**** me, I'd hate to be your SO.
SO? anyway make that 15, just added 5, 10 to go

**** me, I'd hate to be your SO.

So nobody has decided that we should change our name? Regardless of the permissions needed, Assem Allam has decided he wants to change the name. Your argument is weak DMD. AA makes the decision, various authorities approve the decision. We'll just agree to disagree.
The decision on whether to change Hull City into Hull Tigers is made by the FA.
870 members is something I'm happy with. We'll soon have a paper membership form and we'll be able to ask people to sign up and pay cash. Our target audience will be in the same place fairly regularly over the coming months, so I expect to see some increase over the coming months.
SO? anyway make that 15, just added 5, 10 to go![]()
The FA and PL don't just authorise the name change, they have to agree to it, or it can't be changed.
The PL definitely don't want it changed, the FA are harder to pin down, as they're not a nine to five business operation. They are a group who meet very occasionally and don't normally like getting involved with anything until they have to and as AA has not applied to change our name, they will not yet meet with us to discuss something that hasn't yet happened.
If AA is just expecting to get this rubber stamped, then he's likely to be a little surprised at what's actually involved, as the football world is against this happening and the FA definitely don't want another Wimbledon on their hands.
So your just paying for random people to join the campaign who have no affinity for Hull City? Seriously mate stop thats weakening the campaign.
As i said CTWD should have stipulated who are season pass holders as they are the ones CTWD want to have a vote on the name change. 10000 season pass holders as members is compelling what your doing isnt.
Sorry Obadiah, but I am going to use your post to give, what I think, is the correct interpretation, as I believe yours and the others are expressed incorrectly. Let's take this as it should happen:
The judgment is NO, so the club is not allowed to change its name to the one proffered - we presume that is Hull Tigers. For the next season we must remain Hull City AFC or AA can act as a renegade and test the authorities, or AA can conform to rules and challenge the decision, or he can take the huff and sell.
The judgment is YES and AA puts his implementation plans into motion or he changes his mind as a massive appeasement to the supporters - but that decision is his, not that of the FA or PL; they simply give or do not give him permission for a change to the proffered name, they do not decide whether or not to implement it.
Does anyone see it any differently?
Sorry Obadiah, but I am going to use your post to give, what I think, is the correct interpretation, as I believe yours and the others are expressed incorrectly. Let's take this as it should happen:
AA is rejected by HCC and then has the vindictive brainstorm to change the club's historic name from Hull City AFC to Hull Tigers.
Then starts the AA led campaign of deception, manipulation and bullying against his business customer base (the supporters) - their opinion is irrelevant at this stage, the abuse of power is the same across the board.
A number of supporters detect the deception and manipulation and, informally, they ask questions. Time shows that the answers are dishonest and deliberately misleading.
A plea for honesty and discussion falls on deaf ears so a formal counter-campaign is formed (CTWD) - yes, it is a counter-campaign against the one started by AA.
Through a meeting with AA and simple inoffensive protest, CTWD achieve public awareness and widespread media attention. Through irrational and ill-considered public comment, AA has brought his campaign into national disrepute and public ridicule.
His football manager has had to intervene as he knows that the club's position is damaging the season. He knows the owner is a crazy old coot, but couldn't possibly say so.
Regardless, AA can offer his new choice of name to the FA/PL for their considered opinion, he must also offer them proof of consultation with supporters and stakeholders as a minimum and possibly more.
The FA/PL will look at the name, the evidence of consultation, the Pros and Cons and the reasons for change. Once this is concluded, within an agreed timescale, the FA/PL will give their judgment.
Now this is the important bit that I have not seen correctly stated:
The judgment is NO, so the club is not allowed to change its name to the one proffered - we presume that is Hull Tigers. For the next season we must remain Hull City AFC or AA can act as a renegade and test the authorities, or AA can conform to rules and challenge the decision, or he can take the huff and sell.
The judgment is YES and AA puts his implementation plans into motion or he changes his mind as a massive appeasement to the supporters - but that decision is his, not that of the FA or PL; they simply give or do not give him permission for a change to the proffered name, they do not decide whether or not to implement it.
Does anyone see it any differently?
Erm NO, and they do have an affinity to the club "ME" they have all been told of what has been going on at the club and the name change, I texted all but two (my kids) and explained what was going on and would they like to be members and help out, 13 people have replied and offered there support and offered to pay, i said to all my friends you can have it as a xmas gift.....And with people asking my friends about the wristbands surely this can bring more attention to the campaign.....SOOOO what your problem?
I've stated my problem with it, you've chosen to ignore it. Fair do's.Erm NO, and they do have an affinity to the club "ME" they have all been told of what has been going on at the club and the name change, I texted all but two (my kids) and explained what was going on and would they like to be members and help out, 13 people have replied and offered there support and offered to pay, i said to all my friends you can have it as a xmas gift.....And with people asking my friends about the wristbands surely this can bring more attention to the campaign.....SOOOO what your problem?
I've stated my problem with it, you've chosen to ignore it. Fair do's.
Sorry to cut out the bit in the middle.
You call it a judgement, but the FA will sit in a room and vote yes or no to the proposed name change. A no vote is final unless Assem Allam can find a way of legally challenging it. If it stands the only way he can turn renegade is by leaving the FA and the Premier League.
He could take the huff and try and sell. The first thing a potential buyer would ask is how much of your debt are you going to write off. No commercial purchaser would pay him back £100 million.
If they vote yes that's our playing name. It goes into the FA records and all our fixtures will be in the name of Hull Tigers. If he wants to change it back he must make another application to the FA and they will vote on that.
I understand why you cut the bit in the middle, it's of no importance to your response, just my view of how we have got to this point.
