So sorry

[Fez]

I'm aware of that, but that's not the question asked.

You said you wouldn't get involved in the stand evictions as you didn't know where the group was headed. There's been no approach to members since then that I'm aware of, but you NOW say you have a mandate to move forward. So I asked how that mandate has come about.

As a CTWD member I have been canvassed and asked to vote on the future of the group. I would think that a part-time, volunteer committee might, in the height of summer, have granted themselves that bit of slack we spoke of and are trying to achieve their aims in a pragmatic timescale. The Lokeren message comes across as a simple, non-club matter that is easily and simply issued as an aside,outside of the nonsense we have all suffered. This needs a year for quality judgment, or a night for Internet pithiness.

 

[DMD]

As a CTWD member I have been canvassed and asked to vote on the future of the group. I would think that a part-time, volunteer committee might, in the height of summer, have granted themselves that bit of slack we spoke of and are trying to achieve their aims in a pragmatic timescale. The Lokeren message comes across as a simple, non-club matter that is easily and simply issued as an aside,outside of the nonsense we have all suffered. This needs a year for quality judgment, or a night for Internet pithiness.

You seem to keep missing the point. You haven't been asked anything at all, since OLM said they could do nothing as they had no mandate. Seemingly they now have that mandate from members, the question is how?

That's not 'pithiness' it's a question key to the nature of the proposed group.

 

[Fez]

No I'm not saying that because I don't know. What I'm saying is if they did support the move they should try and look after those that didn't.

But even though you were a part of the inner circle you did not know? So, if, as a collective, of which you were a part[, you never heard or saw any hint of knowledge or support,what is it that's sets you up to make these posts?/B]

I'm saying CTWD could have said there should have been consultation with those involved and tried to get the club to work with them to mitigate the effects of the move for those that didn't want to be part of the North Stand kop or remain in E4 or E5. Which is what DMD has been saying.

I'll ask you the same question I've asked Dutch (as I am truly confused), what had changed in the piss-poor relationship between the club and CTWD that's gives you the impression their intervention in this club matter would have been welcomed, useful and constructive?

I don't think there is any conspiracy, just a failure, judging by this board, to understand how deeply some fans feel about it. Yes the move from a campaign group to a representative fan's group will result in some mistakes, but we need to keep them to a minimum. We have had a major change without any fan consultation, that is the beginning, the middle and the end for me. I expect a fan's group to point that out. It didn't happen, but its how we react to that. The treatment of DMD suggests that what I see isn't seen by many other people on this board.

Are you confusing the single issue group with another?

It comes down to this a fans' group that doesn't listen to all sections of our support is not going to be successful in the long run. The tactics of divide and conquer will be used time and time again. I would like the CTWD to sit back and think about what DMD has said and make sure it doesn't end up in the same place again. Hypothetically that could mean saying we agree with the move, disagree with the lack of consultation, but fans who want to remain in the East Stand, we'll see if that is possible and offer to help sort it out.

Too many people seem to react to DMD without taking the time to read and think about what he wrote. It boils down to fans who are going to be moved should be asked for their opinion and if the move happens then an effort should be made to find those that don't want to move a suitable alternative to what's on offer.

Instead of criticising the only group that, in a very short time, exercised real, tangible influence against the club, why not give them time to evolve, with new blood and, instead, give full credit to the club for what they did?

 

[Fez]

You seem to keep missing the point. You haven't been asked anything at all, since OLM said they could do nothing as they had no mandate. Seemingly they now have that mandate from members, the question is how?

That's not 'pithiness' it's a question key to the nature of the proposed group.

No, I see the point. As a member I, along with others , collectively voted on points placed before us and that is where the mandate comes from. The mandate gives them (the committee) the ability to be more general in their approach. Ordoyou know something. I don't?

 

[DMD]

No, I see the point. As a member I, along with others , collectively voted on points placed before us and that is where the mandate comes from. The mandate gives them (the committee) the ability to be more general in their approach. Ordoyou know something. I don't?

Not based on those replies you don't.

 

[Amin Arrears]

Still feeding the troll?

You must have quite the appetite Dutch....

 

[DMD]

Still feeding the troll?

You must have quite the appetite Dutch....

I'm not feeding him.

 

[Obadiah]

Fez, the CTWD statement would have been aimed at the fans and only indirectly the club. we need to widen our support to move to the next stage, this was an opportunity missed, in my view. I'm not criticising CTWD, I'm attempting to show how they could have approached the problem faced by those in E1 to E5 who didn't want to move into the North Stand.

I don't give any credit to the club for the move. A number of long standing City supporters didn't renew their passes because of the actions of the club. A little foresight and consultation, may, and I say may, have kept that to a minimum.

