|
Post by apb1 on Apr 7, 2014 18:17:27 GMT
If 10,000 really couldn't be bothered voting, they deserve what they get I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 7, 2014 18:24:35 GMT
How can 5000 votes (including 2548 simpletons) be a fair reflection of their fanbase? If only 5000 people voted, those are all you can count. At a General Election, Britain never gets 50 million voters through the polling stations/post so those who don't vote can have no complaint at the result. Essentially this was a referendum not an election. And in referenda the organisers usually announce beforehand what percentage of the electorate (not the percentage of those voting) would be required for a valid yes vote. If you don't do this you could have a million people entitled to vote but only three do so - with 2 voting yes and 1 voting no. In an election you have no option but to grin and bear it with a very low turnout, but in a referendum you are voting for a change in the status quo and there is almost always a "hurdle" set for the number of yes votes needed for change. Having said that, I do think that if the apathy has been as great as it appears to have been - they probably deserve what's coming.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 18:30:01 GMT
Didn't we once enter into a suicide pact with Hull as the two worst places 'culturally' to live in Britain....
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Apr 7, 2014 18:53:04 GMT
the poll had three options. A: Yes to hull tigers B: No to hull tigers C: Not sure either way My guess is that Allam took the votes from the not sure catagory and included them in the 'Yes' category. Any proof of that, or is it the same ramblings about bent refs.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on Apr 7, 2014 19:30:47 GMT
the poll had three options. A: Yes to hull tigers B: No to hull tigers C: Not sure either way My guess is that Allam took the votes from the not sure catagory and included them in the 'Yes' category. Any proof of that, or is it the same ramblings about bent refs. I had a look at the Hull board when they were doing the poll and those that had done it said of it. www.hullcityindependent.net/?page=forum&forum_id=8&thread_id=18359The other option was actually "I will continue to support the club either way", which is pretty sneaky.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 7, 2014 19:32:12 GMT
the poll had three options. A: Yes to hull tigers B: No to hull tigers C: Not sure either way My guess is that Allam took the votes from the not sure catagory and included them in the 'Yes' category.
Am I being really thick here and missing something?
Why would you bother voting if you were going to tick box 'C'?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 19:39:36 GMT
the poll had three options. A: Yes to hull tigers B: No to hull tigers C: Not sure either way My guess is that Allam took the votes from the not sure catagory and included them in the 'Yes' category.
Am I being really thick here and missing something?
Why would you bother voting if you were going to tick box 'C'?
If you really weren't bothered either way, then at least you can say your vote's been counted, rather than one side or the other claiming you'd have voted for them if you could have been bothered to vote. If that makes any sense.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 7, 2014 19:42:48 GMT
Am I being really thick here and missing something?
Why would you bother voting if you were going to tick box 'C'?
If you really weren't bothered either way, then at least you can say your vote's been counted, rather than one side or the other claiming you'd have voted for them if you could have been bothered to vote. If that makes any sense.
It seems (from what Joe has posted above) that C wasn't the option he actually suggested it was after all.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on Apr 7, 2014 19:42:49 GMT
the poll had three options. A: Yes to hull tigers B: No to hull tigers C: Not sure either way My guess is that Allam took the votes from the not sure catagory and included them in the 'Yes' category.
Am I being really thick here and missing something?
Why would you bother voting if you were going to tick box 'C'?
On further research (as in above post) the wording was "I'm no too concerned and will continue to support the club either way". In answer to your question, I suppose those who don't want the name change but don't want Allam and his funding to leave would vote in that category. 792 did. 2,565: Yes to Hull Tigers with the Allam Family continuing to lead the club; 792: I am not too concerned and will continue to support the club either way 2,517: No to Hull Tigers 9,159: Number of season card holders who did not vote EDIT: You are correct in the above post Paul. The first post was just as I remembered it (i.e. wrong)
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 7, 2014 19:46:43 GMT
Shocking that nearly two thirds of them didn't bother to have a say.
