I've no issue with the badge saying Hull City or Hull City AFC, or The Tigers or Tigers underneath, it's just the change to Hull Tigers that's unacceptable and completely unnecessary.
I have supported City since 1963 and have always referred to the team as City so I would not like to see City eliminated from the club name. However, I actually think adding Tigers to the end of the name would be a positive step and would probably give the club a greater cache and has the potential to increase income and help us compete better financially. I think everyone should take a step back and consider the potential positives of Hull City Tigers which takes nothing away from the current name.
One of the reasons English football is revered (still but only just) is our heritage and tradition. Wanderers, Villa, Albion, Argyle have infinitely more pedigree than Storm, Broncos, Red Bull ever will. What kind of **** supports a team because of its nickname??!?!?!
I agree we are Hull City AFC look what happened at Hull FC when they renamed it to Hull Sharks it was nothing short of pathetic in my opinion and thankfully they changed it back.
Presumably being called 'Hull Tigers' will have some marketable gain abroad, like in Egypt or whatever. That might only be temporary anyway whilst we have Egyptian owners and the odd player. That, however, is no excuse to **** about with the established, historical and proper name of the club. People are right to be worried as obviously it's going to be staggered introduction and is clearly the end objective. They're hoping if they take their time with it, people will get bored or exhausted of fighting it, and give up. Above all else, it embarrasses the core supporters I think.
And also consider the almost assured embarrassment that would follow. I honestly don't believe the financial gain would be significant enough in order to deem it necessary. "Hull City Tigers". What the **** is that? Sounds more like a Rugby/Cricket team than a football. We should gain financially from places like Egypt just because of our links, and with the new supposedly striped home kit, they'd realise it's Tigers anyway. It's a pointless change that will only bring negativity and completely unnecessary controversy/media coverage. We embarrassed ourselves last time we were in the Premier League so we should be looking to regain pride, not ridicule ourselves again.
We did, but after the Manchester City fiasco, the Jimmy Bullard saga etc, we were a laughing stock. We entered and began as a surprise package, taking the League by storm but gradually lost our heads, and were relegated without a whimper.
There's no doubt that we exceeded all expectations in the first Season (by staying up) but we only really did well in the first half of the Season. Not being negative, just factual. I was over the moon that we'd stayed up, of course I was, it's our highest ever finish, but there's no denying that after the players-on-the-pitch at half time debacle was the beginning of a torrid line of form and results. I'm constantly reminded by opposition fans about the Manchester City game.
If anybody representing Hull City AFC says Hull Tigers I'd say: "Don't you even know the name of the club?"
Two sentences. First sentence: Hull, Rovers and City= the clubs of this city; These are the names people use when talking to other people knowledgeable about the area Second sentence: Why modify established names?; This is a question about the Hull Tigers discussion
Not saying I appreciate tampering with tradition but I never ****ing got this whole Hull KR, Hull FC, Hull city, Hull city AFC... I mean why are we called city in the first place? Why the **** is a rugby team called Hull football club? I'm guessing we couldn't pick that because they were established before us... but the whole thing is laughable really. Constant need to specify and nit pick over who you are talking about makes no sense from a business point of view. As a brand we will always struggle unless we become more identifiable. Thank **** we have black and amber (even though that still gets misconstrued), if we played in red like most teams not sure how we'd stand out. It makes me laugh when people feel the need to correct someone who forgot to add city when referring to us because at the end of the day there's only one football club. We shouldn't have to specify which club we are, like manchester united and city have had to do. To be honest it doesn't really bother me. People hate change but at the end of the day I don't own the club. If someone else comes in one day and wants to change it back, I don't see why they couldn't. People should voice their discontent for sure but you don't own the club and that's that really.
Are agree with your early comments but I disagree about the Phil Brown team talk affecting the players. It was Phil Brown's tactics and big headedness which were the problem.
Just think about it, besides tradition, why should we be "city". Why do you think skysports pundits call us "Hull"... because there are no other ****ing football club in the city. How often do you refer to Coventry as Coventry city... how often do you refer to Swindon as Swindon town... We're all culpable of doing it.
