I keep hearing that should we be relegated the Allams will drop their name change plans. I don't think so, I fully expect them to carry on regardless. We are now basically called Tigers, something they will be able to put to the FA, or whoever will listen, that virtually everything has already changed- website, email address, club name, badge, passes, etc Yet the streets aren't rivers of blood. To all intents and purposes the fans have accepted the name change.
I cannot speak for the OSC as I am only a poster on an internet forum and as such only post my personal opinion. I can say that I had conversations with board members and there was an increase in membership numbers, but I was not told of the exact amount and I doubt that anyone has done the percentage. my main concerns were that personally I did not think that it was a positive that people were joining just to vote, I would rather they joined for the social benefits. I was also concerned that at a time when the OSC was putting a postal ballot together, time was being spent on new members. I changed my view after it was pointed out that having a vote was perhaps the only benefit that some members valued and that the new members were being dealt without a problem.
I think sometimes in life you end up being judged for how you appear, rather than how you be believe you appear; we are all vulnerable to that. Understanding can be difficult, but on this forum it should not be, as it is as open a book as you want it to be. If you feel able to explain, and I can see no obvious reason why not, why have you changed your mind; what, in recent times, has happened to make you take such a critical change of heart and habit? When I recall your strident words of recent and your background involvement, it's all rather puzzling. You have demanded I come clean with you, even though I have been 100% consistent from the get-go, so I feel comfortable in pushing you on this.
I'm not having a dig, just trying to understand; are you saying that you were wrong on everything you said before the emboldened part?
I think anyone 'buying' a vote would have joined the trust as it's cheaper, plus I think you could sign up your kid's and family in the same booking to get them a vote too, if that's how people saw it. According to comments on here, the trust numbers increased just before the vote. The arbitration award makes it clear that it's not a numbers game. There are many factors to consider, not least of which would be a compelling argument either way, with due consideration for any business case. In the short term, the best we get, is what we've had all season.
Fez, I make a clear difference between the roles of the OSC and HCST. I personally look at the OSC as a social body, that does have some representative role, but that as it is bound to the club, that representation would always be limited. It was not a case of me saying that I was right. I listened to what was said and accepted a different point of view during a normal conversation over a pint. I expressed concerns and was satisfied by the response.
Not really sure what you mean by that. Are you saying the OSC is or is not representative? How can you explain it being partially representative? What was the point of view that you accepted and how did that sway your thinking? You chose to take a hand in a fundamentally flawed attack on me, so I think you need to be clearer on your position; it seems to me that you are now claiming to have had an epiphany and, as a result you have climbed down off that fence and headed in the direction of anti-name-change, yet your explanation is confusing. You seem to have joined the OSC and taken up some form of position as an officer of the organisation in Beverley (do I have that right from your response to AlRawdah?); can I take it that you have done that purely to partake of it's social activities? Perhaps, as you appear to be in a state of opinion change, you might make it clear what Hull City related organisations/factions you are associated with and in what way? Mine is simple, I was a founder member of CTWD and then, when it disbanded, I made a conscious choice to be a member of the new, and seperate, HCST; neither with any social intent.
Nothing's been accepted, once the second application has been rejected, we'll start pressuring the club to reinstate our name on everything. Relegation may force the club's hand and force them to take the and views more seriously anyway, but if they don't, we've got a few ideas to help them along the way.
Well Fez, it seems that you are more than a little confused. Show me one post where I have supported the name change to Hull Tigers, you will not find one. I refuse to tell you what I do or don't do, because as is pointed out on here, this is an anonymous football forum. The OSC only represents it membership it can only be representative of its members and so it has limited representation. Trust and protest groups can canvas opinion from the wider supporter base and take part or support campaigns that affect the sport. There is a widely accepted difference in the roles of supporters clubs and supporters trusts. As for social intent, I am surprised that you are not aware of the sub group that HCST formed in order to improve the match day atmosphere at the KC or the social events that it puts on. I am surprised that no one has listened when you have stated that there should be no contact with the club, yet HCST board members attend not only the FWG but SAG as well. The group that you are a member of is supportive of contact with the club and wants to see banners etc in the stadium, bit of a bummer that isn't it? Do its board members post on here in their official capacity or will they post as anonymous individuals? So lets set the record straight... I do not support the change in the clubs playing name to Hull Tigers. My membership of any organisation is none of your business. I post on here as The Omega Man, my favourite, film, car and I like Omega watches, I do not represent any film production company, vehicle or watch manufacturer. I support the Not 606 banner movement, as it has no structure and is an anonymous organic movement not owned by any group or individual. If I am asked to contribute to the movement I will do so willingly and freely without seeking any personal reward or favour. Anyone can and should be free to propose and have made any banner that they feel is supportive of the team, manager or former players. I am proud to see the "In Bruce We Trust" banner in the KC. I do not support organised protest in the stadium before or during a match. Spontaneous protest is fine by me. I do not support booing. You as so often is the case, revel in nit picking, yet you are wrong about so many things it becomes embarassing.
Joining the OSC means I get extra benefits on my social?! Brilliant, glad I joined now I'll be honest I joined to get an extra vote, and I was happy to pay for that. Maybe I will socialise too, maybe I won't. I do think that even though they are beholden to the club they should express an opinion strongly if their members wish them to do so ( I don't quite know the arrangements on how they find out though to be fair)
I'm sorry to have to drag this out, but, yet again, you want to make me the villain here - I can assure you I am not confused and never have been; I wish I could say the same for you. This is what I wrote: Just so you are certain exactly what I mean, a reasonable definition/explanation of 'sitting on the fence is: It looks like you have not sat on the fence forever, have you? Well done. Beyond that you have changed your more general feelings and so-called actions with ease. Your refusal to tell me/us anything further is noted and I respect that, although it hasn't stopped you in the past: I was simply asking on the basis of the precedents you have set in other conversations on this anonymous football thread. By the way, well done, again; you appear to have now finally understood what this board is. Now that is one mixed up load of twaddle. Any organisation can canvass support or opinion if it has the will to do so; it might even use such mechanisms to increase its membership, wouldn't that be original - maybe not. Can you show me anywhere ( if you do if it be the first time you have ever returned with anything to support your claims) where it says a OSC cannot take part in or support campaigns that effect the sport? A bit of a batch here: Good, you are no longer on the fence - No to Hull Tigers. You have posted your membership and role on this anonymous footy forum - I deliberately did not repeat it. I'm a tad confused by this strange reference to The Omega Man; but in a strange way I find it amusing as, it maybe signifies a change where The Omega Man (Neville) spends his days fighting The Family - as I said, a strangely amusing parallel. I am not sure Neville wore an Omega watch, although I have an old one. I have always said that you and everyone else is perfectly at liberty to do what you wish with the banners - I have only ever asked that the naming be reconsidered, but I have never once demanded it. Perhaps, if you keep writing this **** and I keep responding with the truth, you just might have another epiphany. I think our 'In Bruce We Trust' banner is decent - we all did a good thing there - good to see it up. Why have you posted the stuff about protest - no one does it in your name - or do you believe they do? As you can see, right from your most basic assumption, you are simply wrong. I am not nit-picking, I am correcting your nonsense. The fact that you gat this basic stuff wrong and then you attack me off the back of it is the truly embarrassing thing. Enough, your course is run and your performance was poor, but at least we all have some idea of which way you swing.
Fez, yet again you do read into a post what you like. Examples: Where did I say that the OSC could not take part or support campaigns that affect the sport? Show me one single post where I supported the name change to Hull Tigers. I have never "sat on the fence" as far as losing "City" from the playing name.
