The ballot...

[Fez]

They don’t have to talk to the media, they’ve only spoken to them on their own terms for the past four years.

The Supporters Committee are far better placed to challenge the club, with everything minuted and made public, it’s absolutely the right thing to do.

They gave commitments, they haven’t honoured them, they should now be made to explain themselves.

It's the Trust who should use the media, instead of the meetings.

Are all of the Supporters on the committee in accord?

If I understand correctly, the view of the Trust (and you) is that any further vote is without value, due to the lack of credible intent, a lack of honest intention; they say it is their belief that to take any further part in the ballot is pointless. Can't exactly the same be said of the meetings?

What commitment, beyond the badge, haven't they delivered?

The concessions are confused, but their second offer is what was and what so many asked for, so why not take them? What was it you said to me, before the first vote; something like take the concessions offered and work on further change later?

They committed to start rolling out the name changes on the 2nd April (the document you posted), it's the 4th today, so they started early and you have no idea they are not ongoing- do you?

No votes are worthless, pointless, they achieve nothing, or so went the rhetoric you, and others, threw at me previously; yet you now endorse it as a strategy: forgive me for raising an eyebrow.

Just trying to understand the thought process and evidence for grievance in this open letter from the Trust.

 

[originallambrettaman]

It's the Trust who should use the media, instead of the meetings.

Are all of the Supporters on the committee in accord?

If I understand correctly, the view of the Trust (and you) is that any further vote is without value, due to the lack of credible intent, a lack of honest intention; they say it is their belief that to take any further part in the ballot is pointless. Can't exactly the same be said of the meetings?

What commitment, beyond the badge, haven't they delivered?

The concessions are confused, but their second offer is what was and what so many asked for, so why not take them? What was it you said to me, before the first vote; something like take the concessions offered and work on further change later?

They committed to start rolling out the name changes on the 2nd April (the document you posted), it's the 4th today, so they started early and you have no idea they are not ongoing- do you?

No votes are worthless, pointless, they achieve nothing, or so went the rhetoric you, and others, threw at me previously; yet you now endorse it as a strategy: forgive me for raising an eyebrow.

Just trying to understand the thought process and evidence for grievance in this open letter from the Trust.

We had a vote, they didn’t like the way it went, so are attempting to move the goalposts.

The ballot went heavily in favour of reintroducing concessions, that should now be implemented.

If it’s not going to be implemented, they need to meet the fans and explain why.

The Trust is calling for a meeting to sort the reintroduction of concessions, they’ve not mentioned the other issues.

 

[Fez]

We had a vote, they didn’t like the way it went, so are attempting to move the goalposts.

The ballot went heavily in favour of reintroducing concessions, that should now be implemented.

If it’s not going to be implemented, they need to meet the fans and explain why.

The Trust is calling for a meeting to sort the reintroduction of concessions, they’ve not mentioned the other issues.

There doesn't need to be a meeting to achieve that. Forget the price for adults (for now, as they are not credible), which of the two concession offers represents a real deal to you?

 

[originallambrettaman]

There doesn't need to be a meeting to achieve that. Forget the price for adults (for now, as they are not credible), which of the two concession offers represents a real deal to you?

There was a proposal, it was voted on, the outcome was decided, I await its implementation. The end (though they’ll still have to remove the daft restrictions if they want to see attendances actually increase).

 

[Chazz Rheinhold]

There was a proposal, it was voted on, the outcome was decided, I await its implementation. The end (though they’ll still have to remove the daft restrictions if they want to see attendances actually increase).

Oh it's not the end. It's far from the end. The posts will go on and on and on and on

 

[Fez]

There was a proposal, it was voted on, the outcome was decided, I await its implementation. The end (though they’ll still have to remove the daft restrictions if they want to see attendances actually increase).

Okay, so you'll stick with the imperfect concessions that you neither liked or really wanted, but voted for anyway.

 

[Fez]

Oh it's not the end. It's far from the end. The posts will go on and on and on and on

**** off, daft ****.

 

[dennisboothstash]

Okay, so you'll stick with the imperfect concessions that you neither liked or really wanted, but voted for anyway.

