Get used to it, it's how us mere mortals get treated when asking the Commissars of CTWD questions. Answer the easy ones, ignore the more difficult ones. Suppress any dissent. I'll give you a clue though, next time you're in the KC, or at an away match, have a look for groups of fans, who stick together. Some even have flags with their names on. Some of them might be members of CTWD, but, they exist in their own right. Which you claimed they didn't. There can be only one eh? I notice you and your fanboys are still pedalling the "we aren't against the Allams" line too. We're not fooled. Why do you think your membership level is so low? Dr Allam has more supporters, they buy season tickets. The majority of fans do not trust CTWD. So sadly, this Supporters Trust will be a chance wasted due to the pride of a minority of CTWD. Kinda funny that you're using the "Yes to Hull Tigers" ****e against the rest of us, who are pretty much the "Pro Allam" lot. Name change? If he wants to, sure, I am not against it. But its amusing that the revolutionaries you represent on these forums think reducing any argument to "yes to hull tigers lot" wins any points. It doesn't. It makes them look clueless and stupid. Yes we support Dr Allam and Ehab for that matter. Yes we think he knows what he is doing. Yes we trust him. Yes we want the Allams in charge for a long long time. No, we don't trust CTWD. Try to keep your arguments in those bounds.
Actually, I answered you, lets see you reciprocate. Why do you think CTWD struggles to persuade more than a couple of thousand fans to join and why do you think of the small number who did join, only 25% could be arsed to vote on the future direction of CTWD?
You'll get no answers from me until you answer the simple question asked, please name the other Hull City fan groups that people can become members of.
That's the whole point a supporters trust has to work with the club or it doesn't have a purpose. Ownership and influence are prime goals of any supporters trust.
As a member of CTWD i have probably surprisingly said i wouldn't be backing CTWD. I don't think i can until i know more about their plans and ideas and i have a lot of reservations. One is that Assam will never want to work with CTWD who actively campaigned against something he wanted, and i don't see him as the type to forget. The membership of CTWD is Anti-Allams whether the group who run it are or not is a different question but i still feel there is definitely an Anti-Allam nature to the group which i feel will continue to run throughout the group which will make working with the club even harder. I don't think this is a simple yes or no question, there is far more to it. I just feel CTWD and AA have far to much water under the bridge to work constructively together.
I think that's a perfectly reasonable attitude, as I said at the start of this thread, it's rather odd to state if you support a trust, when you've not yet heard what the aims of that trust are. That said, I don't believe that the membership of CTWD are anti Allam, some obviously are, but the correspondence we recieve suggests the vast majority are not.
Spirit of Shankley, whilst a union, is a member of Supporters Direct. Difficult to say it had no purpose when it demanded a change of owners under Hicks and Gillett. The purpose of a new supporters trust will be decided by its membership and the circumstances it faces over time. In the meantime it is a way of keeping a number of fairly like minded individuals together. A number of those who sit or sat on the CTWD committee have been invited to the club's fans forum. Whether the campaign will be a barrier between the club and the fans we'll have to see. In the initial phase there will be a lot of mistrust on both sides. Over time that mistrust might start breaking down. I hope so because it means we remain Hull City and some of our concerns as supporters may be listened to and things changed for the better.
We didn't push the membership. We didn't organise pub visits before matches, or hand out application forms at matches. The membership numbers were important but our main focus was on persuading the FA to say no. 25% turnout isn't bad for a proposition that had no opposition. You have as much idea as me why people didn't vote. To be honest its not of any importance. The success or failure of the new trust will not depend on the numbers of CTWD members who initially voted for it. The campaign achieved its objectives. The support in Hull was measured in the number of scarves we sold, the amount of money we raised, the signatures on the flag and the number of people joining. We are seeing the birth of a new supporters trust which will represent those fans that join it. The backbone of the trust will be those that led CTWD last season. Exciting times lie ahead I think. 2014-15 the season of Europe and a new supporters trust.