To sit in a room, listen to argument and study the rationale and then sit in a position of being the decision maker on allowing authority to act, or not, is making a judgment. Few decisions are ever truely final, there will be scope for an appeal, it will take time and remain uncertain, is all.
If it stands, as you put it, he can remain the renegade he currently is. He can change those signs changed to Hull City Tigers to Hull Tigers, he can use Hull Tigers in marketing, he can put it on the shirts, he can instruct Others to call us Hull Tigers, just as he shamelessly asks them to call us Hull City Tigers now. Being a renegade is not something new to him.
When it comes to him selling, I only offer it ad an option, which it is; regardless of how improbable. Do not, though, underestimate his ability to broker a deal.
I am puzzled by your assertiveness on this final point. Let me use the extension analogy of other poster (I fancy a Petrocelli moment, as it's quite apt), I can apply for and gain permission to erect an extension of a particular specification, as agreed by the authorities who hold sway - but the decision to go-ahead and build it is mine and can be decided against should I wish. My understanding is that the name-change process is similar, or do you know something that I (and others) do not? What puzzles me most is that you seem to be inferring that should AA enter the process and no reasonable argument can be found to hold judgment against him and he were told his name-change would be supported, but he then changed his name and decided to keep the historic name, that the authorities would then force his hand to the unpopular name change. That seems to be what you are saying, but surely it is not what you mean, is it?
I've decided I'm a millionaire. Hang on a sec, I don't seem to be a millionaire. But how can that be since I decided I was? etc.
At the beginning of the season the club fills in Form A, which says what the playing name is. For us this is Hull City now. If he applies to the FA to change the name to Hull Tigers that becomes the playing name which goes on the fixtures, league tables etc. If he fills in the form as Hull City that is not the playing name and the form could be rejected. Not sure what would happen in that instance. Its very bureaucratic but they are the rules.
The application isn't for permission to do something, its the actual deed. In your example the FA is the builder who puts up the extension not the council who approves the application.
The point is it's a very low number for wht you are achieving and CTWD cannot deny that it's a disappointment.
It's irrelevant how many there are in the "pro" camp because that is not the current fight. The Pro camp is AA and he holds all the cards.
There doesn't need to be a "pro" campaign.
The point is it's a minority in contrast to Hull city fans as a whole. You clearly seem hell bent on ignoring those sat in the middle, who don't want a name change but don't want to instigate any subsequent harm to the club. That is the true majority.
Sorry Obadiah, but I am going to use your post to give, what I think, is the correct interpretation, as I believe yours and the others are expressed incorrectly. Let's take this as it should happen:
AA is rejected by HCC and then has the vindictive brainstorm to change the club's historic name from Hull City AFC to Hull Tigers.
Then starts the AA led campaign of deception, manipulation and bullying against his business customer base (the supporters) - their opinion is irrelevant at this stage, the abuse of power is the same across the board.
A number of supporters detect the deception and manipulation and, informally, they ask questions. Time shows that the answers are dishonest and deliberately misleading.
A plea for honesty and discussion falls on deaf ears so a formal counter-campaign is formed (CTWD) - yes, it is a counter-campaign against the one started by AA.
Through a meeting with AA and simple inoffensive protest, CTWD achieve public awareness and widespread media attention. Through irrational and ill-considered public comment, AA has brought his campaign into national disrepute and public ridicule.
His football manager has had to intervene as he knows that the club's position is damaging the season. He knows the owner is a crazy old coot, but couldn't possibly say so.
Regardless, AA can offer his new choice of name to the FA/PL for their considered opinion, he must also offer them proof of consultation with supporters and stakeholders as a minimum and possibly more.
The FA/PL will look at the name, the evidence of consultation, the Pros and Cons and the reasons for change. Once this is concluded, within an agreed timescale, the FA/PL will give their judgment.
Now this is the important bit that I have not seen correctly stated:
The judgment is NO, so the club is not allowed to change its name to the one proffered - we presume that is Hull Tigers. For the next season we must remain Hull City AFC or AA can act as a renegade and test the authorities, or AA can conform to rules and challenge the decision, or he can take the huff and sell.
The judgment is YES and AA puts his implementation plans into motion or he changes his mind as a massive appeasement to the supporters - but that decision is his, not that of the FA or PL; they simply give or do not give him permission for a change to the proffered name, they do not decide whether or not to implement it.
Does anyone see it any differently?
You tell me if I am wrong, but I have been led to believe that a change-of-name application is dealt with between January and the end of April. If he applies to change the name to Hull Tigers they will either say no and, possibly, give their reasons for the decision. If they say yes they will inform him of their acceptance of the change and he will have to confirm his intention to commit to the change. There will then be a brief period of marketing and brand consolidation before it is writ-in-stone. If you know different then perhaps it should be posted? I have joined the campaign, but I am extremely frustrated and disappointed that you post little else than gossip and we-thinks; unless we start getting more information then I think your position becomes no more than that of a well intentioned poster. This smoke and mirrors may seem necessary but it really should not be. Post some links to your sources, or even just the full minutes of THE meeting.
You tell me if I am wrong, but I have been led to believe that a change-of-name application is dealt with between January and the end of April. If he applies to change the name to Hull Tigers they will either say no and, possibly, give their reasons for the decision. If they say yes they will inform him of their acceptance of the change and he will have to confirm his intention to commit to the change. There will then be a brief period of marketing and brand consolidation before it is writ-in-stone. If you know different then perhaps it should be posted? I have joined the campaign, but I am extremely frustrated and disappointed that you post little else than gossip and we-thinks; unless we start getting more information then I think your position becomes no more than that of a well intentioned poster. This smoke and mirrors may seem necessary but it really should not be. Post some links to your sources, or even just the full minutes of THE meeting.