|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 16, 2024 8:12:14 GMT
Which it makes it all the more unfortunate that BBU have adopted such a confrontational approach. My personal experience with them on social media is that it was their way or the highway. Which was a bit of a red rag to a bull in my case. As a pragmatic, some would no doubt say fence sitter, observer of this debate, I did observe CB's Hancockter debate with BBU, and found CB to be the antagonist in the discussion. I'm usually aligned with CB on many matters, but his strongly held views were very forcibly stated. I was left in no doubt that its FC or the highway in his Gloucester centric outlook. I’m in the “not bothered” camp. The only thing I’ve asked (from day 1) is the basis on which they disagree with the £30k figure (and why they think the club put it out there if it’s wrong). The answers were very dismissive. If you have been following my posts (and the twitter exchange) then I very much doubt you’ll be able to point to a single post or comment which lead you to the conclusion that it’s FC or the highway for me. Because it isn’t. |
|
|
|
Post by White Lightning on Nov 16, 2024 8:15:54 GMT
If you go on the current fan on fan vibe, I think the natural name should be Hereford Thistle.
|
|
|
|
Post by ST Andrew on Nov 16, 2024 8:24:16 GMT
If you go on the current fan on fan vibe, I think the natural name should be Hereford Thistle. I'd support going back to Hereford Thistle. Can we have a vote I'll match the 10k that needs raising. |
|
|
|
Post by GRL on Nov 16, 2024 8:35:15 GMT
Given the starring role that HUST played in the emasculation of Hereford United you would have thought they would have at least changed their name by now?
Instead of pretending they had nothing to do with it.
It was ever THUS.
|
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 16, 2024 9:04:57 GMT
Just posted this n FB
Thanks Graham. I don’t think there is actually any strong opposition to the idea of reinstating the United suffix. I’d be very surprised if anyone is actually opposed the to the principle. Sadly the way this has been approached has proved very divisive with doubt being cast at the outset on the club’s figures and now the Trojan Horse HUST vote which is being trumpeted as definitive.
Without wishing to adopt a “told you so” stance, the Chairman’s statement yesterday shows up the fault lines in the BBU campaign.
For me it would have been far better for the organizers to work with the club, agree to raise a minimum of £30K (it looks like it may be rather more than that), look to a change of name athe start of the 2016-17 season (or the one after if more practical) on the understanding that it would be cost and time neutral to the club and that any excess raised would be put into the team. If that had been done from the outset, I don’t think we would be where we are today.
Not too late, but if this gets rejected by the shareholders (or specifically the benefactors) as it currently stands, then there’s a wholly avoidable seam of discontent that’s going to hang around for a few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by GRL on Nov 16, 2024 10:46:43 GMT
Just posted this n FB Thanks Graham. I don’t think there is actually any strong opposition to the idea of reinstating the United suffix. I’d be very surprised if anyone is actually opposed the to the principle. Sadly the way this has been approached has proved very divisive with doubt being cast at the outset on the club’s figures and now the Trojan Horse HUST vote which is being trumpeted as definitive. Without wishing to adopt a “told you so” stance, the Chairman’s statement yesterday shows up the fault lines in the BBU campaign. For me it would have been far better for the organizers to work with the club, agree to raise a minimum of £30K (it looks like it may be rather more than that), look to a change of name athe start of the 2016-17 season (or the one after if more practical) on the understanding that it would be cost and time neutral to the club and that any excess raised would be put into the team. If that had been done from the outset, I don’t think we would be where we are today. Not too late, but if this gets rejected by the shareholders (or specifically the benefactors) as it currently stands, then there’s a wholly avoidable seam of discontent that’s going to hang around for a few years. Well, it was four out of four at skittles last night. But, overwhelmingly, not something which is being discussed in the pubs and clubs. |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 16, 2024 11:48:10 GMT
Twitter debate with BBU and me was on 5 March,
I have just re-read it. I was getting very dismissive DMs when I asked about the costs. Context is all.
FWIW the same issues I raised back then (when views were being specifically sought) are the same that are raised in this thread. I repeat what I have written on FB. The problem is the approach that BBU have taken. It is extraordinary that they did this unilaterally rather than working with the club. The hijacking of HUST to try and give credibility has caused more friction.
The whole thing is a car crash and I make no apologies for having challenged them from the outset.
I’d like to say that’s my final take on this, but I’m sure it won’t be.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigerfeet on Nov 16, 2024 12:25:52 GMT
As a pragmatic, some would no doubt say fence sitter, observer of this debate, I did observe CB's Hancockter debate with BBU, and found CB to be the antagonist in the discussion. I'm usually aligned with CB on many matters, but his strongly held views were very forcibly stated. I was left in no doubt that its FC or the highway in his Gloucester centric outlook. I’m in the “not bothered” camp. The only thing I’ve asked (from day 1) is the basis on which they disagree with the £30k figure (and why they think the club put it out there if it’s wrong). The answers were very dismissive. If you have been following my posts (and the twitter exchange) then I very much doubt you’ll be able to point to a single post or comment which lead you to the conclusion that it’s FC or the highway for me. Because it isn’t. For someone who claims to be not bothered you seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to discredit anyone in the Bring Back United camp. |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 16, 2024 12:40:44 GMT
Poor even by your desperately low standards.
