You think Man United might become a more successful brand if they were Manchester Warriors? Seriously? I've never heard such an utter crock of **** in my life.
Manchester United is a special case - and actually I would see them more as Manchester Devils rather than Manchester Warriors. But if America is the next market for the PL for target, then this will happen. But it's not like we are going to be going for the East Yorkshire Tigers as a name change - things change in football, otherwise we would have named the KC stadium Boothferry Park surely
But why will they rebrand us? We're known as The Tigers, but being called Hull Tigers isn't going to make any improvement. If anything, the fans will probably boycott the merchandise and they'll lose revenue. It's a **** idea that'll only have a detrimental effect on our club and it shouldn't ever be considered. Even if they other teams in the league do it, we should steer clear.
If we wanted to grow our brand, maybe doing a pre season tour EVERY year in the Far East is the way to go. It's what the Top 4 do.
You think if the Boston Red Sox wanted to increase their exposue in th UK they'd change their name to Boston United? Not a ****ing chance, the suggestion is laughable.
Why did they rebrand all the One Day County Cricket teams, it is surely to take advantage of world markets - and surely we have a chairman who knows about international markets and trading on them through his business, so he is probably better qualified than anyone on this board to know what is best for Hull Tigers or Hull City AFC or whatever each person wishes to call our club. And some of these comments about how we shouldn't do it remind me of the film we see of 2 old biddies when the decimal money system was brought in and them whinging on about it, as only old biddies can.
He may know about marine diesel generators and their market, but that expertise is not really applicable to football. He doesn't rebrand his products 'Tiger generators' to sell more, does he? Horses for courses and all that.
The cricket renaming and coloured strips was a classic example of product differentation or market segmentation. A conscious appeal to a different type of cricket consumer, rather than the core traditional ones, whose product has not been tampered with or tweaked.
You can't buy heritage and losing that heritage will cost the club, not benefit it. Barely any ****er watches one day county cricket, so if that's your best example, then you've just proved the case for not changing names. Rugby League did the same and just look like small time clowns.
Why are you lot still arguing about this? Was it not stated that the limited rebranding was being done for specific commercial dialogue, and was not going to be implemented wider or across the whole club, but the owners and PR team were aware of the crying and subsequent flooding of the Mighty City it would induce?
Can't see the harm personally. The team evolves every season, don't see why a minor name change would cause an issue.
You think no longer being called Hull City is a minor name change? What would be a major one, becoming Welton Warriors?
Even Cardiff have remained 'Cardiff City'. Hull Tigers is madness. I've no problem with us marketing ourselves as that abroad, most team names get lost in translation (Inter Milan, am I right BCC?), but there's no need to change it here, the sign changes and email headers are just causing unnecessary aggro (no pun intended) and aren't going to increase City's profitability by a single penny.
It does seem very patronising, assuming Asians will support us because we have an animal in our name. If that is the reason for the change of course.
For real? When? Who? How?? Thats made me look silly then. Maybe I owe an apology to 01480 then. Meh ****it, it's the internet.
They won't. They all buy Real, Barca, Liverpool, Chelsea, Man Utd shirts. Success is the only reason that they're popular world wide. Not a stupid rebranding.
Yes. Hull City, Hull City AFC, Hull City Tigers, Hull Tigers. So what. We change the kit a couple of times a year, does this offend your sense of heritage?
Can someone explain to me though... why is it than when someone on here says "Hull" and only "Hull" it is always referred to as Hull FC the rugby team? Surely if we are city and Hull KR are "KR" then Hull FC should be "FC".. I don't understand why Hull FC also have Hull as a reference name when each team share the word Hull as part of their names. If someone says "Hull" then they should be ask to precise or maybe nothing should be said as we are clearly on a FOOTBALL forum. Either every team could be referred as Hull or none at all.
