Er, no. With 5,874 votes cast, 2,565 isn't a "majority" of them. It's 43%. To get a majority of votes cast you need over 50%. In this case - over 2,937.Following the recent ballot of season card holders, the club can confirm the majority of votes cast are in favour of Hull Tigers with the Allam Family continuing to lead the club.
…
…
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
9,159: Number of season card holders who did not vote
2,517: No to Hull Tigers
Tyger! Tyger!
- grytters
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:45 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
- Location: Sheffield
Tyger! Tyger!
http://www.hullcitytigers.com/news/arti ... 74110.aspx
Bring Back the Quarters
Re: Tyger! Tyger!
Think you are getting caught up a technicality.grytters wrote:http://www.hullcitytigers.com/news/arti ... 74110.aspx
Er, no. With 5,874 votes cast, 2,565 isn't a "majority" of them. It's 43%. To get a majority of votes cast you need over 50%. In this case - over 2,937.Following the recent ballot of season card holders, the club can confirm the majority of votes cast are in favour of Hull Tigers with the Allam Family continuing to lead the club.
…
…
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
9,159: Number of season card holders who did not vote
2,517: No to Hull Tigers
The "I am not too concerned" is basically a non-vote. Have you ever seen a "I'm not bothered" box on a voting card?
It is 2,565 plays 2,517. Shame on the 9,159 and the 792 for that matter.
Re: Tyger! Tyger!
I was under the impression that the point of the ballot was to find out the fans view of a name change?
The options that the Hull fans were given certainly don't reflect this.
The options that the Hull fans were given certainly don't reflect this.
Northern League Champions 2013
Re: Tyger! Tyger!
It doesn't remind me of some of the earlier expectations of the scottish referendum vote.TSQuaker wrote:I was under the impression that the point of the ballot was to find out the fans view of a name change?
The options that the Hull fans were given certainly don't reflect this.
They did stick in the 'Allam family continue to lead the club'.
Re: Tyger! Tyger!
I don't really think the FA will reverse their decision anyway.
Northern League Champions 2013
- grytters
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:45 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Tyger! Tyger!
TSQuaker wrote:I don't really think the FA will reverse their decision anyway.
Indeed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26960502
Hull City's proposed name change to Hull Tigers has been rejected by the Football Association Council.
The Council's decision - carried by a 63.5% vote of its members - followed the recommendation of the governing body's membership committee.
Bring Back the Quarters
Re: Tyger! Tyger!
I wonder where this leaves them now? I know Allam threatened to walk away if his plan was rejected, but I'd be very surprised if he followed through with his threat.
Northern League Champions 2013
- grytters
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:45 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Tyger! Tyger!
Back next year to try again?
(He should have suggested Hull Tigers 1904. They'd've waived that one straight through.)
(He should have suggested Hull Tigers 1904. They'd've waived that one straight through.)
Bring Back the Quarters
Re: Tyger! Tyger!
Indeed. I'm glad the FA rejected Hull's name change, and I understand the circumstances are different, but the FA reject Hull's name change, yet enforce one on usgrytters wrote:Back next year to try again?
(He should have suggested Hull Tigers 1904. They'd've waived that one straight through.)
-
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:36 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
- Location: Milford Haven
Re: Tyger! Tyger!
Did you really expect logic and/or consistency from the FA?al_quaker wrote:Indeed. I'm glad the FA rejected Hull's name change, and I understand the circumstances are different, but the FA reject Hull's name change, yet enforce one on usgrytters wrote:Back next year to try again?
(He should have suggested Hull Tigers 1904. They'd've waived that one straight through.)