Chazz, OLM, Bielbs - I think it's fair to delete posts which are purely there to wind people up and disrupt the campaign threads. As I said before, they're welcome to start their own thread about whether a campaign is appropriate (although there are dozens already) I'm just telling people to stop deliberately forcing their negative views into threads where it obviously isn't welcome.
To be honest, I'd never considered it could be a ploy for sponsorship/partnership. Maybe working on a deal with a foreign sponsor/partner who might also advertise us in tandem with their products in their region but 'Hull City Association Football Club' is too much for it. In that sense I really could see the sense in 'Hull City Tigers' or 'Hull Tigers', but as you say what deal could be worth it?
Piss taking is all part of a football forum, just cos its so close to your heart shouldnt stop others posting. Free country. You wanna protest, piss taking shouldnt stop you.
Nah, far too many false assumptions in your first reply and piss poor bait in the second. The 'facts' are there. It's not my fault they don't suit what you'd like. 'Sunshine'
You could still do this by marketing the nickname and leaving the official name as it is. I think that's worth noting down in this campaign.
I was just about to post something about that, to anyone with proper knowledge or experience of international branding and marketing (aka OLM ) if that's something you do, playing with the name to market a company slightly differently. Say the official club name stays the same and a partner advertises us as 'The Hull City Tigers' or something like it. Maybe 'Carson Yeungs Thieves in partnership with The Hull Tigers'. Could it be misleading?
The ones that you and your sad collective posted were more than enough to show you for what you are. It does amuse me that others, whose sensibilities are now offended, protest against you. I am still confused (I don't know about you) why, in an open forum, someone has to defend their 'plaintiff's view, where's their opposites do not. Seems to be yet another convenience of poor arguing skills.
I will be supporting all those involved with CTWD. If you are pro-name change or simply couldn't give toss, that is of course your perogative. Nobody is preaching at you. We are simply trying to inform those that are willing to listen and to try and raise media awareness.
Nobody's saying they have to defend one view or the other, simply pointing out the reality to someone asking for logical argument. Plenty of views have been expressed contrary to that with no great issues, as is to be expected.
This is exactly the same point that has been made many times, we are Hull City, we're also The Tigers, if anyone wants to market us outside the UK as The Tigers then they were free to do so, it required no name change. That's why most of us don't buy into the claims being made, or the rhetoric being used, it's a pointless change that's only going to alienate people.
So it's not unadvisable to advertise a company in a new area using an altered name that differs from the company's official name? If you were doing a marketing campaign in a new part of the globe where you are relatively unknown, would you use a play on your company name instead of its official title? (I know it's not really possible with your company, but in lala land where you own a sports club or any other company that may have such a strong nickname as 'The Tigers' and an abhorrently long official name to plaster everywhere)
A good example is The Coca-Cola Company and it's associated named brands and the use of Coke in advertising and global awareness. It's old hat and makes Allem's arguments very foolish and isolated in marketing terms.
Personally, I wouldn't, I'd market Hull City as Hull City, whatever market it was. But if the owner thinks he will find more success in Asia by calling us The Tigers, then there was nothing to stop him doing so. But then, in reality, this has bugger all to do with exposure in Asia.
In argument, especially logical argument, the onus is ALWAYS on those making the positive assertion to prove their case. It forms the basis of our legal tradition, where the Crown has to prove guilt, or in theological debates where religious people have to prove God, not vice versa. In this argument, the assertion being challenged is that the change WILL benefit the Club. I'm not saying it won't, I'm saying I want to see peoples argument as to how it will benefit us. These were your words a few days ago. Do you not regard them to pretty much contradict what you have just said?
The aims of the campaign are fairly straightforward. To ask Assem Allam not to change the name of our football club. To ask the Premier League/Football League not to ratify any application unless Assem Allam has complied with the rules of the Premier League/FA. He could put it out to vote to City supporters. Don't you think you deserve to be asked if our club should change its name? In order to get either of these we need to persuade a significant number of City supporters that our name is worth saving. That is what we are trying to do. How may other teams in Hull are called Tigers. Being The Hull Tigers isn't a very great achievement really is it? Being The Tigers throughout the world is a much greater achievement and much more valuable in marketing terms. Here is the link to Assem Allam calling City a lousy identity http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...m-now-on-we-will-be-known-as-Hull-Tigers.html If he didn't say it he could always sue the Daily Telegraph, but I won't hold my breath.
No not really, unless you can see somewhere in that ^^^^ forcing people to stick to it on this board, it backs it up if anything.
