|
|
Post by tigerfeet on Nov 15, 2024 15:07:10 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. It's like Brexit all over again. 😃 Like it or not, last night's vote is how democracy works. When you have a binary choice then the side that gets the most votes wins. The turnout is largely irrelevant, we all had the opportunity to register to vote by joining HUST. If you didn't, no point complaining about the result after the event. |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 15, 2024 15:10:20 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. It may be quite obvious to you, but it’s sailed right over my head. Why did the club publish that figure? Are you suggesting it is untrue? Perhaps you could explain why as it seems far more likely to be accurate than the figures arrived at by Bring Back United. |
|
|
|
Post by Gresty on Nov 15, 2024 15:18:32 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? Maybe because the club has yet to be formally requested/invited to do so? Isn't that only likely to happen when due process has been concluded? As I understand it, HUST now has a mandate to request the remaining shareholders to agree to, or decline to facilitate, the name change process. |
|
|
|
Post by sortitoutwebbbull on Nov 15, 2024 15:24:37 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?
Isn't that only likely to happen when due process has been concluded? As I understand it, HUST now have a mandate to request the remaining shareholders to agree to, or decline to facilitate, the name change process. Now that is interesting - was all this done without the club having any prior consultation? |
|
|
|
Post by cebull1965 on Nov 15, 2024 15:29:05 GMT
IIRC the £30k figure was published at a time not to long before only £5k was in the bank. Clearly the spending of £10k or £30k at that time would have looked silly.
|
|
luke
Junior Member
Posts: 358
|
Post by luke on Nov 15, 2024 15:30:57 GMT
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. It may be quite obvious to you, but it’s sailed right over my head. Why did the club publish that figure? Are you suggesting it is untrue? Perhaps you could explain why as it seems far more likely to be accurate than the figures arrived at by Bring Back United. Is it the fans club or is it the benefactors club? Why haven't the club polled the fans rather than have people argue over whether passing a HUST vote is sufficient (I agree it can't be taken that it is representative of the fanbase but it's been totally fine when it's been going the "right" way before...)? Is it really that the club would prefer that the fans argue over this when they could quite easily have established what the entire fanbase wants at any point (some might say they should have done so after the 5 years were up)? Is sending an email with a poll to all season ticket holders, members and anyone who has bought a ticket over the last (however long they want) too difficult? Why is the club is so dismissive of its largest shareholder HUST? Why was the club's costing issued as a range rather than in any detail? Why did the club start talking about changing the company name (for a fourth time) when no-one has ever asked for that? I think the BBU costing is much more likely to be the true cost. And I ask again, what about the BBU costing do you specifically think is wrong? No-one seems able to answer this. |
|
|
|
Post by Gresty on Nov 15, 2024 15:38:20 GMT
Maybe because the club has yet to be formally requested/invited to do so?
Isn't that only likely to happen when due process has been concluded? As I understand it, HUST now have a mandate to request the remaining shareholders to agree to, or decline to facilitate, the name change process. Now that is interesting - was all this done without the club having any prior consultation? As HUST has three directors on the club board I'm sure the matter will have been informally discussed with the rest of the board. I doubt that would amount to being a 'consultation'. After all, the other shareholders, rather than the board of directors, are the ones to whom a formal request for a name change would be made. It's interesting (to me, at least) that the chairman is neither a member of HUST nor a shareholder. Therefore, despite his position within the club, technically he should have little, if any, influence on any decision about this particular issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Gulliver on Nov 15, 2024 15:45:49 GMT
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. It may be quite obvious to you, but it’s sailed right over my head. Why did the club publish that figure? Are you suggesting it is untrue? Perhaps you could explain why as it seems far more likely to be accurate than the figures arrived at by Bring Back United. Reading Wednesday's article on BN, BBU seem to be pretty adamant their figures are more realistic than those put out by the club. Are you suggesting they are not true? And, in your opinion, why would the club be opposed to the change? |
|
|
|
Post by sortitoutwebbbull on Nov 15, 2024 16:07:43 GMT
Now that is interesting - was all this done without the club having any prior consultation? As HUST has three directors on the club board I'm sure the matter will have been informally discussed with the rest of the board. I doubt that would amount to being a 'consultation'. After all, the other shareholders, rather than the board of directors, are the ones to whom a formal request for a name change would be made. It's interesting (to me, at least) that the chairman is neither a member of HUST nor a shareholder. Therefore, despite his position within the club, technically he should have little, if any, influence on any decision about this particular issue. I'm not sure that this is correct - according to paragraph 4.9 of the A's of A - "Proceedings of Directors"- if any vote on anything is equal then the chairman of the meeting - presumably the chairman? - has a second or casting vote. At board meetings, is the current chairman always the chairman at the meeting? I think he is, otherwise how does any business ever get done? |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 15, 2024 16:07:45 GMT
Unless BBU have consulted with the club, the figures must be based on a certain amount of guesswork.
I don’t disagree with figures provided. I don’t have the information to do so. I just don’t trust them without some indication that they are based on a factual analysis of the costs involved rather than a best guess.