If we were faced with a name change to say Stoke Potters I'd be desperately disappointed if two thirds of our season ticket holders couldn't be bothered to vote.
|
|
|
Post by cityhullstan on Apr 7, 2014 21:00:52 GMT
The ballot was a sham with loaded questions, people who voted "no" getting emails back stating to resubmit as emailed ballot wasn't filled in correctly, names and addresses having to be filled in, corporates getting 10 votes each (none of the 4k £60 Wembley seats went to pass holders)
Mugabe would be proud.
If the ballot papers had been given to fans as they entered the ground and a secret simple yes or no vote it would have been very different.
Allan saved the club but it doesn't give the deranged bully the right to do what he wants with the club. Not once has he given any evidence that changing the name will bring in additional material sponsorship
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 7, 2014 21:18:52 GMT
My simple understanding of this is that the owner wanted to change the name of the club to make it more attractive to overseas markets to, I presume, increase revenues coming into the club for the long term future. From what I can tell, the fans are more interested in preserving the name and pissing off the owner who is ploughing money in for the benefit of the club and the community. If the fans and the FSF think that history and heritage is more important than the future of the club then yes, I suppose you could argue that the FSF are helping. There seems to be a train of thought that fans always know best which on many, many occasions has shown to be completely and totally false. A few points here :- 1. The FA Committee which looked in detail at this was not convinced that any convincing argument linking the proposed playing name change with increased revenues had been made by the Club. 2. Although a playing name mainly affects the club involved, it also affects everybody else. Would you want the owners of clubs - or even their fans - to have complete freedom on the playing names of our clubs ? 3. There is a widespread view that this has less to do with promotion of "Tigers" (a concept which can in any case be used for marketing) than it has to do with losing the word "City" because of the owners well-documented falling out with the City Council, following their refusal to sell the ground to him. The Club refused to support the application for the City of Culture or, on promotion, to have a parade through the City and a civic reception. No doubt the same will happen if they were to win the Cup. 4. The phrase "ploughing money in" needs definition. The money has been lent to the Club at 5% interest. 5. There is absolutely no need for history and heritage and the future of the club to be in conflict with each other. 6. I believe that very few, if any at all, Hull fans are interested in "pissing off the owner". They are interested in preserving their historic playing name as I believe the large majority of Stoke City fans would be).
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 7, 2014 21:27:13 GMT
The ballot was a sham with loaded questions, people who voted "no" getting emails back stating to resubmit as emailed ballot wasn't filled in correctly, names and addresses having to be filled in, corporates getting 10 votes each (none of the 4k £60 Wembley seats went to pass holders) Mugabe would be proud. If the ballot papers had been given to fans as they entered the ground and a secret simple yes or no vote it would have been very different. Allan saved the club but it doesn't give the deranged bully the right to do what he wants with the club. Not once has he given any evidence that changing the name will bring in additional material sponsorship A copy of the FSF letter to the Club about the ballot is below We have been contacted by many of our members who are Hull City fans, expressing great concern about the format and conduct of the ballot of supporters now being conducted by Hull City on the application for a change of playing name to Hull Tigers. There are four major concerns about the ballot: 1. The ballot question is not neutrally worded and conflates two separate issues, namely the proposed name change, and whether supporters want the Allam family to continue in ownership of the Club. The strong implication of this question is that those who vote “no” do not wish the Allam family to continue in ownership. Supporters (of which there may be many) who wish to vote against the name change but who are happy for the Allam family to continue have no way of casting their vote. Neither would any supporters who support the name change but do not wish to express a view on the Allam ownership. The mixing up of these two issues, thereby trying to turn it into a vote of confidence in the Chairman, makes the ballot quite unreliable as a test of supporter opinion on the playing name change. 2. The ballot paper itself contains text presenting the case for the change but no text presenting the opposite view. This is extremely poor electoral practice, to put it mildly, and is clearly an attempt to bias the process in favour of a ‘yes’ vote. Good practice would have been to have material presenting both sides of the argument, probably on a separate sheet(s) of paper. 