|
|
Post by MAXBULL on Nov 15, 2024 10:03:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 15, 2024 10:04:04 GMT
I am surprised how low the take up within the HUST membership was rather than the fan base as a whole. Only 45% of the membership voted? Yes. Exactly my point. |
|
|
|
Post by MAXBULL on Nov 15, 2024 10:08:30 GMT
I am surprised how low the take up within the HUST membership was rather than the fan base as a whole. Only 45% of the membership voted? Yes it does seem a bit weird. The majority who voted for were new members I’d say. I’d have thought existing members would have been hardcore and voted on most things. |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 15, 2024 10:20:30 GMT
Looking at the stats of those who actually attended the meeting (24!). 14 in favour, 10 against.
Blimey. Haven’t seen those figures being trumpeted. I’ll stick by my 50/50
|
|
|
|
Post by MAXBULL on Nov 15, 2024 10:33:23 GMT
Looking at the stats of those who actually attended the meeting (24!). 14 in favour, 10 against. Blimey. Haven’t seen those figures being trumpeted. I’ll stick by my 50/50 With my limited maths ability even I know it’s not 50/50 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by sortitoutwebbbull on Nov 15, 2024 10:40:42 GMT
Just wondered how you view paragraph 16 of the A of A's ................. could this actually hold the key to this? Do we ask them first then? Out of respect, and in my opinion, it would have been the best way forward |
|
|
|
Post by Peroni on Nov 15, 2024 10:59:45 GMT
But then what is the point of asking them if the other ones do not even want it. You would be wasting their valuable time and possibly getting on their bad side that is if they would even offer an opinion before the others had given theirs.
|
|
|
|
Post by sortitoutwebbbull on Nov 15, 2024 11:22:54 GMT
But then what is the point of asking them if the other ones do not even want it. You would be wasting their valuable time and possibly getting on their bad side that is if they would even offer an opinion before the others had given theirs. Thanks for that but as I see it, and it does state extremely clearly in the A of A’s, that the company will not allow a name change unless agreed by the shareholders by way of ordinary resolution. I think that this means that if the remaining shareholders (we now know how HUST members have voted but they only own 50% of the shares) don’t want to hold a vote about the name change, then there is no legal obligation to do so – I might be mistaken |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 15, 2024 11:36:10 GMT
I think that’s probably correct.
I am struggling with the cart before the horse approach here. I have seen no explanation as to why the original £30k figure suggested by the club is incorrect. Surely if anyone knows they should. Similarly, I am sure the club see the PR benefits in the name change (which become less and less important as time goes by- it’s been ten years now and there is a generation of younger support who would have no connection with the old club. If that’s The case, why is there radio silence on this?
Stig and Jamie give regular updates. Stig was decidedly non committal at the recent fans forum. There seems to be a singular lack of enthusiasm from the club about this. The noise is coming from a small number of people on social media and the reality is that very few actually seem to be bothered. I’m not referring to percentages- it’s actual physical numbers who vote or engage in polls.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peroni on Nov 15, 2024 11:44:19 GMT
In all fairness, I am hearing on the edgarvine that some many were unaware or clueless as to how to vote which might be skewering these fractions/ratios/percentiles/maxisms
|
|
|
|
Post by sortitoutwebbbull on Nov 15, 2024 12:01:32 GMT
I think that’s probably correct. I am struggling with the cart before the horse approach here. I have seen no explanation as to why the original £30k figure suggested by the club is incorrect. Surely if anyone knows they should. Similarly, I am sure the club see the PR benefits in the name change (which become less and less important as time goes by- it’s been ten years now and there is a generation of younger support who would have no connection with the old club. If that’s The case, why is there radio silence on this? Stig and Jamie give regular updates. Stig was decidedly non committal at the recent fans forum. There seems to be a singular lack of enthusiasm from the club about this. The noise is coming from a small number of people on social media and the reality is that very few actually seem to be bothered. I’m not referring to percentages- it’s actual physical numbers who vote or engage in polls. Good point that, and don't forget a massive 98% voted yes at the Welsh Club for the A of A's to be adopted in the first place |
|
luke
Junior Member
Posts: 357
|
Post by luke on Nov 15, 2024 12:54:46 GMT
I think that’s probably correct. I am struggling with the cart before the horse approach here. I have seen no explanation as to why the original £30k figure suggested by the club is incorrect. Surely if anyone knows they should. Similarly, I am sure the club see the PR benefits in the name change (which become less and less important as time goes by- it’s been ten years now and there is a generation of younger support who would have no connection with the old club. If that’s The case, why is there radio silence on this? Stig and Jamie give regular updates. Stig was decidedly non committal at the recent fans forum. There seems to be a singular lack of enthusiasm from the club about this. The noise is coming from a small number of people on social media and the reality is that very few actually seem to be bothered. I’m not referring to percentages- it’s actual physical numbers who vote or engage in polls. |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 15, 2024 13:58:28 GMT
Not sure why you’ve linked this Luke. I’ve read that a few times, and while I understand the conclusion, it is based on far too many presumptions and assumptions to. Have any value. There is a strong evidence free disagreement with the club’s original £30K figure. The bottom line is that if anyone should know the costs involved it’s the club having gone through the whole procedure as recently as 2015.
