nono history hasn't been rewritten, now the history of wimbledon has been added to I am 100 % sure that the history books will just say Wimbledon 1800+ - 1990+ renamed MK Dons 1990+ till present day. History is History, it cant be changed. ppl that quote inaccurate facts are just lazy, I cant see just what difference a name makes.
You are mistaken. The debate has moved on. MK Dons no longer claim to be Wimbledon. As time goes on and we all die away all that will be left in the records will be that MK Dons history started when they moved to Milton Keynes.
For the moment I thinking of putting this name change to the back of my mind. It's never going to be anything other than Hull City to me no matter what the media or pundits on the tv call us. I can't see some kid on another continent want to follow "Hull Tigers" and if they do good luck to them.
Doesn't mean anything to me. It just shows that history isn't always what it seems. It also shows that the fans of Wimbledon who didn't accept the changes won a victory in that MK Dons is seen by the vast majority of football fans as a different team which is now recognised by the club itself. Whether Hull Tigers is the same club as Hull City will not be decided on the date the FA approves the application, if it does, but by what follows. It took years before MK Dons gave their FA Cup trophy to Merton Council.
I am shocked, that upon visiting Man City's ground, they still refer to their history whilst playing under the name Ardwick FC as Ardwick FC... I am stunned that they haven't retrospectively referred to themselves as Manchester City from inception.
So there's more reason to keep references to it's original name because less happened when it was used? That's a bizarre argument.
It wasn't an argument and I misread your post, so it was bollocks anyway. I thought this was another Woolwich Arsenal type debate.
You were saying that my point was wrong and providing a reason for why it was wrong, call it what you like, it's semantics in the end. As I've said all thread, these old clubs don't just do away with all references to their previous name, which is what some have suggested in this thread, then told me to go google if I disagree with them.
The thread is asking if history is cast in stone. It isn't, it's changeable, and people have offered examples, including football name change related ones, to show why that's the case and suggested that there's a wealth of information at the finger tips of anyone replying that doubts that. Finding the odd few examples that may or may not show something hasn't change isn't really proving anything at all.
Hull Tigers is a **** name that sounds like a US franchise or rugby team thats why history matters and we don't become an irrelevance after 100 years plus of proudly being called Hull City AFC not Hull 'insert what the mad owner wants to call us'
