wearethesouthstand
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Feb 2008
- Messages
- 1,854
We (1894) intended to go but none of the main leadership team could go through family commitments. It was a 10am start at Wembley.
The main other motion we were expecting had been around football governance. The change of government meant seeing if it was going to be in the kings speech, it was but then some groups notably Arsenal supporters trust and spirit of shankly have made extra amendments specifically calling out City challenging APT rules.
There was no mention of this, we believe it’s a very last minute thing, an AGM which is supposedly planned well in advance yet Paul Colborne from Hammers Utd got shown the motion on friday the day before. It wasn’t on the agenda fil the day before. He would probably have backed it anyway but he admits he probably didn’t look into it too much.
The main issue here is sneaking it through the back door to get a unanimous verdict. Not enough discussion beforehand. Our ticket motion was discussed with 13 other groups, 42 people on a call and others were allowed to make amendments and tweaks to help it past. We were not afforded the same courtesy or advance warming on this motion which mentions our club.
So piss poor and FSA is funded by the PL so we will seek to speak with their new chairman, clearly the outgoing Malcolm Clarke has added the motion as a goodbye favour to his committee, but there is an ongoing legal challenge to APT rules and what if City win? Our club IS allowed to challenge things.
The main other motion we were expecting had been around football governance. The change of government meant seeing if it was going to be in the kings speech, it was but then some groups notably Arsenal supporters trust and spirit of shankly have made extra amendments specifically calling out City challenging APT rules.
There was no mention of this, we believe it’s a very last minute thing, an AGM which is supposedly planned well in advance yet Paul Colborne from Hammers Utd got shown the motion on friday the day before. It wasn’t on the agenda fil the day before. He would probably have backed it anyway but he admits he probably didn’t look into it too much.
The main issue here is sneaking it through the back door to get a unanimous verdict. Not enough discussion beforehand. Our ticket motion was discussed with 13 other groups, 42 people on a call and others were allowed to make amendments and tweaks to help it past. We were not afforded the same courtesy or advance warming on this motion which mentions our club.
So piss poor and FSA is funded by the PL so we will seek to speak with their new chairman, clearly the outgoing Malcolm Clarke has added the motion as a goodbye favour to his committee, but there is an ongoing legal challenge to APT rules and what if City win? Our club IS allowed to challenge things.