Seems completely reasonable to me that you’re ‘raising your eyebrows’ to be fair

I was loathed to vote last time, although I eventually did

I decided that it was right to do that so the club could know that people want concessions back, even though the restrictions were not acceptable to me

It’s appalling, but not hugely surprising, that they decided not to go with the vote

I don’t think I’ll vote this time, because there’s no point if they just choose to ignore it if they don’t like the answer. They should be held to account for not following the last result, and I do think that should be in the media and at the meeting. Also I think if even less vote this time that fact can be used to embarrass them again in the media.

BUT...I do struggle a bit with the fact that voting for it would still be voting for the ‘principle’ of concessions. I also think that the club have deliberately challenged fans to prove we really want concessions, by choosing a version that will see adult prices going up hugely, and I’m shallow enough to rise to a challenge just on principle. I haven’t looked at the details tbh but if it was the old prices...and there are no restrictions on concessions, then that’s a bit of a win really...apart from the fact that the prices then aren’t sustainable now I don’t think

None of this is very helpful I’m afraid, because I’m arguing with myself (apologies Fez...I realise that’s your job)

On balance I’ll not be voting...I don’t think

Anyone remember when supporting City was painful...but at least simple?!

 

[City1904]

What's the principle we are voting for this time?

I stand by abstaining from the first vote as you can't trust the Allams and I was right to do so. Boycott this vote.

Boycott any meetings with the Allams as all you are doing is being played and being used by them to get their own way.

The trust should get behind protests it should get behind a mass social media campaign, shame the Allams into changing.

 

[Fez]

Seems completely reasonable to me that you’re ‘raising your eyebrows’ to be fair

I was loathed to vote last time, although I eventually did

I decided that it was right to do that so the club could know that people want concessions back, even though the restrictions were not acceptable to me

It’s appalling, but not hugely surprising, that they decided not to go with the vote

I don’t think I’ll vote this time, because there’s no point if they just choose to ignore it if they don’t like the answer. They should be held to account for not following the last result, and I do think that should be in the media and at the meeting. Also I think if even less vote this time that fact can be used to embarrass them again in the media.

BUT...I do struggle a bit with the fact that voting for it would still be voting for the ‘principle’ of concessions. I also think that the club have deliberately challenged fans to prove we really want concessions, by choosing a version that will see adult prices going up hugely, and I’m shallow enough to rise to a challenge just on principle. I haven’t looked at the details tbh but if it was the old prices...and there are no restrictions on concessions, then that’s a bit of a win really...apart from the fact that the prices then aren’t sustainable now I don’t think

None of this is very helpful I’m afraid, because I’m arguing with myself (apologies Fez...I realise that’s your job)

On balance I’ll not be voting...I don’t think

Anyone remember when supporting City was painful...but at least simple?!

I understand your dilemma, Dennis; that is my whole point.

I disagreed with the much stated view that the meetings were the only way to hold the Allams to account. I don't believe they have been successful, some do, some vassilate between the meetings and the protests - many really don't care. But that's not my point here, as those opinions are what they are.

My point is to try and understand just what is driving the Trust now. Is it concessions? What's wrong with the old ones? Is it immediate name reinstatement? Then why did they accept the posted statement as workable and now preempt any outcome? The badge, okay...

Or is it now adult prices, or are they simply trying to tell the Allams how to run their business? Or perhaps it's a
stand for a democratic process from the Allams , really.

It seems they want the option they voted for, but didn't want, upheld and cast away the better concessions. There was always going to be a fight afterwards, allegedly.

It seems to confuse and frustrate posters on here who are fairly close to the detail; those who are not must be sick of it.

 

[dennisboothstash]

I understand your dilemma, Dennis; that is my whole point.

I disagreed with the much stated view that the meetings were the only way to hold the Allams to account. I don't believe they have been successful, some do, some vassilate between the meetings and the protests - many really don't care. But that's not my point here, as those opinions are what they are.

My point is to try and understand just what is driving the Trust now. Is it concessions? What's wrong with the old ones? Is it immediate name reinstatement? Then why did they accept the posted statement as workable and now preempt any outcome? The badge, okay...