3. It is not a secret ballot. The voter is required to identify him/herself on the ballot paper itself. This could be a deterrence in any ballot, but the more so in one where the Club Chairman has been hostile, and even offensive, to those who disagree with his view on the playing name change and the Club has said (completely unfairly and inaccurately) that they do not have the interests of the club at heart. There is a fear of reprisals, heightened at a time when, for example, the Club might be allocating Cup Final tickets in the near future, which may well have deterred supporters from voting “No” (even if such fears are, in fact, unfounded). 4. The ballot has not been run or supervised by an accredited, neutral agency with skills and experience in running ballots and elections, such as the Electoral Reform Society. There are numerous practical concerns such as access to ballot papers and the fact that due to IT problems the electronic system was returning blank ballots to the club. In these circumstances, we respectfully suggest that the ballot must be disregarded. Yours sincerely, Kevin Miles Chief Executive
|
|
|
Post by hollybush on Apr 7, 2014 21:52:39 GMT
BBC Radio Humberside ?@radiohumberside 12mBREAKING: Hull City fans vote YES to changing the club name to Hull Tigers #hcafc How can 5000 votes (including 2548 simpletons) be a fair reflection of their fanbase? Presumably in the same way that the ill-considered opinions of 25 fuckwits on here are taken to be a fair reflection of the opinions of the entire Stoke City fanbase.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 8, 2014 7:08:02 GMT
My simple understanding of this is that the owner wanted to change the name of the club to make it more attractive to overseas markets to, I presume, increase revenues coming into the club for the long term future. From what I can tell, the fans are more interested in preserving the name and pissing off the owner who is ploughing money in for the benefit of the club and the community. If the fans and the FSF think that history and heritage is more important than the future of the club then yes, I suppose you could argue that the FSF are helping. There seems to be a train of thought that fans always know best which on many, many occasions has shown to be completely and totally false. A few points here :- 1. The FA Committee which looked in detail at this was not convinced that any convincing argument linking the proposed playing name change with increased revenues had been made by the Club. 2. Although a playing name mainly affects the club involved, it also affects everybody else. Would you want the owners of clubs - or even their fans - to have complete freedom on the playing names of our clubs ? 3. There is a widespread view that this has less to do with promotion of "Tigers" (a concept which can in any case be used for marketing) than it has to do with losing the word "City" because of the owners well-documented falling out with the City Council, following their refusal to sell the ground to him. The Club refused to support the application for the City of Culture or, on promotion, to have a parade through the City and a civic reception. No doubt the same will happen if they were to win the Cup. 4. The phrase "ploughing money in" needs definition. The money has been lent to the Club at 5% interest. 5. There is absolutely no need for history and heritage and the future of the club to be in conflict with each other. 6. I believe that very few, if any at all, Hull fans are interested in "pissing off the owner". They are interested in preserving their historic playing name as I believe the large majority of Stoke City fans would be). 1 The FA Committee - come on, who really gives a fuck what those clowns think? I think you must be too close to them if you give them more credence over the actual owner of a football club. 2 It doesn't affect everybody else. Ultimately, it's nothing to do with us. 3 So what 4 Well, he's the owner and if it goes tits up then he won't be getting any of it back and given it seems to be working for them on the pitch now then I'd suggest they roll with it. It wasn't so long along that the odd one or two on here continued to give it the big one about supporter group ownership but that seemed to stop - now doubt when it went tits for the Charlton who were cited as the model club. 5 There clearly is. If 'Tigers' does make the club more attractive abroad - or if the owner makes a business decision because he thinks there is a likelihood that it increases investment then it clearly does affect the heritage. 6 Well, they clearly are happy to 'piss him off' rather than suck up a name change. I find it incredible, especially for a club that has been through some dark days, that the fans can't roll with it. I must be a minority then but if I had the same choice to continue to back a chairman who put our club in the Premiership or piss him for the sake of reading the name Stoke City in the newspaper then I'd back the chairman. If that makes me a souless twat then so be it. All I'd ask of any owners that they continue to do the best by the club which in this day and age means preserving the financial security of the club above anything else. I'd watch Stoke Potters in the Premiership before I'd watch Stoke City tumble down the leagues. I go to the rugby now and again and watch the Huddersfield Giants and they don't seem to be crying about not being called Fartown any more (even though they sing that name now and again) I'm not sure if there was much fallout when it actually happened but they understood the need to have a name that was more recognisable and marketable to the area from what I can tell. Again, given the owner ploughs in a lot of money.....
