If the club make less money due to poor branding then I would assume they would have less money available to spend on the football side of things. Or do you think that is totally illogical?
Maybe not in the short term but in the long term people may not start to support the club because they see them more like a franchise rather than a real football club.
football is massive in this country, are you suggesting that people would rather become a plastic Man U fan than supporting their local team, because of name?
Possibly not, Peter. Patty appears to see them as two separate entities so, if the club (=business) makes less money, the football side won't be affected.
You make a very good point there in defence of a topic that has now gone on and on about the same points - I don't have a problem with that as they are simply forum conversations - it's just a pity that the topic has to fall within your realm of interest for it to escape unnecessary editing, thread transfer and the ultimate thread closure. The comparisons to the so-called jokes thread and the Question of Moderation thread are very close, yet so far removed when it comes to a favourite word of yours, tolerance.
Of course not. I am saying that local people will not feel a connection with a franchise club as much as they would with a club that embraces the local fans. That doesn't mean current die hard fans will desert. It means less committed spectators will not have as much desire to go to matches and there will be less interest from potential new supporters.
Personally, I think some things are more important than money, some things are sacrosanct. Not everything has a price or a financial value. Real supporters understand this. It's a football thing.
So the "business" side will not support the "football" side? The football club doesn't get any of the money from the sponsorship deals or selling of merchandise? Surely this is madness?
fans aren't bothered about whether it is a franchise or not... The only real thing fans are bothered about, is whether they are successful on the pitch..... why do you think a lot of plastics aren't even from this country?
No - my mistake, as sarcasm doesn't translate too well - it's obvious that the commercial and football sides of Hull City AFC are symbyotic. They're bound together, can't be separated, shouldn't be 'separately named'.
Do you really believe that? There is no criticism of Manchester United by the many people who wear yellow and gold? What about the thousands who support FC United? What about Wimbledon FC/MK Dons/AFC Wimbledon?
no, I am not saying that......... SB will take care of footballing matters and the Allams will take care of the business side of things.. you saw what happened to MON when the Managing Director at Villa tried to stick his oar in and tell him what players to play. I cant see SB standing for any of it either.
I am against a name change, as I am perfectly happy with the name we have been known by for a very long time; I also dislike the muddled (at best) or more probably deliberately misleading and dishonest introduction of the changes as explained by the club's senior executives. But let us presume that the name change reaches fulfilment and we become known as Hull City Tigers in all things, just how is that going to lose us money, of any real significance? This is an argument of sensibilities rather than financial or commercial doom. I am also a little confused why you believe a rebranding of this sort would cost a huge amount of money to implement - what do you call a huge amount of money?
I don't think anybody is complaining about that. If you are saying that then there is no argument with your stance but you didn't seem to be saying that.
"Real supporters" understand the difference between a franchise and a minor name change. Comparing the mythical team name change to a franchise is kinda silly, not the same at all. "Real Supporters" wouldn't suddenly stop supporting the team, wouldn't stop buying season tickets, due to a minor name change either. They're there for the team, regardless.