The arguments with DMD go around and around in circles, the frustrating thing for me is the club moved hundreds of City fans without asking them how they felt and nobody seems to care, apart from DMD, and all he gets is criticism and sarcasm. It may be part and parcel of a message board but it doesn't build a fans' organisation.

If the lessons are acknowledged (could be done privately), this thread winds down and an olive branch is offered to DMD then I'll shut up. We have the beginnings of new body that consults with fans. I want CTWD to be a huge voice in that body but I want to be assured that the things I think are important, such as asking people how they feel about being shifted and trying to give them an acceptable alternative are also important to the CTWD representatives on that group.

 

[Fez]

Fez, the CTWD statement would have been aimed at the fans and only indirectly the club. we need to widen our support to move to the next stage, this was an opportunity missed, in my view. I'm not criticising CTWD, I'm attempting to show how they could have approached the problem faced by those in E1 to E5 who didn't want to move into the North Stand.

I don't give any credit to the club for the move. A number of long standing City supporters didn't renew their passes because of the actions of the club. A little foresight and consultation, may, and I say may, have kept that to a minimum.

The arguments with DMD go around and around in circles, the frustrating thing for me is the club moved hundreds of City fans without asking them how they felt and nobody seems to care, apart from DMD, and all he gets is criticism and sarcasm. It may be part and parcel of a message board but it doesn't build a fans' organisation.

If the lessons are acknowledged (could be done privately), this thread winds down and an olive branch is offered to DMD then I'll shut up. We have the beginnings of new body that consults with fans. I want CTWD to be a huge voice in that body but I want to be assured that the things I think are important, such as asking people how they feel about being shifted and trying to give them an acceptable alternative are also important to the CTWD representatives on that group.

Okay, you wanted a sound-bite and you think that would have influenced fans. Fair enough, I disagree. The club had the timing and method right, they forced through their plan and played sop to the odd or collective complainant, which was always expected. CTWD have not been perfect, but these arguments are divisive and lack substance.

 

[originallambrettaman]

I'm aware of that, but that's not the question asked.

You said you wouldn't get involved in the stand evictions as you didn't know where the group was headed. There's been no approach to members since then that I'm aware of, but you NOW say you have a mandate to move forward. So I asked how that mandate has come about.

We asked our members for a mandate to expand our remit, we got that and we've now put together our long and short term aims to put forward to our members for consultation. Do you think we should consult our members for a more detailed mandate, or do you think we should just do what we like, you can't have it both ways?

 

[DMD]

We asked our members for a mandate to expand our remit, we got that and we've now put together our long and short term aims to put forward to our members for consultation. Do you think we should consult our members for a more detailed mandate, or do you think we should just do what we like, you can't have it both ways?

So when you first said you couldn't act because you didn't have a mandate, you were wrong? Because we haven't had another one since.

If a statement can be made about Lokeren, the same 'permissions' 'mandates' 'remits' existed for the stand move, so the group could have made some comment or offered support to those willing to volunteer to help smooth the transition.

 

[originallambrettaman]

So when you first said you couldn't act because you didn't have a mandate, you were wrong? Because we haven't had another one since.

This is exactly like talking to Happy Tiger six months ago, you are deliberately misinterpreting everything I say.

No, I wasn't wrong, we didn't get the supporters trust vote until July and we still haven't yet canvassed our members on the details of what we intend to do as a trust.

 

[DMD]

This is exactly like talking to Happy Tiger six months ago, you are deliberately misinterpreting everything I say.

No, I wasn't wrong, we didn't get the supporters trust vote until July and we still haven't yet canvassed our members on the details of what we intend to do as a trust.

I'm not misinterpreting anything, it's nothing to do with the supporters trust vote. Whatever mandates/remits from members that were needed to act on the events at Lokeren, existed at the start of the stand move.

You had even less of a remit for Huddersfield and the early days of the name change.

 

[Jezz511]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnyway, i've read somewhere the lokeren fans are going to the admiral of the humber before the game (which is where i eat normally before city anyway) Is there any confirmation on this?

 

[originallambrettaman]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnyway, i've read somewhere the lokeren fans are going to the admiral of the humber before the game (which is where i eat normally before city anyway) Is there any confirmation on this?

They are indeed, it's their designated meeting place.

 

[Jezz511]

They are indeed, it's their designated meeting place.

Great stuff. Gutted about not being able to go last week so mingling with them this week should make up for it a little! Hope dumberside police don't treat them like the plague

 

[DMD]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnyway, i've read somewhere the lokeren fans are going to the admiral of the humber before the game (which is where i eat normally before city anyway) Is there any confirmation on this?

I struggle to see how 1500 extra people will fit in there, but fortunately some are meeting City fans in a variety of other places to be looked after in Hull.

The club tried hard to make them welcome with alternative arrangements, but there were too many obstacles.

