This is like Graham Greene's 'The Third Man'.. Is there blame to be laid at his door for screwing up the name-change rejection? Did he act in the know? Anything fishy a sceptical type (like myself) might chew upon?
Here is a bit about him which is in the HDM Why is Malcolm Clarke, of all people, such an important figure in this? Clarke, a Stoke City fan, sits on the FA Council as the supporters' representative and was also part of the membership committee that first assessed the merits of the name change in late 2013. Around that time Clarke attended an open meeting of City Til We Die – a group strongly opposed to change – at Tigers' Lair, Anlaby Road, in which he made a speech addressing the club's application. A month later, he posted on Stoke fans site "Oatcake" stating he did not "believe that such changes should be allowed." This, it transpires, was seized upon by City's legal team Brabners, who during arbitration claimed Clarke showed he was "biased against the club's application" and he had "pre-determined" the decision. The FA responded by arguing Clarke's views made no difference to the Council's vote. Tellingly, the arbitration panel sided with the challenge of Ehab Allam. Among the concluding points of 85 to 91 in the 30-page document, the verdict states that Clarke, an FA council member, had "decided in advance" to base his decision on the view of supporters, rather than take into account all the matters relevant to the decision. And because of that the arbitration panel concluded the name change rejection could not stand. Read more: http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-City-Q-does-FA-s-ruling-Tigers-change-mean/story-26183848-detail/story.html#ixzz3UfNLDPS2 Follow us: @hulldailymail on Twitter | HullDailyMail on Facebook
I've had some minor dealings with Malcolm, and he struck me as an honest, genuine and likable man. I only know what's on here, but it strikes me the FA have used his public comments as a diplomatic tool to offer the Allams an out and to 'demonstrate' they're being fair.
He's a nice bloke and a passionate football fan(even if he is a Stoke fan) and he's been hung out to dry a bit with this. It's very much a technicality, he's chairman of the Football Supporters Federation, he was always going to side with the fans, he always will.
The problem was he sided with a vocal minority (CTWD) and it was this lack of judgement that caused the tribunal to set aside the verdict.
His point is that it was not just CTWD that opposed the name change EVERY ballot, except the Allams loaded one, held had a majority AGAINST the name change, the supporters club,the HDM vote,the East Riding FA, supporters of the club in different areas of the country. So in fact he supported the majority of Hull City fans.
It's quite clearly stated in the report, in the HDM and on this very thread that his problem was that he appeared to make his decision in advance when he was supposed to wait until the hearing and consider all of the facts presented at that time. At which point he still would have made the same decision, only at the appropriate juncture.
The average attendance at the KC for Hull City games is about 23,000 Let's say 20,000 of those are Hull City fans - can you point me in the direction of any poll that shows over 10,000 (i.e. a majority) either for or against the proposed name change? I thought not.
To get this through, Allam has to now prove that he has more support than opposition and with a straight yes or no question written by the FA. Not going to happen.
So the FA is going to be conducting the poll? Or are they just restricting the wording that the Allam's can use? It's a pity, I'm not a season ticket holder this time around.
Yes, but the original application has also been written off, it was for the 2014-15 season and that has now passed. The application is now out of time. The panel could have instructed the FA to vote on the application but choose not to, instead saying the club could put in a new application. Which according to the rules it could have anyway. A very hollow victory. Won in principle, but the decision makes no practical difference. We remain Hull City until he puts in another application. Smoke and mirrors.
We remain Hull City until he wins an application, which is unlikely as he doesn't plan to change his existing application even though the FA said it was rubbish. I think he has till 1st April to submit an application for name change season 2015/16. There is no way he can prepare a winning case by then. This is going to go on for a long time yet.