I agree that the club need to address this sooner rather than later. It’s becoming a bit toxic as the perception is, rightly or wrongly, that the club isn’t listening (although it could also be argued that this issue was addressed and disposed of a few years ago)
|
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 15, 2024 16:13:56 GMT
It may be quite obvious to you, but it’s sailed right over my head. Why did the club publish that figure? Are you suggesting it is untrue? Perhaps you could explain why as it seems far more likely to be accurate than the figures arrived at by Bring Back United. Is it the fans club or is it the benefactors club? Why haven't the club polled the fans rather than have people argue over whether passing a HUST vote is sufficient (I agree it can't be taken that it is representative of the fanbase but it's been totally fine when it's been going the "right" way before...)? Is it really that the club would prefer that the fans argue over this when they could quite easily have established what the entire fanbase wants at any point (some might say they should have done so after the 5 years were up)? Is sending an email with a poll to all season ticket holders, members and anyone who has bought a ticket over the last (however long they want) too difficult? Why is the club is so dismissive of its largest shareholder HUST? Why was the club's costing issued as a range rather than in any detail? Why did the club start talking about changing the company name (for a fourth time) when no-one has ever asked for that? I think the BBU costing is much more likely to be the true cost. And I ask again, what about the BBU costing do you specifically think is wrong? No-one seems able to answer this. Why haven’t you answered my question? if it helps, I have nothing to offer in respect of your questions. I’m not privy to any that information and try not to deal in conspiracy theories or guesswork. Have you tried asking the club? |
|
|
|
Post by sortitoutwebbbull on Nov 15, 2024 16:20:35 GMT
Is it the fans club or is it the benefactors club? Why haven't the club polled the fans rather than have people argue over whether passing a HUST vote is sufficient (I agree it can't be taken that it is representative of the fanbase but it's been totally fine when it's been going the "right" way before...)? Is it really that the club would prefer that the fans argue over this when they could quite easily have established what the entire fanbase wants at any point (some might say they should have done so after the 5 years were up)? Is sending an email with a poll to all season ticket holders, members and anyone who has bought a ticket over the last (however long they want) too difficult? Why is the club is so dismissive of its largest shareholder HUST? Why was the club's costing issued as a range rather than in any detail? Why did the club start talking about changing the company name (for a fourth time) when no-one has ever asked for that? I think the BBU costing is much more likely to be the true cost. And I ask again, what about the BBU costing do you specifically think is wrong? No-one seems able to answer this. Why haven’t you answered my question? if it helps, I have nothing to offer in respect of your questions. I’m not privy to any that information and try not to deal in conspiracy theories or guesswork. Have you tried asking the club? Quite - the club just don't have the manpower to carry out such as exercise - besides, why should they as the company hasn't asked for a name change. |
|
luke
Junior Member
Posts: 358
|
Post by luke on Nov 15, 2024 16:23:08 GMT
Unless BBU have consulted with the club, the figures must be based on a certain amount of guesswork. I don’t disagree with figures provided. I don’t have the formation to do so. I just don’t trust them without some indication that they are based on a factual analysis of the costs involved rather than a best guess. I agree that the club need to address this sooner rather than later. It’s becoming a bit toxic as the perception is, rightly or wrongly, that the club isn’t listening (although it could also be argued that this issue was addressed and disposed of a few years ago) BBU have said "We shared these costs with the club in March 2024" whilst Kieran Maguire (here's his Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kieran_Maguire said that the costs "should not be significant" and that it is a "scare story" (https://x.com/BringUnitedBack/status/1829844123362222358). We also aren't the first club to change name and no others have reported there being much of a cost. |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 15, 2024 16:32:30 GMT
Yes. Again I’ve read the document. I have done my due diligence. You should try it.
Do you know the answer to my question? I’ll make it simple. Were the club lying when they suggested a figure of £30K for this exercise at the time of the first ballot?
|
|
|
|
Post by GRL on Nov 15, 2024 16:35:03 GMT
I think HUST should probably be re-named THUS.
Thick Hereford United Supporters.
|
|
luke
Junior Member
Posts: 358
|
Post by luke on Nov 15, 2024 16:36:26 GMT
Yes. Again I’ve read the document. I have done my due diligence. You should try it. Do you know the answer to my question? I’ll make it simple. We’re the club lying when they suggested a figure of £30K for this exercise at the time of the first ballot? From my previous post: " I think the BBU costing is much more likely to be the true cost." |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 15, 2024 16:45:32 GMT
On what basis? Genuinely? There’s a throwaway remark from the good Mr Maguire at the end of a Podcast (no suggestion he’d read the BBU costing never mind spoken to the club) and a comment that the cost shouldn’t be significant. It’s hardly a line by line analysis nor a thumping dissection of the club’s costs.
And again. We’re the club lying when they published the £30K figure? Yes or no?
|
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 15, 2024 16:47:37 GMT
I think HUST should probably be re-named THUS. Thick Hereford United Supporters. It is like trying to knit fog. First week Apprentice level business plan and obfuscation. |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 15, 2024 16:55:15 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. It's like Brexit all over again. 😃 Like it or not, last night's vote is how democracy works. When you have a binary choice then the side that gets the most votes wins. The turnout is largely irrelevant, we all had the opportunity to register to vote by joining HUST. If you didn't, no point complaining about the result after the event. BREXIT only got one vote. This has already been voted on. |
|
|
|
Post by Gresty on Nov 15, 2024 17:00:44 GMT
As HUST has three directors on the club board I'm sure the matter will have been informally discussed with the rest of the board. I doubt that would amount to being a 'consultation'. After all, the other shareholders, rather than the board of directors, are the ones to whom a formal request for a name change would be made. It's interesting (to me, at least) that the chairman is neither a member of HUST nor a shareholder. Therefore, despite his position within the club, technically he should have little, if any, influence on any decision about this particular issue. I'm not sure that this is correct - according to paragraph 4.9 of the A's of A - "Proceedings of Directors"- if any vote on anything is equal then the chairman of the meeting - presumably the chairman? - has a second or casting vote. At board meetings, is the current chairman always the chairman at the meeting? I think he is, otherwise how does any business ever get done? But in the first instance, isn't it about the shareholders who hold the 'other' shares, rather than the Board of Directors? |
|
