The Third Meeting.

[Sir Cheshire Ben]

He’s offering an opinion, he has been rudely dealt with and challenged to offer his idea of a way forward - so why the aggressive and insulting attitude to someone who simply takes a different view to disliking and opposing the Allams? It’s very Allam-like and very poor.

What he posted was drivel, not true, not real & not accurate.

 

[MingofHarlem]

the starving them of oxygen bit worked for me but the rest of ****ing boring

Indirect action is not designed to get the pulses racing but, I would venture to suggest, it would cause more difficulties for the Allams than the “caveman” tactics being suggested on here.

MoH

 

[MingofHarlem]

Not all women got the vote then. Looking at Abbott, Thornberry and others, was it such a good idea?


So the Russian revolution didn't achieve its aims? Or the Chinese one? Çastro didn't get power?

Context is everything here. We are talking about a football club, not a nation and regime change.

MoH

 

[GEvans76]

He’s offering an opinion, he has been rudely dealt with and challenged to offer his idea of a way forward - so why the aggressive and insulting attitude to someone who simply takes a different view to disliking and opposing the Allams? It’s very Allam-like and very poor.

No it won’t. What you need to do is adopt a long term strategy. In the 1980s many animal cruelty charities used direct action to try and get animal laboratories closed down. What happened? Not much. Then, they got smart. They began to focus their attention on the people who supplied the animal laboratories with equipment, foodstuffs etc. They bought shares, they got people on the inside and then they applied financial pressure. They attended AGMs as shareholders. Result? A significant number of suppliers stopped doing business with the laboratories. They starved them of oxygen and they brought change to the industry. Through indirect action.

What can we do? Well, number one should be a blanket cancellation of memberships. Not piecemeal as it has been. This will send out a message that there is a united approach to challenging their ownership.

Number two, do not attend home/ away matches.

Number three, and this is where it gets interesting, collectively fund a forensic accountantcy firm to analyse the accounts of all of the Allams holdings (specifically focussing on those directly related to Hull City). We would be looking for financial irregularities obviously but it would also enable us to understand the structure of their business holdings. Concurrently we should look to understand the rules and regulations of the Premier League and the EFL. If they are guilty of omissions in failing to hold the Allams to account we should take legal action against them too.

That really is a rough outline of how I would approach this wicked problem.

And not one law broken!

MoH

Point one I agree with.

Point two I'm not so sure about as they area few grounds in League 1 I have yet to visit.

Point three I have no idea as I am just a hooligan

 

[Fez]

What he posted was drivel, not true, not real & not accurate.

Then, perhaps, you could point that out by educating us all with the real truth, if accuracy is so important. It’s makes for more informed reading.

 

[PLT]

Indirect action is not designed to get the pulses racing but, I would venture to suggest, it would cause more difficulties for the Allams than the “caveman” tactics being suggested on here.

MoH

I don't think the points you're making are completely invalid, but the fact is protests brought the Allams to the table. They were obviously very concerned about it.

 

[MingofHarlem]

Not all women got the vote then. Looking at Abbott, Thornberry and others, was it such a good idea?


So the Russian revolution didn't achieve its aims? Or the Chinese one? Çastro didn't get power?

Context is everything here. We are talking about a football club, not a nation and regime change.

MoH

 

[MingofHarlem]

I don't think the points you're making are completely invalid, but the fact is protests brought the Allams to the table. They were obviously very concerned about it.

So concerned they cancelled the last meeting.

MoH

 

[originallambrettaman]

Indirect action is not designed to get the pulses racing but, I would venture to suggest, it would cause more difficulties for the Allams than the “caveman” tactics being suggested on here.

MoH

Your suggestion would require access to their books, as a forensic accountant is unlikely to find anything in the basic summary accounts that the public have access to and it also works on the assumption that there's something irregular to find in the first place.

Current action is merely to increase the chances of them getting completely ****ed off with the whole thing and accepting a more reasonable offer for the club, we're not playing a long game, they'll have ****ed off before the end of next season anyway.

Meh.

