of a name change(which shouldn't really matter too much anyway as its not going to happen). Would people be willing to support them in light of their how good they have been in other areas?

No!
Too late
Go now please

 

[look_back_in_amber]

They need to go, and at some point they will. Far too much poison has been drip fed into our club by them, they've achieved their obvious objective of dividing our support but they'll never completely conquer, they are temporary, our support is permanent, all will end well, eventually.

 

[Fez]

I said earlier I would take an olive branch and I would. I didn't mention the need for a professional sports CEO as I have mentioned it in previous posts elsewhere and have started taking that for granted. It is difficult to understand what further mischief they can cause, without really hurting themselves.

The daft messing with the name needs to stop and a decent CEO would insist on that - improved PR would be a key objective of the recruitment. Communications with the supporters and elsewhere needs to change for the better, as it cannot get worse.

The membership needs changing to include concessions and common sense, but isn't a lost cause.

The club badge really isn't that bad, I quite like it.

Financially they are pretty safe hands. They can invest enough for my liking and deserve to take money out, as with any business.

None of this needs a big climb down by anyone, all sides need to be mature and move on; the changes can be quiet and gradual where possible.

My preference is a new owner, but I would certainly allow myself to give them another opportunity to learn from their mistakes, just as I would hope we all learn from ours.

Even if it meant we kept Steve Bruce I would get behind it, as we could draw real comparisons and see if them, as a team of managers, have learnt anything from four seasons of success and nonsense.

No one would need to be wrong, just as no one would need to be right, but we would all need to put the club first where possible.

 

[Happy Tiger]

I said earlier I would take an olive branch and I would. I didn't mention the need for a professional sports CEO as I have mentioned it in previous posts elsewhere and have started taking that for granted. It is difficult to understand what further mischief they can cause, without really hurting themselves.

The daft messing with the name needs to stop and a decent CEO would insist on that - improved PR would be a key objective of the recruitment. Communications with the supporters and elsewhere needs to change for the better, as it cannot get worse.

The membership needs changing to include concessions and common sense, but isn't a lost cause.

The club badge really isn't that bad, I quite like it.

Financially they are pretty safe hands. They can invest enough for my liking and deserve to take money out, as with any business.

None of this needs a big climb down by anyone, all sides need to be mature and move on; the changes can be quiet and gradual where possible.

My preference is a new owner, but I would certainly allow myself to give them another opportunity to learn from their mistakes, just as I would hope we all learn from ours.

Even if it meant we kept Steve Bruce I would get behind it, as we could draw real comparisons and see if them, as a team of managers, have learnt anything from four seasons of success and nonsense.

No one would need to be wrong, just as no one would need to be right, but we would all need to put the club first where possible.

Christ on a bike.

I agree 100% with that.

Was just reading the other thread about change of owner, and this is exactly what I thought, even the badge.

Considering which sides of the fence you and I have been on, if we could agree on something like that, surely anyone could?

Well not anyone, some won't be able to move on, and Im not referring to the owners.

 

[southerntiger]

Christ on a bike.

I agree 100% with that.

Was just reading the other thread about change of owner, and this is exactly what I thought, even the badge.

Considering which sides of the fence you and I have been on, if we could agree on something like that, surely anyone could?

Well not anyone, some won't be able to move on, and Im not referring to the owners.

I quite like the badge and not too concerned that there is no name on it as often in the past we have just had the tigers head. But the fiasco with the Wembley shirts just shows their intent to continue annoying supporters at every opportunity.

 

[dennisboothstash]

I said earlier I would take an olive branch and I would. I didn't mention the need for a professional sports CEO as I have mentioned it in previous posts elsewhere and have started taking that for granted. It is difficult to understand what further mischief they can cause, without really hurting themselves.

The daft messing with the name needs to stop and a decent CEO would insist on that - improved PR would be a key objective of the recruitment. Communications with the supporters and elsewhere needs to change for the better, as it cannot get worse.

The membership needs changing to include concessions and common sense, but isn't a lost cause.

The club badge really isn't that bad, I quite like it.

Financially they are pretty safe hands. They can invest enough for my liking and deserve to take money out, as with any business.

None of this needs a big climb down by anyone, all sides need to be mature and move on; the changes can be quiet and gradual where possible.

My preference is a new owner, but I would certainly allow myself to give them another opportunity to learn from their mistakes, just as I would hope we all learn from ours.

Even if it meant we kept Steve Bruce I would get behind it, as we could draw real comparisons and see if them, as a team of managers, have learnt anything from four seasons of success and nonsense.

No one would need to be wrong, just as no one would need to be right, but we would all need to put the club first where possible.

Thing is, now is the perfect time to do that
All they'd need to do is put one statement out along the lines of "As owners of Hull City we have met with the Premier League and decided that to better comply with league rules we are going to change the direct debits of young people and seniors so they get clear concessionary prices. We're looking forward to seeing Hull City competing strongly next season" and go from there.

Sadly as easy as it would be, it's never going to happen

 

[Fez]

Thing is, now is the perfect time to do that
All they'd need to do is put one statement out along the lines of "As owners of Hull City we have met with the Premier League and decided that to better comply with league rules we are going to change the direct debits of young people and seniors so they get clear concessionary prices. We're looking forward to seeing Hull City competing strongly next season" and go from there.

