If I owned a team whose name and badge were contracted to play in a particular stadium in hull and I wanted to move them to another new stadium outside of the city and that particular contract then I would rename and register the new team, business and emblem so it was easy to move to new potential stadium should I wish to...
If re branding to 'Hull City Tigers' can bring in additional investment from abroad then bring it on. We are 'Hull City', we are the 'Tigers'. Why not 'Hull City Tigers'?
If I was a bsinessman in charge of Hull city and seeking to maximise the global market potential, particularly in asia and north africa then a couple of details to "acclimatise the brand" wouldn't bother me too much, as long as the payoff was significant. Not exactly a total re-branding effort like Cardiff now is it? Not like picking a "hard" sounding animal at random such as "bulls", "Rhino's", "Sharks", "Dragons", or (Il Duce's) "black cats" or anything abhorrent like that certainly. A compromise would be to drop the A.F.C. and reinstate "the" which could then be interchangeable in marketing locally and abroad - e.g. "hull City - The Tigers" in the U.K and Ireland and "Hull City Tigers" for international markets. Best of both worlds; and I for one, as somebody who stood on crumbling terraces with 3,000 others fighting seemingly inevitable relegation to non-league 15 years ago am not going to criticise any board with international ambitions. Period.
How's a change of name going to appeal to anyone? Even if a Tiger is a sacred animal. FFS! If that's all the mattered, why not change our nickname to the Cows and try make a fist of it in India. The only way to maximise our global potential is if City actually won something. Since we haven't ever, and probably never likely to, there's no point in it. Nobody will buy our stuff over Man Utd, Liverpool, Barca, Real Madrid, even if we were bloody called something as ridiculous as Hull City Tigers or Humberside Orange. If this has been done they're making us look like a load of twats, and they're pissing 109 years of history down the drain.
Where's the name change? As Long as I've supported us we've been Hull City, with "the tigers" as nickname. They're dropping A.F.C, not changing colours or badge or diminishing the heritage in any way. If Hull City Tigers works better in far flung corners of the world then go with it. It will always be Hull City where heritage means anything anyway. Oh, and 15,000 egyptians didn't sign up to Man utd's facebook page in January did they? Your argument is ultimately as stupid as this: Wife: Will you do the hoovering please? Husband: No Wife: Why not? Husband: We own a dyson, so had you asked me to Vacuum the floor that would be fine; If we had a "hoover" that would also be fine due to the heritage of the brand but as we own a dyson and you asked me to "hoover" then I can't dear, I'm sorry..... Wife: Have you got the number of that Hull KR-owning ambulance chaser? I'm about to stuff this Dyson nozzle so far up your rectum your eyeballs will bleed....!!!! Pedantic twat! ....or is it that you don't want any "mucky foreigners" sharing in the future success of "your" club? Better to be small-time and insular than embrace the potential for the kind of financial sustainability we've never had as a footballing entity in our history? Can't let the future diminish the past eh - even if the past was essentially ****? Silverware, we don't care..... Sing it loud Bro. - and get used it! Tell you what, you put the millions in required for us to "win something". Then we won't need a business-plan and we'll all be happy - if we all keep our fingers and toes crossed you don't bankrupt yourself "winning something" and become another Portsmouth that is. We could of course keep doing everything we've done in the past out of reverence to that 109 years and bumble between the bottom 3 divisions in perpetuity also. Or we could embrace today's oportunities and move forward, hopefully spending more of the next 109 years in the top two tiers of English football than the last 109 years.
On a plus point we'd be the only team ending in Tigers. One of those stupid quiz questions when asked about FL teams endings, Kidderminster Harriers catches a lot of people out. Most think Utd, City, Rovers etc. anyway beereereer!
I'm usually a traditionalist and protective of our history, but the changes we're talking about don't really offend me. "Hull City - Tigers" is more natural and easier for others to remember than "Hull City AFC - The Tigers." I haven't read every post, but I imagine someone has already made the point that a brand has to be simple and easy to remember. Just think if the club are planning to flood the Egyptian market with prototype kits, how much better as a name Hull City Tigers will be. A simple change like this could result in significantly improved commercial profit which is what every club wants. Sometimes change means progress (as long as no-one tries to re-name us the 'Kickass Tigers').
I'm against all this name change. Tradition in football has to be kept in my opinion and Hull City Tigers sounds ****. The only way you'll get recognition overseas is if you're successful, & i mean massive cups (premier league, fa cup, champions league etc) not mickey mouse ones. Cardiff have rebranded themselves and nowts changed, they're still miles behind the better teams in the Far East despite their new image. Same will happen with City if we go down that path. I don't give a monkeys toss about flooding the Egyptian market with terrible looking merchandise. I'm fine with Egyptians and foreign football fans supporting us (more the merrier), but we shouldn't chase their money. For all you know Gedo, Fathi & Elmo won't be here next season. I'm more concerned about people in the city of Kingston Upon Hull supporting us.