|
|
|
Post by shinosbro on Apr 8, 2014 7:16:33 GMT
A few points here :- 1. The FA Committee which looked in detail at this was not convinced that any convincing argument linking the proposed playing name change with increased revenues had been made by the Club. 2. Although a playing name mainly affects the club involved, it also affects everybody else. Would you want the owners of clubs - or even their fans - to have complete freedom on the playing names of our clubs ? 3. There is a widespread view that this has less to do with promotion of "Tigers" (a concept which can in any case be used for marketing) than it has to do with losing the word "City" because of the owners well-documented falling out with the City Council, following their refusal to sell the ground to him. The Club refused to support the application for the City of Culture or, on promotion, to have a parade through the City and a civic reception. No doubt the same will happen if they were to win the Cup. 4. The phrase "ploughing money in" needs definition. The money has been lent to the Club at 5% interest. 5. There is absolutely no need for history and heritage and the future of the club to be in conflict with each other. 6. I believe that very few, if any at all, Hull fans are interested in "pissing off the owner". They are interested in preserving their historic playing name as I believe the large majority of Stoke City fans would be). and yet... MK Dons? You'd guess given the precedent(s?) the owner could expect the FA to let him do what he wants, as he's not planning to relocate Hull to Doncaster, then remove "Hull" from the name
|
|
|
Post by jonnybravo on Apr 8, 2014 7:40:43 GMT
The FA have rejected the name change so the ballot is pointless
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 8, 2014 8:45:29 GMT
A few points here :- 1. The FA Committee which looked in detail at this was not convinced that any convincing argument linking the proposed playing name change with increased revenues had been made by the Club. 2. Although a playing name mainly affects the club involved, it also affects everybody else. Would you want the owners of clubs - or even their fans - to have complete freedom on the playing names of our clubs ? 3. There is a widespread view that this has less to do with promotion of "Tigers" (a concept which can in any case be used for marketing) than it has to do with losing the word "City" because of the owners well-documented falling out with the City Council, following their refusal to sell the ground to him. The Club refused to support the application for the City of Culture or, on promotion, to have a parade through the City and a civic reception. No doubt the same will happen if they were to win the Cup. 4. The phrase "ploughing money in" needs definition. The money has been lent to the Club at 5% interest. 5. There is absolutely no need for history and heritage and the future of the club to be in conflict with each other. 6. I believe that very few, if any at all, Hull fans are interested in "pissing off the owner". They are interested in preserving their historic playing name as I believe the large majority of Stoke City fans would be). 1 The FA Committee - come on, who really gives a fuck what those clowns think? I think you must be too close to them if you give them more credence over the actual owner of a football club. 2 It doesn't affect everybody else. Ultimately, it's nothing to do with us. 3 So what 4 Well, he's the owner and if it goes tits up then he won't be getting any of it back and given it seems to be working for them on the pitch now then I'd suggest they roll with it. It wasn't so long along that the odd one or two on here continued to give it the big one about supporter group ownership but that seemed to stop - now doubt when it went tits for the Charlton who were cited as the model club. 5 There clearly is. If 'Tigers' does make the club more attractive abroad - or if the owner makes a business decision because he thinks there is a likelihood that it increases investment then it clearly does affect the heritage. 6 Well, they clearly are happy to 'piss him off' rather than suck up a name change. I find it incredible, especially for a club that has been through some dark days, that the fans can't roll with it. I must be a minority then but if I had the same choice to continue to back a chairman who put our club in the Premiership or piss him for the sake of reading the name Stoke City in the newspaper then I'd back the chairman. If that makes me a souless twat then so be it. All I'd ask of any owners that they continue to do the best by the club which in this day and age means preserving the financial security of the club above anything else. I'd watch Stoke Potters in the Premiership before I'd watch Stoke City tumble down the leagues. I go to the rugby now and again and watch the Huddersfield Giants and they don't seem to be crying about not being called Fartown any more (even though they sing that name now and again) I'm not sure if there was much fallout when it actually happened but they understood the need to have a name that was more recognisable and marketable to the area from what I can tell. Again, given the owner ploughs in a lot of money..... Merkin, you obviously have a 'healthy' contempt for the FA! However, in this instance, they make the rules (that's their job) and it is they who enforce them. So you can hold them in as little regard as you want, if the FA confirm the decision of their committee that Hull cannot change its name, then the Hull cannot change its name. End of story. Personally I hope that, in this instance, the FA sticks to its rules and don't bend them out of shape as they did in the sorry MK Dons franchise saga.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 9:04:16 GMT
