Why Ehab needs to start attending matches

Oh God I love wood. Is it dry? Wood needs to be very dry.

 

So a famous rant is something which shows you were talking bollocks?

 

You dont think this is an opportunity for growing the Trust membership as
"reported brisk business in response to the issue of membership renewals 48 hours earlier. Current membership is 1,140, it is anticipated that as many as half of current members will rejoin, which is a great outcome given that the name change campaign is over."

If you dont think this is an opportunity for a membership drive then ok. Crack on. It'll be a very exclusive membership in another year.

 

you have little interest in any topic just a desire to nitpick and sneer at other posters . Carry on.

 

This one surely has to be ironic...

 

Great stuff! Chazz goes into meltdown because someone points out he is spouting duplicitous nonsense..
Others are wrong, according to
Chazz, for criticising the membership scheme without knowing the details but Chazz, without knowing the details himself, asserts it is bollocks. Pointing out the disparity in these two statements is nit-picking and sneering in Chazz land.

 

I am missing the reason for or the point of your posts. CTWD was a single issue action group and it was funded on the strength of that. I get now how that move impacted those concerned, I was never unsympathetic but I did not see how CTWD were cast as the villains, I still don't. If it had of been a Trust then I would have understood, but it wasn't. Perhaps it was more that one,or some of the CWTD officers came across as a tad dismissive of DMD' s posts on the matter.

Criticism and accusations of inaction over the current situation are simply daft. What will they discuss, how many tangents will they go off on? Let's just wait, get the facts, then expect a response in appropriate terms and with something more substantial that half-baked ideas - the club should be left with those, they've proven themselves expert. You know yourself that voluntary organisations usually suffer from two key commodities, funds and the time of capable people, so I would have thought you would see the sense of making one response and getting it right first time.

 

I may be wrong but by then CTWD had agreed to merge with Tigers Co-op and create a new Trust. I didn't cast them as villains. They had an opportunity to represent supporters affected by the move and didn't take it. DMD offered to do most of the leg work but that offer wasn't taken up.

I don't see a problem with the Trust meeting with those affected asking them what they would like and trying to get a dialogue going between them and the club to find a solution.

 

To an extent, the name is just an exercise in semantics, as one was born from the other. There are some posts on here that clarify it further, but the search function's down at present so I can't find them. It's certainly true that the trust mention the link to CTWD when mentioning the success of the opposition to the initial name change.

The arguments for the inaction at the time didn't include the name of the group, it was more people from the group offering reasons and justifications for the lack of support for fans and being in favour of the stand move. I don't recall those arguing with me saying that they don't exist.

It's done, it's history, but sadly, despite many of the criticism at the time turning out to be almost prophetic, such as people leaving due to it are liable to be strong members of a supporters group so membership will drop, and the atmosphere dieing on its arse, lessons still don't seem to have been learned about listening and considering rather than going direct to defensive mode. Those for me are very big missed opportunities.

 

What do you mean, you may be wrong? Get your facts straight and come back. What ever the case I cannot see why you wanted the evolving team to jump proper process required to give birth to the Trust. There was no Trust, Obi.

Your last paragraph ignores so many realities and previously stated comment that it is without credit; you seem intent on finding and attributing fault to the wrong party.

 

The name or existence is to some extent immaterial, nothing existed before the Huddersfield bubble, and that developed and morphed into CTWD before becoming the Co-op trading as the supporters trust.

To me, arguing over that is now pointless, we are where we are, the significant issue should be to determine what lessons, if any can be learned from past experience.

 

I agree. The Allam ownership cannot be trusted, that lesson is consistent and forever divisive, yet they are consistently defended and collaborated with; self-arm, not constructive dialogue.

 

There was a great expose on Aussie TV last night about a Mining Magnate over here named Clive Palmer. If you replaced his name with Assem Allam I suspect their rises would be quite similar.

 

There was a Trust, it was called the Tigers Co-op. I'm not searching my past e-mails containing the minutes of CTWD. My recollection is that we had voted to merge with the existing Trust and that process had started before I left the Committee. The announced stand move can after I had left.

I'm often accused of ignoring reality. The Trust will get respect from the club when it can show it speaks for a significant number of supporters. Arranging a meeting with people from the upper west and families to discuss the membership scheme shouldn't have been too difficult in these days of social media. I think such a meeting would have benefited the Trust in terms increasing its membership and, possibly, in its relationship to the club. After all we want the same things broadly. A way of stopping (or significantly reducing) the fraud and a system that is fair to the elderly, young people and families. If OLM is right the club are have not yet found a solution to the flawed membership system. In my world that gives supporters an opportunity to significantly affect the result.

An opportunity the OSC will have grabbed with both hands.

 

As it stands, there are a lot of uncertainties, and a lot of people considering their options based on possible outcomes.

Letting people know that there is something around that could help them, even if it is only to ease the transition can't be a bad thing.

At the moment, there's been a lot of noise about the membership scheme, but no clear indication if all complaints are generally on similar issues, or of the majority view. Some seem to think that price alone is the key factor. I feel it's only one part of a perceived injustice and feeling of impotence.

The longer the wait to start pulling people together and determining what those affected view as the key issues, the more the scheme will be implemented as is, and protesters left saying that there isn't enough time to act.

Let's face it, the reconsideration of the scheme has been brought about by the actions of individual fans, imagine what can be achieved if those voices are coordinated and structured.

 

You are playing with timings and titles - we are not discussing Tigers Coop and using them in this way really hints of desperation. Hull City Supporters Trust did not exist, it was something evolving, nothing more - or do you disagree with that?

You are probably right, the Trust might get respect from the club when it can show it speaks for a significant number of supporters; but is that right and acceptable? They speak and show respect to the OSC, or so I am led to believe, so are their numbers so vastly different to the Trust?

Read OLM's response to your post, it is plain, it is accountable, it is eminently sensible. Once we get passed the seemingly endless deadlines and get the second version of their well considered and consulted business plan (arf), folk will be able to talk about the reality I mentioned (and you are often accused of ignoring). Trying to second-guess these fools is madness, why join their world?

 

That's because you are a **** OLM.

The OSC isn't ignored by the club, the FWG is. Why is that do you think OLM?