I wasnât suggesting you said anything about Public Sector workers but some of the other critics of HCC on here (a pal or two of yours) have made Public Sec workers out to be workshy, incompetent scum. If that does rattle your cage, as it should with any level headed person, take it up with them. As stated I do support Labour in some situations, however, a change in the Labour constitution meant that Iâve always felt unable to give them my full support and actually vote for them. Only once in my life have I regretted this. In another part of the country, a decent Labour MP unexpectedly lost his seat to a Lib Dem on a small majority. Back to the initial question though, anecdotal evidence is one thing against HCC but itâs hardly a thorough critique.
No that would just make you a ****, luckily with you not being a pass holder you don't actually get a vote. Please try harder with your wumming
Fez, So only negatives are allowed, are they. You wavered in your support of CTWD, joining and in theory chucked your membership in the bin yet you then took it out again. Did anyone call you a ****er for not sticking to your argument for the release of the minutes? Your buddies at CTWD still want to deal with the Allams, not just support them but to actually enter into business partnerships with them. My view changes, based on what I read, see or hear. Debate influences my view, someone may post something that makes me stop and think, the Allams may say something that makes me angry and want nothing to do with them, then again they may say something that softens that view. I wanted a supporters group to have shares in the club, based on the development of West Park and the KC. I now do not see this as viable, but that may change if HCC want to develop a conference centre on the site, who knows. I suggest that there are hundreds of season pass holders who are swayed one way or the other on the ballot. I have said that the ballot questions are poor, but they are what they are and thats something that you have to work with, or in your case against. The FA have had years to deal with the problem of owners messing with tradition. There has been a Government consultation that reported that the FA DOES NOT do enough to protect the values and traditions of club. I agree with that report, yet you think that I am deflecting blame to the FA. Its a published fact, The PL and the FA do not do enough and if the FA had tighten its rules and introduced real processes, we would not be debating the name change. Ehab came out with the rough figure of £10m in sponsorship in the future. I do not think that this is unrealistic and could be achieved, I also think that it is still possible to get there without the name being changed. I may lack your obvious levels of intellect, I may be shallow, but I post on here for the debate, what are you posting for? Because it certainly isn't debate, its your opinion that is always right and anyone else who has one gets the brow beating. I am not trying to impress anyone, I post my views as honestly as I can, find fault with that.
I see the PL are now stating that the demise of Man U is affecting the global PL brand. This reinforces my belief that it is in the PLs and FAs interest to ensure the top 6 stay the top 6 and there is no one to challenge them. It's not about the values, traditions and history of the clubs, its about the PL and FAs ability to milk as much money from the world whilst trampling over those values, traditions and history they pay lip service to. They are the real threat to the traditional game.
No, Omega Man, positives are allowed,( itâs an open forum, so why not?) but it would help if you dealt with the facts. My remark about the membership and the bin was nothing other than a means to get a fuller explanation from the CTWD rep â something it achieved; the membership is a figurative thing, bought and paid for. It was not a change of opinion, far from it. What I was commenting on is people moving their fundamental position as if they have received some blinding enlightenment from above that is a huge game-changer. My position has never changed, I have simply used whatever means available to get to the truth of it, but my position has been constant and still is â the name-change is a crock of ****, built on a tissue of lies and deceit. Why do you need to call the folk at CTWD my buddies? They are simply like-minded folk who are prepared to fight the name-change. To be honest I think I have been quite robust in questioning their actions and principles; the difference is I have not done it from a fence, I have got in there with them and tried to help shape thinking â you should try it. Once the name-change campaign is done and dusted my membership of CTWD will be redundant (as will many) and I believe it has been clearly expressed, on here, that at that time a new group/new name will/may be shaped and membership of that will be another avenue for individuals to either take up or refuse. I personally find it laughable that any of you even discuss the idea of a business partnership with the Allam family â I think you will find that the CTWD reps have expressed that thought, also. You spent many weeks pontificating on here about finance, business, trusts, co-ops and the rest of the bullshit; now you are saying you were wrong. I tried to save you a lot of time and trouble, but . . . Change is core to life; it must be embraced and worked with. Lies and dishonesty are counter to life, counter to embracing the change they embody and must be highlighted, disputed and fought against so that deeper, more serious lies do not follow. I embrace and work with change all of the time and I use developing information to shape my opinion, just as you claim to. But that is the crux of it, what information has developed or emerged that would change the lies and deceit. What is there out there that gives any form of substantiation to the claims of