Or is it now adult prices, or are they simply trying to tell the Allams how to run their business? Or perhaps it's a
stand for a democratic process from the Allams , really.

It seems they want the option they voted for, but didn't want, upheld and cast away the better concessions. There was always going to be a fight afterwards, allegedly.

It seems to confuse and frustrate posters on here who are fairly close to the detail; those who are not must be sick of it.

I suspect it is the stand for a democratic process, and also a stand against having the piss taken out of them (in their role as part of the meetings)
Only my view though. I’m a member but I haven’t spoken to anyone about the decision

I still think the stance is a sensible one, but I am conflicted (as usual)

 

[originallambrettaman]

I understand your dilemma, Dennis; that is my whole point.

I disagreed with the much stated view that the meetings were the only way to hold the Allams to account. I don't believe they have been successful, some do, some vassilate between the meetings and the protests - many really don't care. But that's not my point here, as those opinions are what they are.

My point is to try and understand just what is driving the Trust now. Is it concessions? What's wrong with the old ones? Is it immediate name reinstatement? Then why did they accept the posted statement as workable and now preempt any outcome? The badge, okay...

Or is it now adult prices, or are they simply trying to tell the Allams how to run their business? Or perhaps it's a
stand for a democratic process from the Allams , really.

It seems they want the option they voted for, but didn't want, upheld and cast away the better concessions. There was always going to be a fight afterwards, allegedly.

It seems to confuse and frustrate posters on here who are fairly close to the detail; those who are not must be sick of it.

The Trust just want to see reasonable prices with concessions, it’s not confusing at all. The first ballot gave us that, it just needed the daft restrictions to be removed to make it workable and that’s what they’re pressing for.

 

[Van Winkle bamber]

Some decent press in The Sun and Mail today...

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

Looks like someone else had a pathetic idea and made the papers eh TOM

 

[Van Winkle bamber]

HCST Statement – Second Concessions Ballot

Having considered last week’s Hull City statement following the recent concessions ballot, Hull City Supporters Trust (HCST) have written to the club regarding the current situation. We would now like to place on record our position.

Firstly, we are calling for the club to be completely transparent regarding the previous ballot. The result should be released and acted upon as a starting point. No minimum turnout was ever mentioned before the ballot, so to declare it void after the event on that basis is entirely undemocratic and casts doubt upon the legitimacy of the process.

Although we won’t tell supporters how to use their vote, we don’t believe it’s worth voting in a second ballot on the basis that the club can arbitrarily declare it void at their own discretion.

The Supporters Committee, which was not consulted on this second ballot in any way, should be reconvened in line with EFL guidelines. There should then be the opportunity for the committee to propose changes to the pricing model or come up with a new model. We have suggested this in our communications to the club.

The Football Supporters Federation and Supporters Direct have been fully updated with the current situation and have offered their support.

As always, once we have received a response from the club addressing our concerns we will update our members and supporters.

http://hullcitysupporterstrust.com/hcst-statement-second-concessions-ballot/

Good statement and we should all follow their lead and not vote.

 

[Arnold_Lane_HCFC]

I think in all of the sorry mess that City have become over the past few years, there is one comment that stash made which sums it up perfectly :

Anyone remember when supporting City was painful...but at least simple?!

Absolute nail on the head.

 

[TreeHugger]

I've seen posts saying that the original vote was overwhelmingly for concessions. Are the results known or is this an assumption?

 

[balkan tiger]

I've seen posts saying that the original vote was overwhelmingly for concessions. Are the results known or is this an assumption?

Of those that voted maybe, but when less than 20% vote does it count for anything? In Allam world those not voting for something else must mean they are happy with what they have now.

 

[originallambrettaman]

I've seen posts saying that the original vote was overwhelmingly for concessions. Are the results known or is this an assumption?

So far, no details of the ballot result have been released, but it's apparently been leaked that it was overwhelmingly for concessions.

Even it hadn't been leaked, it's fairly obvious from the draconian second ballot terms, that Ehab wasn't happy with the outcome.

 

[AlRawdah]

They’ve now launched the second vote. The list of prizes is an amusing checklist of City-tat.

I’m not voting. They already have my opinion.

 

[Newland Tiger]

I hope nobody votes