No it isn’t. My primary reason for thinking the board is loading the process is 12 months ago they tried to remove hoops altogether without consulting the fans. Realising they’d bitten off more than they can chew they relented and surprise surprise, hoops won.lo36789 wrote:But that is still orientated around "I don't like option one, therefore it is definitely bad". That has to exist as a basis to use a previous statement as validation of this being deliberate attempt to choose one of the other three.Darlogramps wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 9:08 amOh, and the small fact the DFCSG board previously openly stated we should change kit, and tried to exclude hoops 12 months on.lo36789 wrote:The basis of the complaint seems to be that you don't like kit 1 as a hooped option. That has then been translated as meaning that it is definitively a bad option, and that is a deliberate act to make people choose something else.
As it happens I actually like option 1. Others have said they do as well as a variation on a hooped pattern.
And this time have restricted voting numbers.
Now they’ve restricted the voting to only members of the DFCSG, for no good reason that I can see.
Also, your second sentence doesn’t make sense. Try rewording it please.
This is pretty simple.lo36789 wrote: I don't see how restricting votes is evidence of a deliberate ploy to move away from hoops. The options are still the options whoever they were presented to.
The DFCSG members select the board, most of whom served 12 months ago, or have previously served on the board and returned.
Therefore the DFCSG members are more likely to be closer aligned to the thinking of the board (they elected them after all), than the wider and more diverse fanbase. Therefore restricting it to DFCSG members means the board is more likely to get a result they want.
And we know the board wants to change kit design because they tried to unilaterally and undemocratically remove hoops altogether.
Without doubt in my mind, while not rigging the vote, I think some members of the board have done what they can to make a non-hoops selection more likely.