I imagine that "Tigers" stands out a little more than "Hull" to a somewhat unfamiliar audience. Whenever you reduce it to the basic question "who would support/finance/buy stuff from 'Hull Tigers' rather than 'Hull City'?", it seems a little silly, but so do most marketing decisions. I believe Man Utd are more frequently called "Red Devils" elsewhere etc... Generally, I think "Tigers" is probably more exciting than "Hull... err.... they have been around for 100 years (like other clubs), not done much". Altering the name for marketing doesn't mean we lose that rich tapestry of history by the way. But, this whole thing has been done to death now.
HULL City managing director Nick Thompson has played down any fears that the club is about to be renamed. Fans have grown increasingly worried that the club is about to be rebranded as Hull City Tigers, having seen various examples of the name used in official club marketing. But, speaking on tonight’s edition of SportsTalk on Radio Humberside, Thompson was adamant that there is no ‘grand plan’ to change the name which the club has had for the past 109 years. When asked if there was a plan to change the club’s name, he said: “No. The business name was changed this year to Hull City Tigers. “We never talk about Hull City AFC, we talk about Hull City, we talk about the Tigers, we talk about black and amber. “In terms of the football club, it is Hull City and it is an associated football club. In terms of the business, the business is Hull City Tigers. “Most companies will have the name of the business entity which owns the company on the building, that’s what we have done at the training ground. “If we talk about football-related things, it’s Hull City. If we talk about business-related items, it’s Hull City Tigers.
They can go and **** themselves. I'd sooner not have a club to support than have one I love be so willing to sell itself out. If the name change happens, I'm jacking it in and supporting Ferriby. That'll be twelve years down the drain because of the precious Allams.
Here is a list of PL holding companies....NONE use the company name for differentiation apart from some occasional club sponsorship Arsenal: Arsenal Holdings PLC Crystal Palace: CPFC 2010 Limited Everton: Everton Football Club Company Limited Liverpool: Fenway Sports Group Manchester United: Red Football LLC Newcastle United: MASH Holdings Limited. Southampton: DMWSL 613 Limite. Stoke City: Bet365 Group, Sunderland: Drumaville Tottenham Hotspur: Enic International Limited, West Bromwich Albion: West Bromwich Albion Football Club Limited West Ham United: Even though David Gold and David Sullivan own 30.6 per cent of the club each, the major stakeholder is CB Holding/Straumer of Iceland with 35 per cent
Someone should send this to NT and ask why we seem to be doing it and no other club do even though he stated bussneses do i would but not a clue how id go about it haha
Now that this bollocks has been put to rest, for those with at least some comprehension, can we PLEASE go back to making up names we're going to sign??
That excuse is such obvious bollocks that would only confuse business dealings, it leaves me suspicious of anything else they say.
I never listened to the interview tonight but the above just seems like complete and utter bollocks to me. The company that owns the training ground is Hull City Tigers so that's what we're having on the name plate, do me a favour and **** OFF! We are known, and always have been known as Hull City, add the AFC if you like, and THAT is the name that should adorn any areas that are owned or leased by the club, where we play or train. The first time I hear one of those mofo's on Sky utter the words Hull City Tigers or Hull Tigers, with a snigger, I'm gonna kill some ****er!
Am I going to be safe wearing my new tee shirt that says "Hull City" on the top, "The Tigers" in the middle and "Football Club" underneath? Just asking 'cos with all the bile being spouted on here I'm not sure whether the rude word "Tigers" is acceptable any more !
