Name change discussion

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Fez said:
You would be in favour of the name being changed for a fixed period and then changed back to its original (whatever that is at the time – who could tell?) - basically a Yo-Yo named football club – investment would secure this for you.
Click to expand...

If the name had been changed already I don't think I'd be too bothered about a reversion at the end of a deal, but that's a secondary issue.

Investment would secure it with the way the club is now because we're currently £80M in debt and still losing money. If the investment would clear the debt and allow the club to put itself in a position where it was self sufficient and stable then I'd view a temporary name change as being acceptable. If we're looking forward a few years and saying we're running as a self sufficient midtable team and the debt had been cleared from the TV money then I'd be less interested in the idea as it would be purely about buying success.

So pretty much, I'd trade the name for a few years to stop the club's existence being dependent on somebody else's benevolence/patience, but I wouldn't do it for glory.

Fez said:
You wish to have the discretion to change your mind on name-change should circumstances change to suit your judgment call, but you will not allow Allam the discretion to change his mind about investment should the circumstances change to suit his judgment call.
Click to expand...

I assume that's to do with me saying he said he'd run out of money and objecting to the inclusion in the question if we were being given a fan survey? In which case it's not a judgement call to say that the money to invest doesn't exist. If Allam Marine have had better than expected performance and that's provided extra money then fair enough. As things stand their results haven't been announced so they haven't as far as we've been told, so I'd not be happy with there being a magical suggestion that there's money to be invested being used as a way of leveraging the results of a poll.

Fez said:
You believe that the purpose of challenging the position of Assem Allam is not to get him to listen, but to get the undecided to listen (sorry, but I don’t know what they are listening to).
Click to expand...

I believe that trying to get him to listen to the objections at this point is a futile exercise because he's convinced it's a minority, so it's better to get the undecided to listen so that the volume of dissenters becomes louder and AA has to accept there's more objection than he currently thinks there is.

It's harder to demonstrate it with politics because obviously the elections aren't a one issue thing, but look at the independence referendum for Scotland. Did the SNP get that granted by Westminster because they as a minority kept on them for years and years and years, or did they get it because they went out and made it part of their election campaign that won them a huge majority in the Scottish Parliament which left Westminster having to acknowledge the support for the party was bigger than they gave it credit for?

Fez said:
You think reminding the undecided that the club owner and chairman has lied, deceived and manipulated them is wrong; you believe he should be allowed to do it without challenge. You think that challenge is abuse, even though it is nothing more than the truth and totally irrefutable.
Click to expand...

I think as soon as you (people in general) start using words like liar and manipulator it doesn't matter whether they're right or not, it lowers credibility in the eyes of a lot of people because it makes it into a personal thing rather than an issue based thing. It's more effective to highlight things and ask the questions to get them thinking and draw their own conclusions than to try to tell someone what their conclusion should be. The more aggressive a campaign is the more resistance people are likely to offer it, so you have to get the balance right so that people are aware of things without feeling pressured one way or another.
 
Ricardo thanks, you have clarified 4 points, and so let me take them in order:

1. Your acceptance that the clubs name might be changed to and fro, potentially between more than two names, seems strange. Investment deals will come and go, as will expensive players who create a need for inward investment, so you seem to be advocating, or at the very least accepting that various club/team names can come and go with those deals – do you not believe we would be the laughing stock of sport? If an investment deal is in line with your example and has duration of 3yrs, then a bairn growing up from 6yrs old to 18yrs of age could see the club playing under 4 or more club/team names. This is taking the Americanisation franchise change to the nth degree, I realise that, but feasible nonetheless - a dreadful prospect under a mercenary owner(s). My point is that to offer one change and subsequent reversion sets a precedent for more and a loss of control. I have been very careful to understand what you have said and I believe these are the possible repercussions of what you have said.

