IMO, unless there is some compelling reason then we shouldn't change our name, though I accept a requirement for corporate confidentiality and am open to the fact Papa and Ehab Allam, Nick Thompson and the like may well know something we don't. Can I just say I ****ing hate Hull City Tigers though. If we can't be Hull City then Hull Tigers (or better still 'Ull Targers) is a better option IMHO. Still, as long as we play in black and Amber and come from Hull i don't really care what the suits think. Culturally, we'll always be "City" or "The Targers" or "Ruddy Targers" before, after and during a game.
I'm a bit fed up of hearing this line. When the name change was first discussed it was "Oh well at least they aren't changing the badge." Now they've admitted to changing both the name and the badge everyone is saying "Well at least we're still playing in black and amber." I'd be willing to bet that if they did announce we were to change the colours people would say "Well at least we're still in Hull." People need to stop sitting back and accepting this ****. It's disgusting what's being done to our club and the sickening part is that people don't even seem to realise it.
Totally agree. And if we moved to Melton people would say "at least we still play near Hull". Apathy is a ****ing disease. Didnt really need a new thread mind....
Oh dear. Be thankful we still have a club and one in the PL. Interesting that only 1800 votes in the HDM were against the name change. Nevermind the apathy, it has been over taken by much disinterest in the issue by all accounts.
I think you will find that having an acronym fixation is not a requirement for supporting our beloved team.
One thing is for sure, the owners will leave, they will take their money and leave us **** all of the club we now know. If you think this is about an acronym fixation then you are either very glib or as stupid as those you say have an acronym fixation. None so blind as those . . . . . . but having an inherent ability to be lied to, mocked and taken for a ****ing idiot does seem to be someone's idea of what it takes to support this club - Hull City Tigers, that is - you are welcome to it.
I bet you had a picture of Arthur scargill and che Guevara on your walls didn't you PMT and crabs? 'Stand up against the money men', 'death to the innovators'... Ffs give it a rest. Your pissed off, cracking, we get that, but jacking every page with the same old tedious ****e is getting boring. The original post was tongue in cheek. If you want to rant, do it on one of the many other threads on the same subject and leave the other threads where people and having a chuckle alone. (And here comes the inevitable whining response.....)
Once the name changes i wont have a club so its a moot point. And I'd rather have Hull City in the conference than Hull Tigers in the EPL.
Yes I have, but not at the price of selling everything the club ever stood for. No bloody respect for history whatsoever.
I think Waggy got it spot on in the paper... why the need for a name change? When you say Hull City, everyone knows we're The Tigers! (Well, those who pay attention to football do, on the day the name change was announced there were far too many clueless idiots commenting like we'd plucked the Tigers from thin air).
I have to say that I'm pretty astounded at how quickly things degenerate into (not arse scratching) but personal and petty abuse in this forum. It's not so much fun anymore and seems to lack good humour or tolerance of differing views. Having said that, I made my feelings about the name change known in a very lengthy post a few days ago in which I described a personal experience I had here in Australia some years ago. I'm not suggesting for a moment that I have the answers or necessarily even a particularly good idea about how to resolve this obviously divisive issue, (particularly being so far away) but I am surprised that the idea of a compromise along the lines I suggested, didn't even prompt much of a response as people were so single minded about continuing their own personal on-line battles. The question simply is this - doesn't anyone think there is any merit to the notion of a representative supporters group making an approach to the Allams to explore the possibility of compromise? Quote Originally Posted by thistimetigers View Post Well, I have to say I'm pretty conflicted about this and perhaps my user-name gives a bit of a clue to that but overall my sympathies lie with those who oppose the change. For those of you who can be bothered, here's a little story that explains my personal involvement in just this issue here in Australia. As I've explained in the past, my family background is Hull. I've visited many times, actually love the place (and the East Riding generally) and still have family in Hull, but I was actually born in a suburb in the west of Melbourne called Footscray. Growing up in Australia before going to England as a young teenager, and then returning to Australia again, I was an avid fan of Aussie rules and my team was the place of my birth - Footscray. Footscray is known as a relatively poor suburb and it's supporters have had to endure (along with the lowest success record in the competition), battles against bankruptcy and attempts to force a merger with another club. ANY of that sound familiar? A few years ago, about 15 maybe, a new and very wealthy club president was installed. A bit of money was put in and in the view of most supporters he was a white knight that was going to ensure the clubs survival. HOWEVER, in quick time, the club was being relocated, the club song was changed, the jumper (we don't call them shirts) was redesigned with a funny looking bulldog on the front and wait for it - all of a sudden the club (officially just the team) had a name change and is known to virtually everyone as the Western Bulldogs. Suddenly I found myself part of a supporters group calling itself the Footscray Forever Committee. The objective was to force a ballot of the clubs members. Sensing a defeat, (the clubs board really held the whip hand) a compromise was negotiated. The team plays with the letters FFC (Footscray Football Club) on the back of the jumpers AND the club is still officially - though not really publicly - Footscray Football Club, trading as the Western Bulldogs. Importantly, at least from my perspective, this achieved three very important things - 1. It showed some sensitivity to supporters who felt strongly about the issue and showed some respect for the clubs history. 2. It prevented a serious and damaging rift between groups of supporters and between supporters and the club management and 3. Perhaps most importantly, by avoiding a ballot defeat, those who still value the Footscray heritage have retained the possibility of the name reverting to Footscray simply by a resolution of any future board that might have a desire to do so. This is a highly emotional issue and although there are obvious similarities between the Hull City situation and the one I have just described, there are also some major differences and if the Allams chose to do so, it would be my contention that it is not too late for them to make peace. Although I am an avid City fan, I must confess that I feel a bit like an outsider that's handing out a lecture. I hope it doesn't come across that way and I'll risk it anyway with the following suggestion. The Allams should apologise for the manner in which this has been handled without adequate consultation. They can use the EPL statement to save face and put their plans on hold until a full and open discussion has occurred with the various supporter groups. With just a little compromise, they can pursue the international marketing strategy they desire AND guarantee the continuing existence and use of the name Hull City AND Tigers at home! For what it's worth, it seems to me that the debate about AFC should be centred around the issue of the clubs legal identity and that's coming from someone who has the club insignia tattooed on my shoulder but if I'm honest that's not the most important part of the tattoo for me. I recognise that what I'm suggesting here lacks for obvious reasons, detail and requires a little compromise from all parties - but sometimes it's worth it!
This time. A compromise has been mentioned on a few threads, but it's really a non-starter with the parties involved and a thrid party mediator doesn't spring to mind.
Fair enough. And of-course I wouldn't know who, if anyone, might be suitable as a mediator. I would say this though - people, common folk like us, often quite wrongly under-estimate our ability to pull off big things. Sometimes you just have have a go. Thanks for responding anyway.