 

[AlRawdah]

Jesus Christ. They cancelled the last meeting directly because of concerns about protests.

Low grade trolling here. Give it a rest son.




PS: apologies, my phone seems to have lost the ability to quote an earlier post.

 

[Sir Cheshire Ben]

Then, perhaps, you could point that out by educating us all with the real truth, if accuracy is so important. It’s makes for more informed reading.

To make a point he posted bollocks that wasn’t true. I know what he posted wasn’t true. I don’t have any need, or desire, to educate you or others on the truth. It’s irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Quill]

Any protest should be accompanied with this music, of course.

You must log in or register to see media

Stop been **** Ming. It's not a good look.

 

[Barchullona]

Context is everything here. We are talking about a football club, not a nation and regime change.

MoH

So your statement illegal action doesn't bring results was incorrect then?

 

[MingofHarlem]

That’s what they said but by now we should all understand that what they say and do have no direct correlation.

MoH

 

[MingofHarlem]

So your statement illegal action doesn't bring results was incorrect then?

Define results? With a functioning judiciary, direct action will fail.

MoH

 

[Charon]

more like Wum Ming methinks

 

[Fez]

I don't think the points you're making are completely invalid, but the fact is protests brought the Allams to the table. They were obviously very concerned about it.

Like you I think MoH talks some sense, but I don’t agree with all of his thoughts; although they do stretch the thinking, which is always welcome.

I am strongly against any protest that disrupts the game; for me that is not the way forward. It is very clear to me (and, therefore others) that GB is in bed with the HCAG - why else would he agree to the crass scarves proffering? I found certain parts of his interview contrived and insincere; all a tad glib, I thought.

I fully support protests, if folk think them worthwhile, although I have my doubts. I don’t support further dialogue and if GB thinks there is any future in it then he has dropped massively in my estimation - especially after the ‘couldn’t run a bath never mind a football club’ comment; funny yes, but gratuitous and damaging to any future dialogue - it all weeped of insincerity, something we all criticise the Allams for.

As for protests bringing the Allams to the table, I think that is only true in part. **** happened, they were surprised, but they reacted swiftly and took control - unless those who attended last night thought they were in control.

 

[balkan tiger]

No it won’t. What you need to do is adopt a long term strategy. In the 1980s many animal cruelty charities used direct action to try and get animal laboratories closed down. What happened? Not much. Then, they got smart. They began to focus their attention on the people who supplied the animal laboratories with equipment, foodstuffs etc. They bought shares, they got people on the inside and then they applied financial pressure. They attended AGMs as shareholders. Result? A significant number of suppliers stopped doing business with the laboratories. They starved them of oxygen and they brought change to the industry. Through indirect action.

What can we do? Well, number one should be a blanket cancellation of memberships. Not piecemeal as it has been. This will send out a message that there is a united approach to challenging their ownership.

Number two, do not attend home/ away matches.

Number three, and this is where it gets interesting, collectively fund a forensic accountantcy firm to analyse the accounts of all of the Allams holdings (specifically focussing on those directly related to Hull City). We would be looking for financial irregularities obviously but it would also enable us to understand the structure of their business holdings. Concurrently we should look to understand the rules and regulations of the Premier League and the EFL. If they are guilty of omissions in failing to hold the Allams to account we should take legal action against them too.

That really is a rough outline of how I would approach this wicked problem.

And not one law broken!

MoH

OK lets put the boycott thing to bed once and for all, it ain't going to happen because there will be always some who put the supporting of the team before ALL else.

OLM has explained the situation about going through the books to find fraud or misconduct.

 

[Barchullona]

Define results? With a functioning judiciary, direct action will fail.

MoH

The result was in those countries illegal action succeeded. They all had a functioning judicary.

 

[Sir Cheshire Ben]

Any protests that disrupt the game will be no more annoying than VAR.

Disrupting the games would be great, getting them abandoned would be better. There should be no boundaries.

It’s the West Park marches that I find futile. If a march is deemed necessary then make it to his house on a Saturday afternoon & protest outside it for the duration of the game & every game thereafter.