2. This is the point about whether or not Allam should use his wealth to influence the vote. All I can say is that in my experience the vote is nothing more to him than a part of his wider business strategy (sic). Any businessman, especially one, who on buying the business, has declared he will run it in normal business terms, will use his wealth to support his business strategy. Surely he would be a fool not to. We might not like the fact that he is able to do so, but we would be churlish not to accept it makes a great deal of sense for him to do it. Don’t you think that how he arranges his family and business finances is his affair and we should be grateful for what we get – his total wealth is not a Hull City AFC resource, is it?

3. This is about getting him to listen to the objections and you say it is a futile exercise. To be fair that is a good choice of words because from the very outset (some months now) I have also said it is futile, only I added the caveat that despite that, it was still necessary. You also say that the volume of dissenters needs to get louder; perhaps more people joining CTWD (for however long) would help the volume of the CTWD voice to demand more attention – it is not insignificant that most of the brickbats that CTWD have to deal with on here are aimed at their membership numbers.
Your political analogy is certainly better than the previous ones, because I believe you give us a choice as to how the SNP achieved their success, but I would argue that it was not a choice, but the strategic use of both tactics with one being in ascendency at the beginning and the other taking prominence later – I believe they still employ both tactics to this day - so I think that is fine for the no campaign, also. The fact as it stands though is that the best focus is the FA, but we must not, ever give up on Allam.

4. Lies, deceit and manipulation cover your final point. My view is very simple, I disagree with the name-change and I am deeply offended that the owner of our club believes he can lie to, deceive and unfairly manipulate his customers, the clubs supporters. What other business gets away with this? This unsavoury element of his character must be raised and kept in the public awareness until he accepts it is wrong and offers some form of apology (Tan has apologised, via his MD, for the Mackay turmoil – as insincere as it may be). Experience tells me that to brush it under the carpet will do nothing more than to encourage another, possibly more damning instance in the future, and we deserve better than that. Personally I believe there are far more folk out there who would be righteously indignant about his behaviour (if publicised correctly) than will ever become fussed about the name-change. Folk tend to not like liars. My view has always been that the campaign does not touch on this element anywhere near enough, if at all; it has a part to play and they pussyfoot around it (as you appear to do), whereas Allam pussyfoots around nothing. My few posts on this single board can hardly be considered widespread view changing posts, regardless of their content, but I would be happy to get a few more angry at not just the name-change, but the offensive manner in which we have been treated by someone who claims to want to do good things for us.

U]As a general, but simple question: What is it that you do not like about the current name-change proposal that makes you against it, when you would be prepared to consider another one (or more) sometime in the future? [/U]​

If it is simply investment, do the monies that Allam has in the club count for nothing? Finance plays no part for me as I believe the finance can be achieved using our existing name, nickname and traditions; I am against the name-change purely on the basis that it is a spiteful and unnecessary meddling with the clubs heritage.

If, as you seem to think, my viewpoint is in the minority (I agree that may be the case as far as calling him a liar, etc.), then I would be interested to see the majority and minority sharing their views on this dedicated thread; this is an opportunity for constructive discussion rather than sniping – I have written this in a way that you can pick and choose what should be responded to, if anything.
 
Fez said:
1. Your acceptance that the clubs name might be changed to and fro, potentially between more than two names, seems strange. Investment deals will come and go, as will expensive players who create a need for inward investment, so you seem to be advocating, or at the very least accepting that various club/team names can come and go with those deals – do you not believe we would be the laughing stock of sport? If an investment deal is in line with your example and has duration of 3yrs, then a bairn growing up from 6yrs old to 18yrs of age could see the club playing under 4 or more club/team names. This is taking the Americanisation franchise change to the nth degree, I realise that, but feasible nonetheless - a dreadful prospect under a mercenary owner(s). My point is that to offer one change and subsequent reversion sets a precedent for more and a loss of control. I have been very careful to understand what you have said and I believe these are the possible repercussions of what you have said.
Click to expand...