 

[originallambrettaman]

I didn't think you where having a pop. Its a fair question.

I brought it up on here at the time. I haven't seen anyone since coming off the committee to talk to. I've tried to fight the closure of my office and lost and now have to sort out my own future.

I just think DMD is getting a rough ride for making sensible suggestions. We are at a turning point where CTWD becomes something a lot broader with more responsibility and I want it to succeed. We can't unbreak eggs but we can look at what happened and learn from it.

I don't see anything wrong in CTWD supporting the idea, if that's what they decided, but ensuring those who don't are looked after by the club as far as possible. Some of those supporters don't feel represented by any fans group, I feel that is an opportunity lost, an opportunity for CTWD to show it was something more than the campaign to save our name.

As a side issue, I'm really sorry to hear you didn't manage to get that work situation sorted.

 

[Fez]

I'm not misinterpreting anything, it's nothing to do with the supporters trust vote. Whatever mandates/remits from members that were needed to act on the events at Lokeren, existed at the start of the stand move.

You had even less of a remit for Huddersfield and the early days of the name change.

Your line of reasoning does seem to misinterpret the facts; however they are presented.

Obadiah may clear this up, but I am almost certain that Huddersfield did not fall within the remit of the CTWD group. It may have thrown individuals together who then went on to recognise the owners tactic and subsequently form the single issue group. Huddersfield was never a part of CTWD.

When CTWD was formed it was stated, and all I saw, that it would only fight the name-change. In doing that they sought the support of other fan groups and gave public support to their causes. As a member, I thought this was totally within their remit. They have continued this with their support of the Lokeren fans - why not?

Lokeren is a similar 'freedom of fan's issue, in which they have had both the time and the wiggle-room to address, as their new constitution (if that's what it is) is through first stage and finalise the second stage release. As is always best with these matters, I would imagine they are reluctant to discuss parts before they issue the whole.

The seat-move was fast, unexpected, a done deal in the eyes of all who I read on here and elsewhere and that is how it has turned out. It was unpopular with some, not with others. I recall OLM and (I think) PLT accepting that, on some earlier format of group meeting (FLAG?) something had been mentioned, but no actions or intentions offered, as other owners had mentioned it, too and it was deemed not viable, for whatever reasons. I have offered an explanation earlier as to why they (CTWD) did not become publicly involved, as it would have been futile as it was a club issue and they had no influence there - it was a case where the individuals were stronger (more able to get their own result) than the collective of CTWD would have been. That will change (I'm sure) under their new terms of office.

All I am saying is give peace a chance and move on to the next phase, however that turns out. Focus on the conduct of the owners, which has been the driver of all of our home-based issues; there are signs of a change of attitude from the owners, beyond their excellent support of the manager.

Has the atmosphere improved (it was dire), the noise on the telly was awesome against Stoke?

 

[DMD]

Your line of reasoning does seem to misinterpret the facts; however they are presented.

Obadiah may clear this up, but I am almost certain that Huddersfield did not fall within the remit of the CTWD group. It may have thrown individuals together who then went on to recognise the owners tactic and subsequently form the single issue group. Huddersfield was never a part of CTWD.

When CTWD was formed it was stated, and all I saw, that it would only fight the name-change. In doing that they sought the support of other fan groups and gave public support to their causes. As a member, I thought this was totally within their remit. They have continued this with their support of the Lokeren fans - why not?

Lokeren is a similar 'freedom of fan's issue, in which they have had both the time and the wiggle-room to address, as their new constitution (if that's what it is) is through first stage and finalise the second stage release. As is always best with these matters, I would imagine they are reluctant to discuss parts before they issue the whole.

The seat-move was fast, unexpected, a done deal in the eyes of all who I read on here and elsewhere and that is how it has turned out. It was unpopular with some, not with others. I recall OLM and (I think) PLT accepting that, on some earlier format of group meeting (FLAG?) something had been mentioned, but no actions or intentions offered, as other owners had mentioned it, too and it was deemed not viable, for whatever reasons. I have offered an explanation earlier as to why they (CTWD) did not become publicly involved, as it would have been futile as it was a club issue and they had no influence there - it was a case where the individuals were stronger (more able to get their own result) than the collective of CTWD would have been. That will change (I'm sure) under their new terms of office.

All I am saying is give peace a chance and move on to the next phase, however that turns out. Focus on the conduct of the owners, which has been the driver of all of our home-based issues; there are signs of a change of attitude from the owners, beyond their excellent support of the manager.

Has the atmosphere improved (it was dire), the noise on the telly was awesome against Stoke?

Nope. Still missing the point and incorrect in some assumptions.

You're doing what you've done before, in trying to rejig the question into something it isn't, and then explaining why the rejig is wrong.