My view is simply that the club's name and identity should remain and I will join the collective who oppose the name change.
Man U is a bad example cos of their American owners. Fans were against the sale so created their own team. MK Dons had to move up north due to finances, I'm sure they lost a few fans because of it.
I don't think it will cost a huge amount to implement. I think that either having a separate name for "business activities" OR having a new name for the club overall will dilute brand awareness and reduce the commercial income possible.
all I am saying Peter, is that the business side of the club, is a different animal to the playing side of the club. 1 chooses the team and the other controls the purse strings. They are both a separate issue and neither will affect each other.
There's many sides to this argument that, in reality, we can't comment on as we don't actually know if we're currently undergoing a "rebranding". The Club's clear deception towards us fans is really grinding our gears and making people question their loyalty and creating suspicions of a shrewd behind-closed-doors "secret" rebranding without fans consultation. The financial negatives/positives and/or effects that a rebrand would have on the Club which, until we've been told officially, we can't really be 100% sure on. At the end of the day, I would be fully against the Club being renamed and I'd suspect there'd be many who'd feel the same. I don't believe the Allams would rename us without first consulting the fans but if it is just the business aspect of the Club that will be known as "Hull Tigers" then fair enough, as long as it doesn't become our Club's identity.
Im confused as to if this is the main reason to the opposition or is it the fact that change scares people?
So why not keep the same name? That will increase brand awareness and consequently increase income. Having different names will dilute brand awareness - maybe not with you and other committed fans but definitely among potential fans.
Personally I would love change IF it made Hull City more successful. If the change is a botched rebranding exercise then I am not in favour of it.
with us getting up into the BPL, we will be picking up more and more fans and the majority of these fans will stick with the tigers through thick and thin. they will become "Real Supporters"
Too many assumptions here for me, Peter, using terms that lack definition within this context: What do you mean by a franchise club, as it would be good to understand exactly how you see that working? It could be argued that it is already some sort of a franchise club as it is a member of the Premier League. Why would a franchise club (of any description) fail to embrace the local fans? Do you not believe that the fans are essential to their commercial strategy? If the football is successful, why would support suffer? We all know that it is success on the pitch that will always have the turnstiles spinning at any club, franchise or not. My dislike and disapproval of any name change (or split) is that I believe it unnecessary and divisive and it offends my sense of history and heritage for my football club - Hull City AFC; also known as The Tigers. I totally accept that my reasoning will not be for everyone, as I accept their stance, that's life. But I fail to see your financial model, without you giving it more flesh on the bones.
yeah.. now if AA hadn't come along and saved our club - most of the new fans were TWS supporters anyhow that jumped on the BPL bandwagon. They wont be missed if we lost them.
I actually disagree with you here Peter. Being in this field, the MINIMUM a re-branding of this type would cost is 500k, but more likely in the region of 1m or more. And guess what, a lot of those fees will go on "consultants" etc. Now hands up on here if you would rather see a name change for 500k - 1m to "Hull City Tigers", or who would prefer if we spent the extra on, or towards the cost of a player, rather than some fat cat sitting behind a desk having a **** at the amount of bonus he's just managed to amass because he's given a 5 minute bit of "expert" whimsical advice on why a 109 year old British institution should change their name?????? You can't even guarantee the new name/branding is going to work. As I've said before, I'll say again. A FOOTBALL club becomes a brand when: a) you win trophies b) you make high profile signings And..... the classic example of this is sitting right on our own doorstep: "Hull City AFC" is a brand in Egypt. Why? Gedo and Fahti
We only have to look at our co-tenants at the KC stadium to see what an embarrassing farce this 'rebranding' is. They changed back to their original name but are still ridiculed (and always will be) for their Thundersharks fiasco. Did they pick up any new or extra fans? Did they ****.
I would say a "franchise" club as a club that has less of a connection with local supporters. "Why would a franchise club (of any description) fail to embrace the local fans? Do you not believe that the fans are essential to their commercial strategy?" They would fail to embrace the local fans because they are deluded what makes a successful football club. The fans are essential to their commercial strategy but the club doesn't seem to be handling it well. Successful football wont mean support will suffer. I just think if there is less connection with the fans then the support will be less constant. Having a different name when dealing with "business activities" is not going to exactly help attract money from merchandising or sponsorship from as wide an audience as possible. If Arsenal's business activities were branded "Gunners" do you think it would be as successful as if they used "Arsenal". People and businesses would want to connect with "Arsenal" more than "Gunners" even if many people new about the connection. The connection wouldn't be as strong as using "Arsenal" in a consistent way across football, sponsorship, merchandising and other activities.
The rebranding can be reversed but there will still have been damage and it wouldn't get back to how it was before for a long time. I'm sure we would be considered a laughing stock.
