Seeing Hull fans being upset about a change of name to Hull Tigers made me wonder if our fans would tolerate a change of name.,,,let's say to Southampton Saints. In both cases, the owners have put money in....does this give them the right to affix a second name? I would prefer not...mainly because it is Americanized rather than because of heritage...but I wouldn't march down the street in protest.
It wouldn't be the end of the world. I'd not be delighted, but if Cortese did it, you could be sure it was for the clubs benefit. I don't see how it can really make any difference, but I don't know much about marketing. And. Yeah. It's horribly American.
This has been mentioned on a previous thread and there was a bit of consensus around the name Southampton St Marys, which I believe was our original name.
Would still be Southampton, no matter what the addition was. And if it was Southampton Saints it would be oh so terrible if people started calling us Saints instead of Southampton..................hang on a minute. Thinking about it Hull are known as the Tigers anyway and not City. Not really bothered by things like that. If they decided to rename Southampton 'That team on the South Coast' I'm sure there would be uproar...........hang on a minute. lol
It's quite odd isn't it. Considering Southampton FC are the perennial titchy club, we are extremely well known in the football world. Perhaps only in small pockets of the country, for example, Northampton, St Helens or with St Mirren FC in Scotland is the nickname Saints not pinned to this club.