incoming investment, significant commercial opportunity or an enhanced identity. What is it that you hear from Ehab Allam that I donât? Perhaps you can focus yourself (now your financial/trusts arguments are dead in the water) on enlightening us all on just what in Allam Jnr you see that makes their position credible? I have made very little comment on the ballot except to say it is divisive and poorly constructed. It is for those with season passes to express their disdain. In truth it is a shameful piece of business that anyone, with an ounce of integrity, should be truly ashamed of. You donât have to work with it, you can work against it, or you can sit on the fence and leave it to others. I, as you well know, have constantly questioned the structure and approach of the FA. Itâs an imperfect body that needs modernisation and independent thinking. Like most big organisations it is imperfect, but it is not without its positives or it potential. I do not defend them for neglecting some of the responsibilities to the core game, but I do draw the line at blaming them for a pair of businessmen who use lies, deceit and manipulation to try and achieve their goals. I say try and achieve, because, unless I am mistaken, the FA have taken extensive and structured action and it would appear they are protecting our clubs heritage. Ehab made comment about amounts which are all conjecture and, in his own admittance, a long way off. I agree with you that whatever is raised would (you say probably) be raised with our nickname of âThe Tigersâ and our historic name of Hull City AFC; so why all of the bloody fuss? What are the real reasons for all of this that you skirt around? Why would you be happy with Hull City Tigers? What is there in Ehabâs delivery that makes the lies any less wrong? This forum is for debate and opinion. Opinion on the topics discussed and opinion on the opinions of others â you have embraced that many times on here; often thoughtfully, but sometimes with force and bullishness. Your opinion is a moving feast of failure; you have backed more three-legged donkeys that Del Boy. If you make statements I agree with I will support you, if you donât I wonât. The post you are responding to did not name you, but you have quite rightly worn the hat. You have, I believe, until 12th April to get as many changes of opinion in as you can muster.
Well said, what a crap comment by the PL, years ago we might have read that Man U's demise was better for the game, opening up the competition.. now it's money, brands and global appeal..
“Don't think the Tories or any political party can claim credit for it- just saying it's on non Labour watch.” If you do believe that then surely it’s not worth you mentioning that all of these developments occurred under the Tory’s watch. But, without picking every bone, all evidence suggests that HCC played a key role. I’ve heard first hand and read praise from AJ and KT (for instance) about HCC’s role: plus details of numerous meetings/conferences with Siemens that helped them choose Hull. Siemens themselves described HCC as a ‘dream to work with’ “…a member of what Mr Chinn [MD Siemens Engergy UK] called the “Dream Team” of supportive local organisations and individuals upon whom he lavished praise. Mr Chinn said he had never known such support for a project as he had received from ABP, Hull City Council and local MPs.” Whilst The Tory Party, as AJ stated on This Week, boasted on their website: “Siemens react to Osborne’s Budget”. Ha. With regard to Parnaby, on HDM’s lead article, he’s crowing at least on the level of HCC: “Over the past few years, we and our neighbouring local authorities have moved heaven and earth to make this investment a reality” HDM “Parnaby has hailed the announcement as an “historic moment for the Humber region” and one of his personal “proudest moments” as leader.” HU12 All in all, to suggest that HCC take no credit for Siemens and the other developments seems an incredibly imbalanced view and flies in the face on all evidence. “It seems odd that Hull's Labour Mps were unable to influence electrification matters when Prezzer and Johnners were in the Cabinet? And now their work is seen as being crucial in getting it?” Isn’t it in tandem with wider rail reform that wasn’t happening under Prescott’s regime?
âIt seems odd that Hull's Labour Mps were unable to influence electrification matters when Prezzer and Johnners were in the Cabinet? And now their work is seen as being crucial in getting it?â Isnât it in tandem with wider rail reform that wasnât happening under Prescottâs regime? I get the feeling that Railtrack left Hull out, but the City of Culture award made it embarrassing for them (admittedly, I don't know the timetable for electrification)
I'm worried me and Reg are related now... How come SnB isn't using his Turncoats thread to castigate the mysterious former Liverpool fan now in the upper echelons of CTWD?
I was not targeting HCC re Siemens as it was a multi agency project, of which HCC were just one of many. It's ABP land, central govt chip in/ forced to pay the bribe, and no doubt others have had to offer money, land favours. If it's true we pipped 109 other locations, then I reckon a large part of this selection decision is down to location. Always was. We're very near the sitings of the proposed wind farms. There were a number of factors triggering the timing of the choice, as I said Putin's behaviour provided the tipping point. My point was and remains: we are always hearing that the Cons hate the North and favour the South. Recent good news seems to negate that. If this is good news because it came to delayed fruition because of Labour's spadework, then maybe we can blame Callaghan's govt for Maggie's recession of the early 80s?
Where they merit it, they get it. However over the decades the have let us down badly. Can't see realistically how anyone can call it differently (unfortunately).