A few points here :- 1. The FA Committee which looked in detail at this was not convinced that any convincing argument linking the proposed playing name change with increased revenues had been made by the Club. 2. Although a playing name mainly affects the club involved, it also affects everybody else. Would you want the owners of clubs - or even their fans - to have complete freedom on the playing names of our clubs ? 3. There is a widespread view that this has less to do with promotion of "Tigers" (a concept which can in any case be used for marketing) than it has to do with losing the word "City" because of the owners well-documented falling out with the City Council, following their refusal to sell the ground to him. The Club refused to support the application for the City of Culture or, on promotion, to have a parade through the City and a civic reception. No doubt the same will happen if they were to win the Cup. 4. The phrase "ploughing money in" needs definition. The money has been lent to the Club at 5% interest. 5. There is absolutely no need for history and heritage and the future of the club to be in conflict with each other. 6. I believe that very few, if any at all, Hull fans are interested in "pissing off the owner". They are interested in preserving their historic playing name as I believe the large majority of Stoke City fans would be). and yet... MK Dons? You'd guess given the precedent(s?) the owner could expect the FA to let him do what he wants, as he's not planning to relocate Hull to Doncaster, then remove "Hull" from the name to be fair, the MK Dons situation was completely different. Wimbledon hadn't had a ground to call their own since the early 90's when they were told by the Taylor report to improve their old ground and they couldn't afford to do so. they relocated to Milton Keynes largely because they had no ground (they had been having to share grounds for over a decade at this point), couldn't afford one and were already in administration when the ground was offered to them to use (it had also been offered to QPR, Palace and Luton) and the leader of the consortium who developed the ground bought Wimbledon out and saved them from disappearing completely. yes, they changed their name but the similarities end there really..changing their name was a small price to pay when the only other choice was disappear. i don't think Allam would have seen what happened with Wimbledon as a precedent as that basically only happened as the only other option for them was liquidation....slightly different situation with Hull
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 8, 2014 9:17:42 GMT
1 The FA Committee - come on, who really gives a fuck what those clowns think? I think you must be too close to them if you give them more credence over the actual owner of a football club. 2 It doesn't affect everybody else. Ultimately, it's nothing to do with us. 3 So what 4 Well, he's the owner and if it goes tits up then he won't be getting any of it back and given it seems to be working for them on the pitch now then I'd suggest they roll with it. It wasn't so long along that the odd one or two on here continued to give it the big one about supporter group ownership but that seemed to stop - now doubt when it went tits for the Charlton who were cited as the model club. 5 There clearly is. If 'Tigers' does make the club more attractive abroad - or if the owner makes a business decision because he thinks there is a likelihood that it increases investment then it clearly does affect the heritage. 6 Well, they clearly are happy to 'piss him off' rather than suck up a name change. I find it incredible, especially for a club that has been through some dark days, that the fans can't roll with it. I must be a minority then but if I had the same choice to continue to back a chairman who put our club in the Premiership or piss him for the sake of reading the name Stoke City in the newspaper then I'd back the chairman. If that makes me a souless twat then so be it. All I'd ask of any owners that they continue to do the best by the club which in this day and age means preserving the financial security of the club above anything else. I'd watch Stoke Potters in the Premiership before I'd watch Stoke City tumble down the leagues. I go to the rugby now and again and watch the Huddersfield Giants and they don't seem to be crying about not being called Fartown any more (even though they sing that name now and again) I'm not sure if there was much fallout when it actually happened but they understood the need to have a name that was more recognisable and marketable to the area from what I can tell. Again, given the owner ploughs in a lot of money..... Merkin, you obviously have a 'healthy' contempt for the FA! However, in this instance, they make the rules (that's their job) and it is they who enforce them. So you can hold them in as little regard as you want, if the FA confirm the decision of their committee that Hull cannot change its name, then the Hull cannot change its name. End of story. Personally I hope that, in this instance, the FA sticks to its rules and don't bend them out of shape as they did in the sorry MK Dons franchise saga. This is what I don't understand - it wasn't about breaking rules was it? Wasn't it a recommendation?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 9:24:48 GMT
