No, he is doing it for his own egotistical wants... and I can't stand people saying that he has made money so he knows best. Katie Price is a very successful businesswoman but I wouldn't want her running my football club.
You seem to be completely missing the point. This is about getting the overseas (Asian/Mid East) investment to (a) transform the Clubs finances, (b) increase our ability to compete for high quality players, and (c) reach that level of success that you yourselves say is vital for increased global interest and potentially substantially higher merchandise revenues. That is the logical progression that creates (b) and (c). You really don't think that is what in the Allam's minds????
No. I do not, for one minute, believe that this name change has anything to do with increasing revenue.
Did you even read my post??? The name change is about (a) and (b). I thought I'd been pretty clear about that. Was it that difficult to grasp? Increased revenue (c) is the result of the above. Not the primary motivation.
If I understand you correctly because you called Hull City The Tigers in the 1940s it is ok to change the name. Throughout that time no one stopped you calling our club The Tigers because everybody knew what you meant. If the name is changed in 60 years time any one saying they are going to watch City will be seen as a crank, or even worse. The vast majority of people at work and socially call Hull City AFC City. What Assem Allam seems to be saying to all those City supporters is tough, like it or lump it. I don't like the name, it is common, irrelevant and a lousy identity. Nothing concrete about riches from the East in that interview. Finally, we are known the world over as either Hull City or The Tigers. How does that stop us marketing our club in China as The Tigers? We could use Tigers adverts with Hull City AFC in small print. The question is not how many shirts we will sell as Hull Tigers but how many extra shirts would we sell as Hull Tigers rather than Hull City The Tigers? My guess is next to none. The Asian market couldn't care less what our formal name is. As you have quite rightly said we were Tigers in the 1940s we are Tigers now and there is no additional financial benefit to changing our name. Assam Allam could always follow Everton's example and ask us.
someone invests in a business to make money - where does the additional revenue come to attract the investment - if there is no additional revenue then why would someone invest - if its not shirt sales, and believe me it isnt, can someone please tell me where this additional income comes from - Allam invested his money and hes taking 5% interest out of the club - another investor will also want interest as well - if they really believe that additional money will allow us to buy better players and therefore we earn more money from our league position then its a very high risk strategy with no guarantees and unless we get into Europe its hardly worth it - why wouldnt they invest in bigger clubs like Villa or Everton etc - it must be because they dont have Tiger in their name - total and utter bollocks
I've made my opinion clear on this matter before, but have nothing better to do than reply to this thread. The name change has ZERO effect on me. I don't buy merchandise now, and that won't change. I will still walk 2 miles to watch my local team play in black and amber every other saturday or so. In fact, for me, the name change is irrelevant. IF this name change increases our profile outside of East Yorkshire, surely thats a good thing. A top flight club cannot succeed with nothing more than local support. Look at how our profile increased in Egypt after we signed an Egyptian player. We are lucky that "Tigers" is already an established part of our historical identity. By emphasising that in cultures where tigers are respected could give us access to huge new sources of revenues. I understand the point that we are losing the traditional identity associated with a European football club, but that is the only downside I can see. The people who say it won't work can't possibly know that. The only people who do know are in the boardroom. If anyone has access to that, could you tell us how its going please! In my opinion, it's worth a try.
I (kind of) agreed with this until recently. I said I was far less bothered about references to Hull City Tigers as long as we legally remained Hull City AFC. However, then I found out that AFC Bournemouth are still legally registered as Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic. How many people under 60 know that? How many of their own fans know that? That is how easy it is for history to be forgotten. That being said, the Chinks and Yanks can call us whatever the **** they like, as they know ****-all about 'soccer' as it is.
you dont have to support him at all, as I said god knows how many threads ago STOP BUYING THE ****ING MERCHANDISE and he will soon see the error of his ways, that is if he is half the ****ing businessman you all think he is, as he will not make much from these so called new fans worldwide we will not get anytime soon
what a stupid piece of insight - they have absolutely no idea - that's the whole point - there's no-one investing now - clearly there's no-one investing all this season - so there must be someone waiting for the name to change and then and only then will they invest - you couldn't make it up
Am I the only one who doesn't really give a toss about the club colours? Don't get me wrong, I'd be outraged if Allam wanted to act the **** and change them, but they're nowhere near as important to me as our name. If we changed back to our proper and historic colours of white shirts and black shorts I'd be OK with that
Of which we will get **** all. Man U, Arsenel, Liverpool and Chelsea have already cornered the market
no I think it is to get back at the Council because they wouldn't give him the KC which just goes to show that AA is a petchalent bastard who takes his ball back if you don't do things his way.
Think back to the Udders debacle. When the question was asked (by DMD, iirc) what can we do to oppose this? Call a public meeting was suggested and ignored. A lot of useful input was lost as was momentum for the "campaign". They ended up making such monumental fools of themselves that it is now difficult to take them seriously. This was clearly demonstrated by yesterdays non event. If you're agenda doesn't match theirs than they are not interested. They appointed themselves spokespeople for the entire mighty tigers fan base. Not all City fans want to be "'ulltras". Not all City fans want a return to standing. Not all City fans want to deny the owner the right to run his business as he sees fit etc etc. Many posters on not606, did not support the anti-police rhetoric which was spouted by some of our self elected leaders, others did not take kindly as being referred to as " Akin to being scabs" for wishing to support the team they love. Some didn't wish to be involved with the Football supporters federation. etc etc. I am still in favour of a public meeting as it would give certain people the chance to talk down to us all in person as opposed to boring us all to death on here. I don't think people are trying to undermine the principle of the protest but some will be concerned about the direction it would take, given what happened with the Udders event and the poor start this has got off to, (two events which did you more harm then good) Who could blame them? Just my thoughts, as always, take em or leave em!
