The point that despite a name change it's still the same club, or club which has developed from. It was just a hypothetical. If you feel your answer would devalue your argument then you don't have to answer it.
Ah, so internal perception is what counts currently when people call us Hull, but the minute people call us Hull Tigers, it's their opinion that matters?
Nope, the stated aim, rightly or wrongly (most think wrongly), is to make the club more marketable. That is to make the same club more marketable, not some other club, this one.
If you expect others to understand how important your name is to you, then it is really quite useful to have some awareness of how it came about and how it is understood in your own community. I can see nothing wrong in trying to understand all angles or opinions; do you?
Not convinced he knows the name of the club at the moment, seems to think it's Hull City Tigers. If so he's mistaken. He knows which club he believes will become more marketable under a new moniker though.
Assuming being more marketable is what the issue is, maybe, maybe not. Even his version of the name has altered over time.
I started this topic, I think it has been talked out - everyone is entitled to their views. It will be very interesting just to see how many season passes will be sold when we become Hull Tigers.
We won't be a new club if the name changes. A new club would have to sign a lease at the KC. That won't happen. A new club would have to hire staff and a team. That won't happen. A new club would have to start in a much lower league. That won't happen.
What will probably not change or make a difference to me, is the commercial trading name of the club; the registered business name. That name has been changed a number of times and will again, at some time or another. My support of the senior football team of Hull has been focussed on exactly that, the team. The full and proper name of the team is the same as the club - Hull City AFC - it is the name that would be used to signify success on trophies. I refer to the team as either Hull City or, more commonly, City. The name-change will make that incorrect and no matter how many times someone tells me I can still call it what I want will not make it right or sensible - the City will have been expunged because it is common and lousy. The club will be known as Hull Tigers, the team will be known as Hull Tigers, a new club and representative team is born which has been allowed to adopt the league standing of the previous one - all of the assets, players, etc. continue to be owned or contracted to the commercial business, which has a different name to club and team. Beyond that it is a **** name and a **** way of trying to impose it - rollover all you want. Don't like it but don't fight it and, eventually, you will get all that you deserve.
Hull City AFC as we know it has only been in existence since 1996. In 1974 the club moved out of the East Riding of Yorkshire and into the new Humberside area. In 1996 the club moved out of Humberside and back into East Yorkshire. Therefore Hull City AFC in Hull, East Yorkshire, has only existed for 18 years.
Exactly, history has been rewritten because MK Dons no longer claim to have won the FA Cup and donated their trophy to Merton Council.
after reading through this thread, it appears that a lot of people are as deep as a puddle, if changing names would affect the support of their childhood club.
Thank you Fez for confirming my point. It will still be the same club. It's the exact same tactic and criteria you, Dutch and all the other Allam haters use to say it will be a different club if the name change goes ahead.