No, because if a deal was in line with my specification then there could only be one deal. If the first name change cleared the debt and made the club self sufficient then I would have been against all the subsequent ones. If it didn't do that then I'd have been against the first one.

Fez said:
2. This is the point about whether or not Allam should use his wealth to influence the vote. All I can say is that in my experience the vote is nothing more to him than a part of his wider business strategy (sic). Any businessman, especially one, who on buying the business, has declared he will run it in normal business terms, will use his wealth to support his business strategy. Surely he would be a fool not to. We might not like the fact that he is able to do so, but we would be churlish not to accept it makes a great deal of sense for him to do it. Don’t you think that how he arranges his family and business finances is his affair and we should be grateful for what we get – his total wealth is not a Hull City AFC resource, is it?
Click to expand...

You're confusing his willingness to do something and his ability to do something which is making it a different discussion. He said he'd no longer have the ability to fund the club. Without explaining how that situation has changed it doesn't matter what he says he wants to do.

Fez said:
As a general, but simple question: What is it that you do not like about the current name-change proposal that makes you against it, when you would be prepared to consider another one (or more) sometime in the future?

If it is simply investment, do the monies that Allam has in the club count for nothing? Finance plays no part for me as I believe the finance can be achieved using our existing name, nickname and traditions; I am against the name-change purely on the basis that it is a spiteful and unnecessary meddling with the clubs heritage.

If, as you seem to think, my viewpoint is in the minority (I agree that may be the case as far as calling him a liar, etc.), then I would be interested to see the majority and minority sharing their views on this dedicated thread; this is an opportunity for constructive discussion rather than sniping – I have written this in a way that you can pick and choose what should be responded to, if anything.
Click to expand...

I object to it on the basis that there's no benefit being shown (so sharing the unnecessary part of your reasoning). The money that has already been loaned to the club doesn't count for anything. The loan is still a debt, and even if it weren't, money already spent is a sunk cost. It's spent either way, so you don't include it in the decision making process regarding the name change. As AA is an accountant himself he should be familiar with that principle.

Fez said:
4. Lies, deceit and manipulation cover your final point. My view is very simple, I disagree with the name-change and I am deeply offended that the owner of our club believes he can lie to, deceive and unfairly manipulate his customers, the clubs supporters. What other business gets away with this? This unsavoury element of his character must be raised and kept in the public awareness until he accepts it is wrong and offers some form of apology (Tan has apologised, via his MD, for the Mackay turmoil – as insincere as it may be). Experience tells me that to brush it under the carpet will do nothing more than to encourage another, possibly more damning instance in the future, and we deserve better than that. Personally I believe there are far more folk out there who would be righteously indignant about his behaviour (if publicised correctly) than will ever become fussed about the name-change. Folk tend to not like liars. My view has always been that the campaign does not touch on this element anywhere near enough, if at all; it has a part to play and they pussyfoot around it (as you appear to do), whereas Allam pussyfoots around nothing. My few posts on this single board can hardly be considered widespread view changing posts, regardless of their content, but I would be happy to get a few more angry at not just the name-change, but the offensive manner in which we have been treated by someone who claims to want to do good things for us.
Click to expand...

Folk may not tend to like liars, but folk tend to dislike what they see as people attacking people they do like even more. AA isn't a stranger to people, he's the person who saved the club and then got us to the PL, so they're inclined to like him. If someone new joined your group of friends and started accusing one of your friends who was popular of lieing and manipulating you all and did it in an emotive way, even if they were right you'd dismiss them pretty quickly and rally round your friend because they'd have no credibility. If someone new to your group came up and was making reasonable requests of the group and one of your friends was being an arse about it then you'd be more likely to side with the new person, because you'd be forming your opinion yourself rather than being told o think it by someone who a few weeks/months earlier you didn't even know existed.
 
Hull City AFC (Ricardo) said:
No, because if a deal was in line with my specification then there could only be one deal. If the first name change cleared the debt and made the club self sufficient then I would have been against all the subsequent ones. If it didn't do that then I'd have been against the first one.
Click to expand...