Merkin, you obviously have a 'healthy' contempt for the FA! However, in this instance, they make the rules (that's their job) and it is they who enforce them. So you can hold them in as little regard as you want, if the FA confirm the decision of their committee that Hull cannot change its name, then the Hull cannot change its name. End of story. Personally I hope that, in this instance, the FA sticks to its rules and don't bend them out of shape as they did in the sorry MK Dons franchise saga. This is what I don't understand - it wasn't about breaking rules was it? Wasn't it a recommendation? correct merk, there aren't any rules governing this. the FA rejected it originally because there was nothing to suggest that the majority of fans wanted it to happen in the first place and evidence presented by the FSF to indicate that the vast majority actually opposed it...no question of anyone trying to break any rules at all.....and, as already pointed out, the MK Dons situation was completely different LP, the only other choice they had was to go into liquidation at the time as they had no ground and no way to afford one of their own and were already in administration. the 2 matters should not be confused, compared or likened to each other as they are 2 entirely different situations with entirely different contexts surrounding them.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 8, 2014 9:28:53 GMT
This is what I don't understand - it wasn't about breaking rules was it? Wasn't it a recommendation? correct merk, there aren't any rules governing this. the FA rejected it originally because there was nothing to suggest that the majority of fans wanted it to happen in the first place and evidence presented by the FSF to indicate that the vast majority actually opposed it...no question of anyone trying to break any rules at all.....and, as already pointed out, the MK Dons situation was completely different LP, the only other choice they had was to go into liquidation at the time as they had no ground and no way to afford one of their own and were already in administration. the 2 matters should not be confused, compared or likened to each other as they are 2 entirely different situations with entirely different contexts surrounding them. Cheers, so Lakeland is talking wank then. I guess there will be no objection when the FA decide to dictate on matters that he doesn't agree with with in the interest of consistency.
|
|
|
Post by Stokie Mcpot on Apr 8, 2014 9:31:23 GMT
Some fans actually voted for that name change? I've never been to Hull but I can only imagine what their general populace is like now..
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 9:34:29 GMT
Some fans actually voted for that name change? I've never been to Hull but I can only imagine what their general populace is like now.. to be fair, it appears that the options on the ballot papers inferred that if they said "No" then they were also voting against Allam from continuing to run the club which isn't something most fans want as they'd be out in the wilderness then. they are happy for him to run it (and appreciate what he's done for them), they just want him to leave their name alone. the choices given in the Ballot were loaded and unfair which is why we are seeing the result that we are
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 8, 2014 9:39:17 GMT
Some fans actually voted for that name change? I've never been to Hull but I can only imagine what their general populace is like now.. to be fair, it appears that the options on the ballot papers inferred that if they said "No" then they were also voting against Allam from continuing to run the club which isn't something most fans want as they'd be out in the wilderness then. they are happy for him to run it (and appreciate what he's done for them), they just want him to leave their name alone. the choices given in the Ballot were loaded and unfair which is why we are seeing the result that we are so what if they are unfair if they are the stark choices the owner is giving
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 9:49:05 GMT
to be fair, it appears that the options on the ballot papers inferred that if they said "No" then they were also voting against Allam from continuing to run the club which isn't something most fans want as they'd be out in the wilderness then. they are happy for him to run it (and appreciate what he's done for them), they just want him to leave their name alone. the choices given in the Ballot were loaded and unfair which is why we are seeing the result that we are so what if they are unfair if they are the stark choices the owner is giving if nothing else then he's not doing himself any favours and not actually achieving anything whatsoever. when he first applied it was advised at the time for him to do a ballot which eh refused to do...the FSF then provided their own Poll which showed over 80% weren't happy with the name change and that was one of the reasons it was then rejected. Allam is obviously doing this to show that he HAS now done a ballot that has come out in his favour but if the questions are basically rigged to ensure a certain result then the FA won't look at it favourably at all and it won't hold any water with anyone.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 8, 2014 9:58:11 GMT
