Is history cast in stone?

But they're the same entity. Nothing else has changed.

 

Hull City =our club.

Hull Tigers = AA's company.

 

You acknowledge something has, so they're not the same.

 

MK Dons and Wimbledon are the same entity but something changed and MK Dons stopped claiming they'd won the FA Cup and sent their trophy to Merton Council

 

So why didn't the club become a new entity every time we changed ground? Or change strip? Or change manager? Or change owner?

 

Because it kept the same playing name.

Changing shirts and managers, and to a lesser extent grounds is hardly unusual, nor are they used in common parlance when identifying the club.

 

OUR club was liquidated as we got relegated.
Hull City went out of existence.
AA stepped in and rescued Hull Tigers, he just never changed the name yet.
AA has made it clear - it's one or the other, Hull Tigers or liquidation.
Direct your anger towards Bartlett and Duffman.

 

Wrong and wrong and irrelevant.

 

Oh?

Link?

 

So the rules change depending on what you want to believe?
Looking at the rugby club as an example, they went bust, Gateshead were relocated here and renamed Hull FC and their fans STILL claim to have a 100+ year old history!
We have the top level professional football club representing our city, things change, but not our support. To me, the name change is irrelevant. Moving the club out of town or to a new area would have more effect on my support as the club would no longer represent Hull.

 

he is gonna walk away, thought that was common knowledge.
if we get put into administration, we lose 10 points (can we recover from that?)

 

Surely that's blackmail isn't it though?

Do as I say or the tiger gets it?

 

I'd say that was very relevant.
that is the whole basis of what this discussion thread is about.

 

The discussion is about history, not just Hull City.

What "rules"?

Gateshead was mentioned previously, you make the case for our name being liable to change quite well. Gateshead existed, their name changed, now their history has.

"Our" support will change, it already has. For you, the name is irrelevant, in which case we may as well keep it as it is instead of being disrespectful to our history for no benefit at all...but that's a different subject.

 

I never said it was right, but in essence that's what he has said.

 

I do blame them, for racking up a relatively small portion of the debt we currently have. But for accruing the majority of it I blame Allam, since that's what he's done.

Why would we be in admin just because AA leaves? There are plenty of clubs who do fine without Assem Allam. He's not as important as he wants us to think.

 

He's firing blanks anyway.

 

you couldn't make it up!

 

What's wrong with that exactly?

 

People don't take kindly to being blackmailed.

Especially when the object of his ire is the Council.