But your specification is flawed; its fine if you have control over it but you will not, in no way, shape or form. Someone else (the owners) will be pulling the strings and anyone who makes a decision (in your image) will get left behind. If the first name-change cleared the debt (which you would support) a precedent would be set that name-changes are an acceptable way to raise finance; if, as we would have to assume, the FA are agreeing to this, then the floodgates would be open to any owner who wants to throw up any half-cocked business plan that he claims will benefit the club. Come to think of it, pretty much as Assem Allam does now, which you don’t support (do you?) – can you not see the conflict in this reasoning? As far as subsequent ones (name-changes); just how long have you been around football or sport per se? Have you ever seen a time when the appetite for more finance is sated in the sporting world; especially football. You say: “. If it didn't do that then I'd have been against the first one.” – How would you know, do you have a crystal ball? So much of your argument only comes good with hindsight which you don’t have up front.

You're confusing his willingness to do something and his ability to do something which is making it a different discussion. He said he'd no longer have the ability to fund the club. Without explaining how that situation has changed it doesn't matter what he says he wants to do.
Click to expand...

Why should he explain the intricacies of his personal finance? You are picking at his semantics when the principle of what he is saying is sound; it is up to him to gift his money to the business, not up to you to tell him to, or when and how. If he changes his mind, so what; that can work both ways, for us and against us – I’ll bet you’ll only complain if it’s against us (a bit of honesty needed here!). It’s a point not worth getting caught up on as it does touch on his honesty and we know . . .

I object to it on the basis that there's no benefit being shown (so sharing the unnecessary part of your reasoning). The money that has already been loaned to the club doesn't count for anything. The loan is still a debt, and even if it weren't, money already spent is a sunk cost. It's spent either way, so you don't include it in the decision making process regarding the name change. As AA is an accountant himself he should be familiar with that principle.
Click to expand...

If we agree that the name-change has no benefit, then making that agreement is critical, not unnecessary, as that is the most critical of points. Why I make it clear is that you send mixed messages on where you find a name-change acceptable or not.
I am aware that you are an accountant or in some stage of becoming one, but I am a little unsure of your understanding of how the accountancy principle of sunk cost can impact on operational issues. If Allam had put £80m into a rather glorious football strip, that next year would be useless and superseded by another, then I would agree it would be lost and quite rightly marginalised as a ‘sunk cost’. But he has not, has he? He has invested, via loans, £80m into a football club whose assets (such as they are) are a moving feast, mainly dependent on success in various ways. The loans are constantly receiving interest and not stagnant or depreciating, they also have a decent chance of being repaid – sunk they are not. The money is not spent (as you say), it is invested and must be included in the decision making process. I think you will find that AA, as an accountant is very familiar with that and would not risk £80m in sunk cost investment. Is there really anything you have come to know about him that leads you to believe otherwise?

Folk may not tend to like liars, but folk tend to dislike what they see as people attacking people they do like even more. AA isn't a stranger to people, he's the person who saved the club and then got us to the PL, so they're inclined to like him. If someone new joined your group of friends and started accusing one of your friends who was popular of lieing and manipulating you all and did it in an emotive way, even if they were right you'd dismiss them pretty quickly and rally round your friend because they'd have no credibility. If someone new to your group came up and was making reasonable requests of the group and one of your friends was being an arse about it then you'd be more likely to side with the new person, because you'd be forming your opinion yourself rather than being told o think it by someone who a few weeks/months earlier you didn't even know existed.
Click to expand...