I support the notion of a supporters trust at Hull City, my only reservation is and always has been the relationship between the club and any trust. Initial support from Assem Allam centred around the develoment of the KC and environs. The fact that the KC is an early form of comunity asset already could be restrictive for development to succeed. I do not believe that development is a credible option for a supporters trust? The alternative is a fans representative trust as below, but a group being formed from a foundation of protest is very difficult, if for instance membership of CTWD is based on the principle of saying "no" to the name change, how can it represent supporters who for instance voted to accept a name change? My difficulty is and probably will always be, that CTWD, no matter how they are structured and no matter what the stated aims become, will be seen solely as the "No To Hull Tigers" campaigners and that could discourage many from joining. Taken from the Chelsea Supporters Trust web pages Q&A You can never buy the club. What's the point? Given the ownership model in place at Chelsea, it is obviously unrealistic for a Supporters Trust to aspire to own the club. Instead, our aim is to simply increase the voice of Chelsea supporters by formalising a collective engagement with the club, and potentially acting as a conduit for supporter complaints and problems, working with the Supporters Liaison Officer. Any Trust that is created will not claim to speak for all Chelsea supporters but only for its members, so we want to see as wide a representative of supporters join us to make our collective voice heard. One very long-term aspiration for a trust could be to target a place on the Board - it's about putting a professional face to the club and saying 'we're capable, skilled people with something to offer the club.' That certainly doesn't mean that you're unable to criticise or beholden to the club, of course - as a democratic organisation, the members determine your policy and stance towards the club. Whilst we believe that the Chelsea Board and employees should be allowed to run the club without interference, we also believe that as temporary custodians of the club they have a responsibility to engage with supporters in an equal, mutually beneficial partnership. Presently there is little formal structured or transparent engagement between supporters and club, apart from the three Fans Forum meetings per year, and little way that we as supporters can raise questions and if necessary, hold the club to account. It will be the aim of any Chelsea Trust to help formalise this role, acting as a bridge between club and supporters, so we will be proactive in encouraging as many supporters to join as we can. Aren't you just a protest group? We are most certainly not just a protest group. We do not believe that supporters can successfully engage with the club if the basis for that relationship is negative, knee jerk or based on single issues. Instead, we aim to create an open, transparent and democratic structure through which supporters can raise their voice and help the club better communicate with its supporters. We also have a clear sense of what we want. We aim to build fan influence within Chelsea FC. We are clear that can only claim to speak for our members, but we are united in the belief that we want Chelsea to be all it can be.
Sorry but most of that's bollocks. Bullshit has been spoken by one side only. CTWD have been open and honest throughout. And it isn't a matter of preference or opinion it's actually quite black and white. That's why no one admits to being a name changer or CTWD hater away from the Internet. It's a ridiculous view with absolutely no logical basis. I'm all for letting everyone have a say, but if people don't have anything worthwhile to say, and just seem a bit jealous of not being 'involved' or whatever, then they aren't worth listening to. Do you seriously think Happy Tiger for example would stand up at a meeting and try to make the same nonsense points he makes on here in a room full of real people? And it certainly isn't just him. I'm not sure what you're on about or how that's linked to what I said. My view, as I said, is that any supporters group would be better off without people who hate CTWD without any firm reasoning. As above, any properly formed view would be welcome in a PLT supporters trust. But if it's just some **** like this rat character or the OP of this thread saying he 'just doesn't like it', and can't back that up when questioned, then they can **** off. We've got far too many people like that on here and it's been a detriment to the board over the last year. If people can't back their points up then they shouldn't stir it up by in the first place.
In my opinion, the mods have been far too lax with these attention-seeking cum guzzling WUMs who have showboated with their 'sincere' views at the expense of the board. There are about 4 or 5 hardcore turds who have skewed the debate for their own ends and have pissed off the vast majority. I'm sure the mods will know of whom I speak. Over to you.
You persuaded me the development of the KC is unrealistic. It explains Assem Allam's attitude to the Council. In the long term I think it will be a barrier to the future development of the club. A 45,000 stadium opens a lot of financial opportunities, but will not happen whilst Assem Allam is alive. It also explains why we'll not be moving to Melton anytime soon. Nothing in the Chelsea statement I particularly disagree with. In those lines is some, but not all, of the reasons I stood down from the committee. Whether CTWD, the supporters trust, develops beyond its current base depends on how it seeks to represent supporters and whether it is seen as being effective. If it does develop it will be the only show in town. The more success it has the more people will join it, a law of nature. If we remain Hull City and the next 5 years shows the club and CTWD working together last season will be put in the shade and into the history books. As George Harrison sang all things must pass. Exciting times for a City fan.
PLT tiger Filey posted nothing about CTWD haters "Just my opinion The supporters trust should have a new name. Right or wrong the Name CTWD will stop people joining imo" I tend to agree with Filey on this point and I am sorry but your response did not read to me how you have now put it. I certainly don't hate CTWD, I took part in the first march in West Park and still wear my "No to Hull Tigers" badge but Im not a member and I never will be. I asked many months ago how CTWD would engage those who sit in the West Stand Upper and there has never been an answer and until there is a solution to the problem of representation it will always be more than an up hill battle in my opinion. HCOSC aims to represent all of its members equally and I believe that it is right to do so, yet not all of its membership voted against the name change. What you posted indicated to me that unless you voted against the name change a CTWD supporters trust would not welcome your membership.
In that one simple sentence you have stated why a supporters trust is pie-in-the-sky as long as the Allam family own the club.
I think that's well written, Chelsea have one of the better trusts. They are at odds with the owner, as he wants to move them out of Chelsea* to a site opposite QPR and the supporters trust owning the pitch at Stamford Bridge is preventing him from doing so. *I realise they're in Fulham, but it's on the border with Chelsea.