The pile on was yesterday. You’re too late
|
|
|
|
Post by tigerfeet on Nov 16, 2024 12:47:27 GMT
Poor even by your desperately low standards. The pile on was yesterday. You’re too late Not trying to score points, just making an observation. When I'm not bothered about a thread topic I simply don't post on it. Your 23 posts on this thread clearly indicate that you're very much bothered and desperately want to undermine the role of HUST. Why is that, I wonder? |
|
|
|
Post by Barney still in B-Block on Nov 16, 2024 12:51:49 GMT
Just posted this n FB Thanks Graham. I don’t think there is actually any strong opposition to the idea of reinstating the United suffix. I’d be very surprised if anyone is actually opposed the to the principle. Sadly the way this has been approached has proved very divisive with doubt being cast at the outset on the club’s figures and now the Trojan Horse HUST vote which is being trumpeted as definitive. Without wishing to adopt a “told you so” stance, the Chairman’s statement yesterday shows up the fault lines in the BBU campaign. For me it would have been far better for the organizers to work with the club, agree to raise a minimum of £30K (it looks like it may be rather more than that), look to a change of name athe start of the 2016-17 season (or the one after if more practical) on the understanding that it would be cost and time neutral to the club and that any excess raised would be put into the team. If that had been done from the outset, I don’t think we would be where we are today. Not too late, but if this gets rejected by the shareholders (or specifically the benefactors) as it currently stands, then there’s a wholly avoidable seam of discontent that’s going to hang around for a few years. Well, it was four out of four at skittles last night. But, overwhelmingly, not something which is being discussed in the pubs and clubs. Tsk wain, honestly, there you go again. If you speak for everyone, you would have to have spoken to everyone. And you haven’t. Please hold yourself to the standards you so often demand from the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 16, 2024 13:01:39 GMT
Poor even by your desperately low standards. The pile on was yesterday. You’re too late Not trying to score points, just making an observation. When I'm not bothered about a thread topic I simply don't post on it. Your 23 posts on this thread clearly indicate that you're very much bothered and desperately want to undermine the role of HUST. Why is that, I wonder? You suggested that I had sought to discredit individuals involved in BBU. I have not. You deliberately misquoted me to suggest I wasn’t bothered about the issue. Again, untrue. So yes. Cheap childish point scoring and an attempt to join in the pile on that Elmo and TC were trying to initiate. I don’t think you’re daft. I also think you know exactly what you were doing. |
|
luke
Junior Member
Posts: 358
|
Post by luke on Nov 16, 2024 13:09:11 GMT
Twitter debate with BBU and me was on 5 March, I have just re-read it. I was getting very dismissive DMs when I asked about the costs. Context is all. FWIW the same issues I raised back then (when views were being specifically sought) are the same that are raised in this thread. I repeat what I have written on FB. The problem is the approach that BBU have taken. It is extraordinary that they did this unilaterally rather than working with the club. The hijacking of HUST to try and give credibility has caused more friction. The whole thing is a car crash and I make no apologies for having challenged them from the outset. I’d like to say that’s my final take on this, but I’m sure it won’t be. What makes you think BBU did not try to work with the club? |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 16, 2024 13:13:08 GMT
Stig’s post yesterday is a pretty big clue.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigerfeet on Nov 16, 2024 13:32:52 GMT
Not trying to score points, just making an observation. When I'm not bothered about a thread topic I simply don't post on it. Your 23 posts on this thread clearly indicate that you're very much bothered and desperately want to undermine the role of HUST. Why is that, I wonder? You suggested that I had sought to discredit individuals involved in BBU. I have not. You deliberately misquoted me to suggest I wasn’t bothered about the issue. Again, untrue. So yes. Cheap childish point scoring and an attempt to join in the pile on that Elmo and TC were trying to initiate. I don’t think you’re daft. I also think you know exactly what you were doing. Comedy gold. Whilst I accept that you haven't criticised named individuals within BBU, you seem to have a real downer on the campaign and it's projected costs of the name change, which the poster "Luke" has patiently explained to you. I have not misquoted you, the quote is a direct copy of your post at the top of page 6 of this thread. Finally, there was no pile-on, it's something called "people disagreeing with you". If you can't handle that then maybe internet forums aren't for you?  |
|
|
|
Post by colebridgebull on Nov 16, 2024 13:40:37 GMT
Other than perhaps using the word “misrepresented” rather than “misquoted” I stand by every word of my post.
Although I may be revisiting my “you’re not daft” comment.
Have a nice day
|
|
|
|
Post by ST Andrew on Nov 16, 2024 13:53:36 GMT
Oh dear Graham misread the room again probably because your 50 miles away
|
|
|
|
Post by Witch Z on Nov 16, 2024 14:13:02 GMT
Oh dear Graham misread the room again probably because your 50 miles away Oh dear, indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Nov 16, 2024 15:04:28 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 Indeed. If you really want a bumper banana republic 98% majority, you would need to offer 'United' or no club at all. It worked once. Of course this begs the question as to whether the club owners/directors giving a flying feck as to what the fans really want. To date, I believe the only concession has been to allow us to choose the away shirt. I would love to see the name changed, but not sure there was any real point in voting for it. |
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Nov 16, 2024 15:13:38 GMT
Fair play, it takes a lot of front to decry the turnout of a HUST vote, when you are the chairman of the club that has made no effort to organise a more inclusive vote. Not that it surprises me. |
|
