Strikes me you're one of the few confused. I keep pointing out that you've grabbed the wrong end of the discussion and I've suggested google to help you. I can only help you so far, it's up to you then.
It will not be the same team, this team IS Hull City AFC, who will never win anything ever again if this goes through. It's not "Hull's" football team at all, us in Hull want Hull City. That new team would be Mr Allam's football team, he's made that very clear. Saying it can be changed back shows just how worthless and pointless you think all of this name change is.
If I knew what it said I wouldn't ask. As someone said earlier, in this day and age altering history is not as easy as you are suggesting, so despite you repeating that it will change the history of the club I still contend that it won't. Google won't change my opinion on that, since I've studied historiography quite a bit over the last 5 years, which is why I've ignored the suggestion. I guess we agree to disagree on that point.
Nope, I don't do the agree to disagree thing. I'm happy to argue my case. It's a fact that history is not cast in stone, it's as simple as that. Events themselves may only happen one way, but even that can be interpreted and written in many different ways and that itself will change with time and context. You should be more than aware of that as it's one of the fundamentals of historic research. As an example, should the name change go through, it's quite conceivable that one version of history would have Phil Brown as the manager of Hull Tigers in their first season in the top flight. There may or may not be a footnote referring to Hull City, but that's all it could be.
I only suggested agreeing to disagree because this thread is rapidly derailing. I am aware of that. However I'm also aware that modern history is much more accurately recorded and major events do not change as a result of history changing. WW2 ended in 1945. The Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Etc. Those events happened, and will not change. Hull City AFC got promoted in 2008 - which was the example I used earlier - and that will not change. It's not conceivable at all because that would be retrospectively changing the name of the club which has not been proposed by anyone. If this is the point people are making about our history being destroyed then you've made me understand a lot more the point they are trying to make, but it doesn't make it anymore true.
You quote examples from events in WW2, some of which happened in places that have the names of the Country and City changed, so that point falls apart there without even going into more detail. You guess that people won't change the name of the promoted club, you only have to look at Milton Keynes, that even despite giving up the original history, there's still confusion over which team won what in certain circles, and in some ways that situation's clearer because there are two clubs. Leeds and Rangers, despite being new clubs, keep the old Clubs history. Accrington Stanley's another old name given to a new club and presented with its "history". So clearly, history can change. If you seriously believe that history will not air brush out Hull City's past, replacing it with Hull Tigers, you're naive in the extreme. That's not meant as a gratuitous insult, it is my considered opinion. History is littered with such changes, you've made reference to some yourself. EDIT There's actually a reasonable current example of how these things can happen on the 'name change debate" thread. Two or three posters have a version of the same event taken from different angles and each drawn a slightly different conclusion. It's hard to say one's right and one's wrong, as they've different original sources, but each version of the same history differs.
Lol it doesn't fall apart. Renaming an event or place does not change the details of the event or change history. I think you're confusing the recording of history and actual history. Yes renaming things affects the recording of a particular event in history, but it does not change history. Our history is our history, it will not change. I've said this so many times now it may as well be a mantra. A perfect example is looking at Tottenham, Arsenal, Manchester United, Manchester City, Sunderland and others just off the top of my head, go to one of their museums or stadium tours, and see how they treat their history prior to a name change. Actually the Leeds, Rangers and Accrington Stanley examples perfectly prove my point. New names/new clubs that keep and preserve their original history. I'm not naive at all, I think people are trying to stir this up into something it's not. No football club that I can think of - and both you and I have provided plenty of examples - have discarded or altered their history because of a mere name change.
You're getting nearer and nearer to seeing why you've got this wrong. If the name we're known as now changes, the name we used to be known as will change. You mention clubs who have changed their names by their existing names. Accrington, Leeds etc are new clubs that have taken someone elses history. The original clubs have gone, what you have is a bastardisation of that history, that you yourself seem to accept as genuine, when historical facts show they aren't. Hull City's history will go, replaced by Hull Tigers.
I still disagree but I see that we're both stuck in our ways. The only way to find out is if/when the name change occurs.
Or look at the numerous occasions history supports what I put, including examples you yourself provide.
I have.. and they support what I'm saying. I'm sure when I go to the United museum tomorrow they'll have plenty of stuff describing games between Newton Heath and other teams from their early history.
The whole ****ting on the clubs history thing is moronic. Arsenal were founded as Dial Square in 1886, changed to Royal Arsenal then Woolwich Arsenal before becoming just 'Arsenal' in 1919. That's 4 different names they've operated under, and the period under each name is recorded using the name in place at each time. Does Arsenals history start at 1919? Does it sod. It starts in 1886 when the Dial Squares workman's cricket club started a football team. On a bit of a different point, I'd argue that Arsenals removal of 'Woolwich' from their name is more drastic and worse than Allams current proposal for our name, as it removes any reference to their local area and their roots.
Actually five different names, they were The Arsenal for a while but removed "The" so that they would be first on the table at the start of the season. True story.
Did they not remove Woolwich from the name many years after moving? It would be strange if MK Dons were still known as Wimbledon, a bit like Hull Tigers keeping the name Hull if we move out of the city.
They dropped the Woolwich, a year after moving out of Woolwich, which makes sense. Many clubs changed their names at that time, due to relocation's etc, there was no real history at the time, everything was new, so nobody cared.
This is a good debate lads! I agree with DMD in that I do think the name change is pointless... I'm against the idea. I just think personally, if it goes through, there will be very little impact. It will be the same team sheet and every other aspect of the club will be the same as always. History might well become diluted a bit by the above argument but I can't see the events changing. Plus I don't care. If some twonk thinks Hull Tigers first got to the prem in 2008 then that's there loss... it doesn't effect me whatsoever. I don't want the name to change, but I can't see it having a devastating impact.
