Where are they going to take the club to? Progress is good; change for change's sake is bad; change because you are deluded about the effect and are too incompetent to even do it properly is a disaster.
If things went tits up we wouldn't e in the Conference but starting again considerably lower. I've know Pete from decades ago and he was always there, in bad times as well as good, at some out of the way spots when numbers were very few indeed, which makes your comment stupid and ill-informed on two counts.
They were formed in 1886 and changed their name to Woolwich Arsenal in 1893. They changed their name to Arsenal in 1914 after moving away from Woolwich. They have been Arsenal for 99 years. Why didn't they keep changing it every few years to attract a few plastics? I think it was something to do with common sense.
I presume 'big changes' can't be made until next season? i.e. Our kit, our name on the fixtures list etc... If that is the case, then Allam should be worried. Rightly or wrongly, the biggest boycotts tend to be when the team is losing, so if we happened to get relegated then I imagine there would be quite a bit of dissent.
Unbelievable... To all those numptys who are fannying on about history and heritage.... just remember that without the Allams, Hull City would have been exactly that... a club resigned to history because it wouldn't exist.
Doesn't make them immune from criticism though does it? If somebody saved me from drowning I'd be grateful to them but I wouldn't let them take me for a mug afterwards.
Hull City will always exist. Hull City is an idea that exists within the mind of a group of people. It is not a business, or a group of players, or a stadium - they all change, but the idea will always remain. So, it is wrong for you to say that Hull City would not exist. Just because somebody has done something good, does not mean that they no longer have to qualify what they do. It is fallacious to say that it is good because Allam said so, there has to be an argument behind it.
Not one person can viable show any reason to change the name. If you don't count history as a viable arguement fair enough. There are no branding benefits, there are no financial benefits, there are no business benefits, get your head out the sand.
Like the club has said... the fans can personally call it any ****ing well thing they like. And as Allam is the OWNER of the club, he can call it whatever the **** he likes ...and he has.
OK so it might exist in some Northern Conference league, and would have as many supporters turning up to watch them as the Dresden 28.
Nice one Newark, couldn't agree more. If your daughter gets married and takes a new name she's still your daughter, nothing more ,nothing less.
I think that there are some false arguments going around on both sides. "If we change our name, people in China won't suddenly become Hull City fans". - Well, yes, if you reduce it to that, it seems silly. But Billions upon Billions are spent every year on advertising, McDonalds change their taglines and stuff at great expense, because obviously it must make something of a difference. People aren't suddenly going to eat a McDonalds because of a new tagline, but it must work on some level . "We wouldn't be here without Allam" - Maybe not, maybe we would have won the Premier League without him last year. Either way, you have to justify your decisions with reasons, you can't do one good thing and then have a free pass to do whatever you want.
The way forward in all of this is fan ownership. The people owning football clubs now have to be multi-millionaires, who are often twats.
I am genuinely worried that what I thought was brinkmanship talking up a move to Melton may now become apparent.
From the logic I'm seeing in here, if I saved your life - maybe grabbed you before walking infront of a moving car you never saw - and I demanded that you rename yourself with my name, you'd happily agree to on the basis that you'd be dead if I hadn't?
