HCST ideas for the future...

The " lets get the KC rocking" was a great pub talk idea, BUT in the real world what did people expect a few willing volunteers ( the trust or FWG or Ultras or anyone else ) to do. You can't force the fans to get up and sing, almost everyone on here says goal music is ****e, even DMD's pet project the legends flags caused more bother than it was worth according to some on here "put that flag down I can't see" for example. The club ( because they have money ) gave out those clapper things a few times which some like and other hate.
It was a nice talking point but if anyone picks up the challenge their onto a hiding for nothing.

 

You could well be right. There were a few things considered, including best use of the layout and suggestions about tolerated standing etc. As well as broadening the input to see what people wanted and try to look at ways of accommodating all types of supporter.

Who knows if any would have ever been taken on by the club, or worked if they had? It was felt worth a try though.

 

For what it's worth, that KC atmosphere thing was CTWD, not the Trust.

 

Did you see this?

 

If this Chris was one of the two Trust Directors called Chris (Whose names and photos have been placed into the public domain by them via the Trust website) and as you seem familiar with him and he uses CI - as you do, why didn't you simply start an opening thread on CI and NOT606, saying there was a lack of feedback and that other prompts had failed; surely that would have been easier, more collaborative and not have come across as the contrived ambush that this has? Your communication skills would surely have enabled you to phrase it in an inoffensive manner that would have drawn interest, support and a reasoned response, instead of this nonsense. As in the old adage, when you point your finger, remember there are three pointing back at you. No winners here, let it be and move on.

 

Thanks Fez. Please drop me an email and we can discuss.

 

As I've contacted the person concerned several times and by various means, and only found out it had been dropped (or maybe not) because of a post on here today, I can only assume the post is aimed at OLM.

As for winners and losers, I don't view things in those terms, but the trust and the fans are the biggest losers. However, it doesn't have to be that way if lessons are learned from this sorry mess, none of which is of my making, quite the contrary, I was approaching it quietly in the background. Have a look, it's others that pushed it out.

 

I spoke with DMD several times about this over a period of time last season when we were discussing the banners and what to do next. He was very frustrated and annoyed that a group had been set up and then appeared to do nothing.

 

Dutch, did you really not think it strange you were not getting a response? Did you take your eye off the ball too? I don't know, I just think it could have been handled differently by everyone concerned.

"As for winners and losers, I don't view things in those terms, but the trust and the fans are the biggest losers." Do you not see the really sad irony in this single sentence you have written? It challenges the mind-set that you are telling me you enjoy. I am not interested in apportioning blame, don't go there, you had it right, just everyone learn from it and move on.

 

Thanks for that insight, but we know that now. What was the result in that time-frame - that's a rhetorical question as we now know the answer, nothing. My silent question, as I don't really want an answer is how many were this group? Usually I think of a group of at least two people, but probably more. That being the case, what action where the remaining members of that group taking beyond these unspecified prompts? I think a good many of us have worked in or experienced far worse sins from full-time, well funded, corporate enterprises - of which, Hull City Tigers Ltd are but one. I expect some raised level of indignation against these profit making businesses, but against voluntary, non-funded organisations, especially embryonic ones, I would hope to see much more tolerance and leeway - wouldn't you, TOM?

 

I think you've got this upside down. I was dealing with it quietly in the background. It's others that have brought this to the board, and in doing so, seemingly saying that it's been dropped, or maybe it hasn't but in their own, non- committee based opinion, it should be. Maybe those people are the ones that should have kept it off the board and let people know discretely.

I'm at a loss to see how I can be at fault for not knowing something I hadn't been informed of, and for it being put on here by someone else. Unless of course it's my fault someone that was saying 'leave it to me' got otherwise engaged but didn't bother telling us. Who knows, maybe he asked someone else to pick it for him. There certainly seems to have been some discussion on it after it became apparent he was not going to do any more it just didn't include the people involved.

It can only be learned from if people accept there were mistakes made. Given I was working quietly in the background, albeit seemingly ill-informed, the only lesson I could learn is not to trust the trust.

I'd prefer it was dealt with in a more mature and professional manner instead of the car crash that's been created.

Looking at your other reply, again, you've got it back to front. I did speak to the others involved, but that opens a whole other can of worms. You seem to be asking for a full review of something I only found out today, and the full extent of that still isn't clear. What is clear is that we were waiting for a response that others seemingly knew wouldn't come, but didn't have the decency to tell anyone so alternative measures could be put in place.

 

Some things in there that are not unreasonable and I have addressed them elsewhere and will review again tomorrow, as, and I so agree with you, we must understand it to learn. But let's put it to bed for now and see if a new day can open up another approach. Goodnight

 

I had put it to bed, several times. I moved on quite some time ago. The specific situation is done. It's dead in the water. Who knows, maybe that was the aim all along?

For me, the issue isn't about having a group for atmosphere, in the same way that my argument has never been about the evictions despite others that keep trying to make it so. It's the way the group deals with fans, be they volunteers or just people offering an opinion.

 

I think the point is made, it now needs time to develop in whatever manner is necessary. I really don't know what has happened away from this board, but this anonymous football board was only ever destined to inflame any difference of opinion, as personalities and historic quarrels are hard to control. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and reassess not so much what they are involved with, but just as importantly how they are involved.
Personally I can see how redefining some of these campaigns to either projects or endorsements would allow more clarity as to what is been driven and how by HCST. I also think that everything should be subject to an oversight that understands, as a very basic function, just who is responsible for what and whether or not it is progressing - communication really should not be a problem in this day and age. I think eyes have been taken off the ball (by everyone), but it shouldn't be the end of the world, it should be a learning curve.
My final thought, for now, is that the HCST should be allowed more room to develop and not be expected to take on all supporter ideas and advice, much in the same way as the HCOSC, which I don't see getting this level of scrutiny. The sometimes abrasive manner that is used to (usually eventually) dismiss a poster is a part and parcel of NOT606 - I know you have explained that to others in the past; others have told me CI can be worse, although I don't use it.
I would expect the Trust forum to have a better standard of conversation, less pub bar and more hotel lounge, as what happens on here would be a huge negative for many; moderation should be anonymous and more robust.

 

Fez, for information.
The OSC has a constant dialogue with its membership. It's members can and do talk to Directors and officers at home games and branch events.

 

I've no doubt they do, it would be strange if they didn't ; I don't think I've said otherwise, have I? It is interesting that you specifically refer to members and not supporters, not that there is anything wrong with that, but it does highlight different mind-sets; which was the point of my 'scrutiny' remark earlier.

 

I don't expect the trust to take on every idea.

I expect the trust to be able to show it is representative and listening to fans. Chucking dummies and dissappear ing to some distant forum doesn't do that. It needs outreach, not withdrawal. Especially as it's a criticism levelled at the club.

This thread should have been an opportunity it to build, but the sensitive reaction to questions let's it down.

 

I remeber as a kid supporting City after a pre-season friendly fans were allowed to go onto the pitch, chat with players and get autographs etc. i don't think for a minute that we would ever be allowed onto the pitch nowadays, but could the club and HCST come up with a family type event which allowed our younger supporters to maybe actually talk and meet the players close up.
The grounds of West Park would be an ideal venue to have some sort of event like this. Proceeds go to Citys choosen charity, kids meet their idols and all in all great PR for the club.