so what if they are unfair if they are the stark choices the owner is giving if nothing else then he's not doing himself any favours and not actually achieving anything whatsoever. when he first applied it was advised at the time for him to do a ballot which eh refused to do...the FSF then provided their own Poll which showed over 80% weren't happy with the name change and that was one of the reasons it was then rejected. Allam is obviously doing this to show that he HAS now done a ballot that has come out in his favour but if the questions are basically rigged to ensure a certain result then the FA won't look at it favourably at all and it won't hold any water with anyone. I don't think that the questions are rigged merely identifying those that will suck up the name change to keep him at the club...which is basically his ultimatum. For my money, that is the right question to be asking.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 8, 2014 10:24:33 GMT
This is what I don't understand - it wasn't about breaking rules was it? Wasn't it a recommendation? correct merk, there aren't any rules governing this. the FA rejected it originally because there was nothing to suggest that the majority of fans wanted it to happen in the first place and evidence presented by the FSF to indicate that the vast majority actually opposed it...no question of anyone trying to break any rules at all.....and, as already pointed out, the MK Dons situation was completely different LP, the only other choice they had was to go into liquidation at the time as they had no ground and no way to afford one of their own and were already in administration. the 2 matters should not be confused, compared or likened to each other as they are 2 entirely different situations with entirely different contexts surrounding them. I haven't seen the FA's rule book or constitution (maybe Malcolm Clarke has?_ but I bet there is some catch all clause that gives the FA the right to arbitrate on matters like name changes to a club. Otherwise, why has Allam not just gone ahead and changed the name without reference to the FA and why, when the committee ruled against a name change, did he bother to organise a (flawed) ballot? Why not just go ahead and change the name? I'm sure he realises that it is within the FA's remit to exclude clubs from competition if the owners don't abide by their rulings on things like names. If he went against the FA then his only redress if they did not admit him to competition would, presumably, be to go to court?
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 8, 2014 10:31:02 GMT
correct merk, there aren't any rules governing this. the FA rejected it originally because there was nothing to suggest that the majority of fans wanted it to happen in the first place and evidence presented by the FSF to indicate that the vast majority actually opposed it...no question of anyone trying to break any rules at all.....and, as already pointed out, the MK Dons situation was completely different LP, the only other choice they had was to go into liquidation at the time as they had no ground and no way to afford one of their own and were already in administration. the 2 matters should not be confused, compared or likened to each other as they are 2 entirely different situations with entirely different contexts surrounding them. I haven't seen the FA's rule book or constitution (maybe Malcolm Clarke has?_ but I bet there is some catch all clause that gives the FA the right to arbitrate on matters like name changes to a club. Otherwise, why has Allam not just gone ahead and changed the name without reference to the FA and why, when the committee ruled against a name change, did he bother to organise a (flawed) ballot? Why not just go ahead and change the name? I'm sure he realises that it is within the FA's remit to exclude clubs from competition if the owners don't abide by their rulings on things like names. If he went against the FA then his only redress if they did not admit him to competition would, presumably, be to go to court? all i know is that in the press releases on the matter it talked about recommendations - i couldn't find anything related to breaking rules. I'm quite sure the FA will have some generic clause about doing what the fuck they want.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 10:33:27 GMT
if nothing else then he's not doing himself any favours and not actually achieving anything whatsoever. when he first applied it was advised at the time for him to do a ballot which eh refused to do...the FSF then provided their own Poll which showed over 80% weren't happy with the name change and that was one of the reasons it was then rejected. Allam is obviously doing this to show that he HAS now done a ballot that has come out in his favour but if the questions are basically rigged to ensure a certain result then the FA won't look at it favourably at all and it won't hold any water with anyone. I don't think that the questions are rigged merely identifying those that will suck up the name change to keep him at the club...which is basically his ultimatum. For my money, that is the right question to be asking. yeah i see what you're saying and as owner if he wants to put that ultimatum up for a vote then he has the right to do so...i suppose the main issue is that he has made clear what will happen if they DO change their name (i.e. continue to be run by Allam) but not specfied what the consequences are of the vote is a No so basically, they don't really know in black and white what they are voting for in the first place.
|
|