The elephant in the room is if the club massaged that figure, then why did they do so. If you can’t answer that, then the only conclusion is that the figure is accurate and well in excess of the estimates arrived at by the Bring Back United Group. And their pledges.
Bottom line. If this was as cheap and straightforward as is suggested, then why won’t the club get on board?
|
|
|
|
Post by ST Andrew on Nov 15, 2024 14:23:32 GMT
Percentages are being bandied about but the actual numbers are disappointing and poor. The Bring Back United campaign gang were very vocal. The no gang not so vocal.
Plenty have decided No, Abstain or simply can't be bothered which is in fact the vast majority.
If I was a majority shareholder I wouldn't be swayed by last nights damp squib.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gresty on Nov 15, 2024 14:32:07 GMT
I am surprised how low the take up within the HUST membership was rather than the fan base as a whole. Only 45% of the membership voted? Similarly, talking of a low take-up, less than 60% of those eligible to vote did so in the July election. Of that less than 60%, fewer than 34% voted Labour but nonetheless that did lead to a stonking majority. As has already been suggested, regarding the 'United' debate, it's probably 50/50. FWIW, I would like to see the name changed but am not particularly bothered either way. |
|
luke
Junior Member
Posts: 357
|
Post by luke on Nov 15, 2024 14:46:51 GMT
Not sure why you’ve linked this Luke. I’ve read that a few times, and while I understand the conclusion, it is based on far too many presumptions and assumptions to. Have any value. There is a strong evidence free disagreement with the club’s original £30K figure. The bottom line is that if anyone should know the costs involved it’s the club having gone through the whole procedure as recently as 2015. The elephant in the room is if the club massaged that figure, then why did they do so. If you can’t answer that, then the only conclusion is that the figure is accurate and well in excess of the estimates arrived at by the Bring Back United Group. And their pledges. Bottom line. If this was as cheap and straightforward as is suggested, then why won’t the club get on board? The answer is the costing that the Bring Back United group have published. There is logic behind each of those costs and all the other areas where the club flagged possible costs have been addressed within that document. Is there a specific cost that either BBU published or where the club claimed there would be a cost that you disagree with (and if so, why)? It's quite obvious why the club published the figure that they did. Even if you don't like the idea of the name change, you like that answer less. |
|
|
|
Post by White Lightning on Nov 15, 2024 14:56:02 GMT
I am surprised how low the take up within the HUST membership was rather than the fan base as a whole. Only 45% of the membership voted? Similarly, talking of a low take-up, less than 60% of those eligible to vote did so in the July election. Of that less than 60%, fewer than 34% voted Labour but nonetheless that did lead to a stinking majority. As has already been suggested, regarding the 'United' debate, it's probably 50/50. FWIW, I would like to see the name changed but am not particularly bothered either way.That is me. If it does happen though we better do the name justice. |
|
|
|
Post by Peroni on Nov 15, 2024 14:57:03 GMT
Where does the 50/50 come from?
So it also appears that the ones that cannot be ****** to vote win the vote and stop any changes. Though we do not apply same logic in the general election.
Just taken a badge straw poll in my room and it came out at 100% in favour of HUFC so guess that BBC verified stat trumps the 50/50 guesswork
|
|
|
|
Post by Peroni on Nov 15, 2024 14:58:23 GMT
Similarly, talking of a low take-up, less than 60% of those eligible to vote did so in the July election. Of that less than 60%, fewer than 34% voted Labour but nonetheless that did lead to a stinking majority. As has already been suggested, regarding the 'United' debate, it's probably 50/50. FWIW, I would like to see the name changed but am not particularly bothered either way.That is me. If it does happen though we better do the name justice. Buford T. Justice |
|
|
|
Post by White Lightning on Nov 15, 2024 15:05:18 GMT
Where does the 50/50 come from? So it also appears that the ones that cannot be ****** to vote win the vote and stop any changes. Though we do not apply same logic in the general election. Just taken a badge straw poll in my room and it came out at 100% in favour of HUFC so guess that BBC verified stat trumps the 50/50 guesswork The next 50/50. The winner gets to decide. Final answer, end of the matter. No moaning afterwards, like the Brexit vote. |
|
