You might try reading the posts #154, #164,(by me) #183 (by Cheshire Ben); it has nothing to do with his divorce or M/H issues that, Chazz, refers to (it's just the easiest shot he could make), but a great deal to do with his clear and undeniable dishonesty and desperation to be in the (paid) limelight again - if that is caused by M/H issues then I suggest he takes advice and treatment, but, again, he should not enjoy ambassador status at our club - he enjoys some perks as a Legend and I am happy for him to have them.
Thanks. I have suggested she continues to tweet nothing and they may all go away, although Mario's is quite funny! Ps She has 96 followers already!!
More ego damage. Plus it'd piss off the FA and lead to bigger majorities against him each time. Even if Allam could prove a change of name would benefit the club that wouldn't necessarily be a reason for the FA Council to vote in favour. Many FA representatives would fear in the wake of Hull Tigers becoming a fact there'd be a host of other clubs changing their names and degrading football's image as rugby league has done.
AFC Wimbledon's famous FA Cup victory was mentioned on Football Focus this dinner together with the winning goal.
He's taken a job at your club and he's got to play to the tune of the piper otherwise he'll be off the payroll. He's being made out to be a hypocrite for doing so, but on the few occasions I've heard him speak about the name change thing, he was non committal and just wanted the club to focus on the football. In terms of his suitability for an ambassadors role, he scored arguably the most important goal in your history, he's a club legend and a local lad, he's surely ideal for the role.
With all due respect, you know little about this matter so its best you keep quiet on the issue. Do you really think there would be so much in- fighting between fans over a club legend/ex-legend if he has been 'non committal' on the issue.
I live in the area so pipe down and I've heard Windass speak about it on national media and read what he said in the HDM and if anything he was vaguely supportive http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Dean...ers-change-s/story-20167257-detail/story.html
The FA and the club have gone to arbitration over the process of changing the name of the playing name. The rules did/do not mention having to undertake a poll. The make up of the committee was not done under any agreed format. The clubs case as far as I can see is that there was no clear process to follow and that other clubs have not had to follow the same process as Hull City. Assem Allam is supportered by other club owners. One of the major questions that has to be addressed is "Who owns the rights to a clubs name". As for who I speak to, that is between me and them. On Thursday the prime subject of conversation was the banner and not Dean Windass.
You, too are entitled to your opinion, but, perhaps you could read the discussion more fully before offering it. He does not have a job, he is actively ingratiating himself to get one which has been hung in front of his snout to tempt him. He is being made out as an hypocrite because he is; read the post of Cheshire Ben #183, I think you will find all can be proven. But, as I have said, he is entitled to his opinion, as are we all. I do not believe he is entitled to go around in a semi-official or official capacity and call our club, Hull Tigers, as it is not, it is Hull City - what he sometimes has to correct, as it comes so naturally to him. Read my reasons for not wanting him as an Ambassador; I have already said he is welcome to the privileges that Legend brings. Did you read the posts?
I'm happy to be proved wrong and will apologise if so but i call ****ing bullshit on this. Why so deliberately vague. Get the details out its a fantastic propoganda for ctwd and if true the **** needs arresting and charging.
Whether he's already on the payroll or is in the process of securing a role (I saw him at the ground on Tuesday btw) the point was still valid. He'll do what his paymaster tells him to. The fact that you don't like the message is neither here nor there and certainly doesn't affect his suitability for an ambassadors role at Hull I did read your posts and I didn't like your intimation re: his personal life, hence my original post
Can I just remind posters that I do not agree with the name change. I have said that I will not attend Hull Tigers fixtures. That may change in the future, I don't know, but at this moment in time I have no desire to. The way to stop all of this has always been the same. Either buy Assem Allam out or come up with another income stream that he feels is worth considering. The point that many do not see is that we could have a worse problem under new ownership. What would stop any owner moving the club? Treating it like a franchise? The FA? They are up against it at the moment. Their biggest provider of income wants more say in the governance of the sport and the money that is sloshing around from tv rights has far more influence than supporters.
I don't give a **** where you live. It's not your club so you will not have as much knowledge of the situation as City fans. Same as I don't have a clue about Everton's club politics. To enlighten you, the discussion revolves around the reaction to Windass' recent decision to nail his colours to the pro Hull Tigers mast. I listened to the interview on Talksport's Hawksbee and Jacob's show and there was nothing non-comittal whatsoever in his statement.
I agree, it is, so don't bring it into the public domain when it is no more than some opinion, unless they are prepared to share that opinion. Or are you telling, me, us, that you are talking to important people and we should be impressed?
The FA Rules give absolute discretion to the FA, but you are right they don't mention a poll. The Premier League Rules do mention consultation. At the time of the application Hull City was a member of the Premier League and would be, under English law, expected to abide by their rules. The FA would be expected to take that into account when considering the application. If they don't then they will be open to legal challenge. That legal challenge can come from supporters of Hull City, supported by the wider footballing family. There is enough evidence to prove that there was no consultation because nobody tells him what to do. The other clubs mentioned at the time had no legal right to the names they wanted and therefore the FA could refuse their applications without following the same procedure. Otherwise I could set up a team and make an application to call it Hull City and the FA would have to follow the same procedure each time. The FA has absolute discretion in how they dealt with the application. Hull City have to show that the FA acted in breach of its rules, impossible as there have no set rules, or that the procedure was unfair under English law. In my view they stand little chance with their application to arbitration succeeding. Some clubs will support Assem Allam in turning the FA into a bigger version of Rugby League, but the important question is do the Premier League and the major broadcasters want that. If they sell their product on history, tradition and the best league in the world then Barnsley's support will mean nothing. Personally I don't expect the FA to change their minds, but it is possible. If they do it will give the parliamentary campaign an enormous boost and we could see the name a football club plays under being determined by the courts rather than the FA. Something, when push comes to shove, most football clubs could do without. A club's name is the property of the company that owns the club, supported by copyright law. Whether Hull City Tigers Limited can own the name Hull City if it becomes Hull Tigers is an interesting legal question, as it would be claiming ownership of two names. What's to stop a club owning 17 names just for the hell of it? The example of FC United of Manchester shows that AFC City of Hull, or even AFC Hull City would be accepted by the FA. As AFC Wimbledon shows, you don't have to be the same limited company, or the same registered football club, to be referred to as FA Cup winners.
It's a weak point in either of your takes, as it lacks a great deal of integrity - you seem to be intimating that it is a good thing to work for someone doing something you fundamentally disagree with. IF DW agrees with it now, then so be it; but if it's okay with you, I don't. But it is still not our bloody name! It is a lie and I would prefer a club ambassador to tell the truth; in fact it would be good if we could get the owners to do that. I really am not interested in who you saw at the club. I have quoted my posts and I am very clear about his private life, it is his, it is private and I wish him luck with it - I would prefer that he keeps it private, too.