You immediately make the assumption that folk like Assem Allam; why? I have read many a comment from folk who won't attack him, but that whose comment shows they clearly don't like him - don't confuse gratitude with liking. I post only on here , it is a very restricted and, perhaps, selective community; I speak my mind and I describe a liar as a liar, a deceiver as a deceiver and a manipulator as a manipulator - if that cannot be done on a board such as this then there is little hope of reining in the likes of Assem Allam. I once saw Assem Allam as the guy who saved the club, now I see him as the guy who is ripping it apart.
I think the analogy you have chosen in this case is poor; firstly you choose to use a small, intimate population group as your comparison (this is not a pub table), whereas we are discussing a population group that is large and mainly disassociated from one and other and, believe it or not, I believe the good folk on here are perfectly capable of making up their own minds. What everyone can lose track of from time to time is the facts - so I remind them - they can ignore me. <ok>
Click to expand...

Edit: Decided to have a look at Wiki and this more or less sums it up - my emphasis on irreversibly (Googled - Sunk Costs):

'Sunk costs should not affect the rational decision-maker's best choice. However, until a decision-maker irreversibly commits resources, the prospective cost is an avoidable future cost and is properly included in any decision-making processes.'

Allam's investment is far from irreversible!
 
Tuckin said:
Please, just get a room, you two.
Click to expand...

Read another thread - have you read the exclusive title of this one? It does amuse me that when folk want to be disruptive they bring up the name-change endlessly, but when they have a dedicated thread to discuss it properly they have **** all to say for themselves.
 
Fez said:
Read another thread - have you read the exclusive title of this one? It does amuse me that when folk want to be disruptive they bring up the name-change endlessly, but when they have a dedicated thread to discuss it properly they have f**k all to say for themselves.
Click to expand...

I'm delighted that this is a sticky, as it keeps the rest of the board focused on football and enables all of us to check in when we like on what should be an important discussion.

Sadly, it's not been an important discussion lately - it's just been you repeatedly vomiting on your keyboard. How arrogant do you have to be to think ANYONE else wants to read your argument with Ricardo? Why on earth have you two not moved on to PMs to continue it yet?

I have "f**k all" to say about the name change because I've said my piece ages ago and there's limited scope as to how much you can say on the subject without repeating yourself... as you have proved.
 
Tuckin said:
I'm delighted that this is a sticky, as it keeps the rest of the board focused on football and enables all of us to check in when we like on what should be an important discussion.

Sadly, it's not been an important discussion lately - it's just been you repeatedly vomiting on your keyboard. How arrogant do you have to be to think ANYONE else wants to read your argument with Ricardo? Why on earth have you two not moved on to PMs to continue it yet?

I have "f**k all" to say about the name change because I've said my piece ages ago and there's limited scope as to how much you can say on the subject without repeating yourself... as you have proved.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much skimming over Ric and Fez's debate because I don't have the time to read it in detail at the moment, but I definitely defend their right to debate it on this thread publicly. It's an important topic and if either of them have a point to make they should be allowed to make it. This is the perfect place for it.
 
OMG reading you 2 is a cure for insomnia.

The name change debacle is going ahead no matter what you whinging ****s say about it.
Fighting amongst ourselves is rather petty.
 
Tuckin said:
I'm delighted that this is a sticky, as it keeps the rest of the board focused on football and enables all of us to check in when we like on what should be an important discussion.

Sadly, it's not been an important discussion lately - it's just been you repeatedly vomiting on your keyboard. How arrogant do you have to be to think ANYONE else wants to read your argument with Ricardo? Why on earth have you two not moved on to PMs to continue it yet?

I have "f**k all" to say about the name change because I've said my piece ages ago and there's limited scope as to how much you can say on the subject without repeating yourself... as you have proved.
Click to expand...

Nice one. You have taken the trouble to come on a 'sticky' to complain that two posters are discussing the subject the sticky is dedicated to. Why doesn't everyone just swop emails and cut out this forum business? But that would be pointless as it would deny knobs, such as you, the forum to be a pointless whinging bastard. In all seriousness, did you not simply log on and think, that doesn't interest me, and log off again; or are you so anal you have a compulsion to read all and then complain about it? Pretty pointless complaint, Tuckin; it's not a general thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back