Sadly as easy as it would be, it's never going to happen

I think the only thing they will have a choice in is the level of concession, but any concession will need a rethink of the pricing strategy anyway - of course, the quality of the statement will be a challenge for Mooney.

 

[dennisboothstash]

I think the only thing they will have a choice in is the level of concession, but any concession will need a rethink of the pricing strategy anyway - of course, the quality of the statement will be a challenge for Mooney.

No need to re price
Not in PL anyway, tickets are small enough % of income to leave others and reduce prices, probably in specific areas

 

[originallambrettaman]

The antagonist arseholes can **** off and they can't do it quickly enough, they wouldn't know an olive branch if someone twatted them with one.

 

[dennisboothstash]

The antagonist arseholes can **** off and they can't do it quickly enough, they wouldn't know an olive branch if someone twatted them with one.

Antagonists? Them?
Perhaps the Wembley shirt embroidery was a simple clerical error?

 

[PLT]

I quite like the badge and not too concerned that there is no name on it as often in the past we have just had the tigers head. But the fiasco with the Wembley shirts just shows their intent to continue annoying supporters at every opportunity.

The badge is exactly the same as the Wembley shirt fiasco. It's not that people think it doesn't look pretty enough. It's not even the fact it doesn't have the name, it's the fact they deliberately removed the name specifically to get at us.

I find it concerning apart from anything else, that the only people with any authority at our club obviously spend so much time thinking about ways to get one over on the fans. There's obviously plenty of important things they could be spending time on but instead they're sitting down to discuss the next steps in the campaign against the fans. They don't let their employees make any decisions of any remote importance and they are the only directors, and they're neglecting their responsibility of running the club by instead wasting time and effort on their anti-fan crusade.

Could anyone argue that they want what's best for the club?

 

[bum_chinned_crab]

The badge is exactly the same as the Wembley shirt fiasco. It's not that people think it doesn't look pretty enough. It's not even the fact it doesn't have the name, it's the fact they deliberately removed the name specifically to get at us.

I find it concerning apart from anything else, that the only people with any authority at our club obviously spend so much time thinking about ways to get one over on the fans. There's obviously plenty of important things they could be spending time on but instead they're sitting down to discuss the next steps in the campaign against the fans. They don't let their employees make any decisions of any remote importance and they are the only directors, and they're neglecting their responsibility of running the club by instead wasting time and effort on their anti-fan crusade.

Could anyone argue that they want what's best for the club?

This. If anyone thinks it's an accident or a clerical error then they're deluding themselves. It's nothing more than spite and them been ****.

 

[Fez]

The antagonist arseholes can **** off and they can't do it quickly enough, they wouldn't know an olive branch if someone twatted them with one.

The badge is exactly the same as the Wembley shirt fiasco. It's not that people think it doesn't look pretty enough. It's not even the fact it doesn't have the name, it's the fact they deliberately removed the name specifically to get at us.

I find it concerning apart from anything else, that the only people with any authority at our club obviously spend so much time thinking about ways to get one over on the fans. There's obviously plenty of important things they could be spending time on but instead they're sitting down to discuss the next steps in the campaign against the fans. They don't let their employees make any decisions of any remote importance and they are the only directors, and they're neglecting their responsibility of running the club by instead wasting time and effort on their anti-fan crusade.

Could anyone argue that they want what's best for the club?

I don't disagree with either sentiment, but what if they do not go? They hold the strongest hand, they will always find folk who will collaborate with them which will make it appear that they are supporter focused. I don't like the owners, but there are folk in my mainstream employment I don't like, I just get on with it and make sure I cover the bases until I or they leave, or change - I think we're all the same, aren't we?

Any CEO would have to be very strong and ensure he/she understands what they are getting into and exactly where the owner's influence starts and ends in the commercial aspects of managing the club. This appointment is the key to an olive branch being a feasible objective and is just as possible as the HCC talking to prospective owners and having constructive talks always was.

There are lots of unpopular owners who do not get success, but success does sweeten the pill for many, they will all be heading to the KCOM in August.

To be fair, I would have liked to have seen this truly pissed off attitude 2+ years ago, instead of the attempts to placate and work with them, as now it is too late, there is no real option, they are fully into their PL stride. Every membership and corporate seat bought is a turkey voting for Xmas, unless you are happy with their stewardship and enjoy being seasonally stuffed.

The antagonistic branding might not be as daft as it would appear, perhaps they have been given a glimmer of hope that if it is run like that for so long then a later re-name submission might be favoured - there were those who favoured the last one.

 

[look_back_in_amber]

I've missed something, what was embroidered on the Wembley shirt?

 

[originallambrettaman]

I've missed something, what was embroidered on the Wembley shirt?

Ours said 'The Tigers v Sheffield Wednsday', Wednesday's said 'Hull City v Sheffield Wednesday'.

 

[look_back_in_amber]

Ours said 'The Tigers v Sheffield Wednsday', Wednesday's said 'Hull City v Sheffield Wednesday'.

****s!