Name change discussion

Of course i can. But why is it OK to change the name of the competition the teams play in for financial gain but not one of the club names. It seems unfair to me. Again i'll ask, is this not destroying the heritage of English football?

 

It might be, but it's really irrelevant to the name change debate.

 

How is it irrelevant? I'd say it was absolutely relevant. How can the FA stop a chairman from trying to make money by changing names when they do it all the time. It matters not that you or experts or the FA think it will not make money, if he thinks it will, who are they to stop him trying?

 

Are you ****ing serious?

 

Absolutely, can you write a sentence without swearing?

 

**** no


(my previous post on here had no swearing, think before you post)

 

Its not right and has your mother may have said, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

I wish you would take your own advice.

 

I think part of the answer is that the name changes for those competitions fall outside the rule book that clubs play under. Another element is that, to some degree those changes have been subject to a similar process to Mr Allam's proposal. They met with the FA requirements, the Tigers one didn't.

A part of the reason for the process that the Tigers failed, is to keep some control of the system with the Governing body rather than leave it subject to the whims of random individuals.

 

I know of that expression. You might even be right. But i would suggest that changing a name to incorporate a sponsor is worse than our name change, but i didn't see the whole country protesting about it when it happened to all our competitions though. Maybe heritage isn't so important after all?

 

It met FA requirements because it is making them money. They didn't give a flying about the heritage and history they were changing. They put it out to tender every 4 years and each time it comes back with more money.

 

As far as I recall, they have rejected some applications for sponsorship of events, so your 'purely financial' argument isn't 100%, nor does it address all of the points.

 

I agree that the FA are unlikely to agree to all sponsorship deals, Playboy would hardly fit the family image they are promoting. It hardly makes my point less valid though. They are willing to to make changes to benefit themselves yet refuse when someone else tries to do the same.

 

The FA would balance that with the fact that competition sponsorship benefits everyone who takes part in it. A renaming of a football club may or may not benefit that particular club, but the FA would probably argue that a silly name change devalues the whole association. One of the reasons Sky pump so much money into EPL is because they sell the games abroad. They obviously do market research and see the history and tradition of English clubs as a selling point, a bizarre change by one or more clubs could endanger that. How about the scenario that the EPL becomes less attractive and broadcasting rights are no longer as lucrative?

 

They're the guardians of our game and people like Allam need reining in. There's been an alarming increase in this kind of owner in recent years. No one has a right to **** with a football club without good reason.

It's irrelevant because the name change won't make money, whereas sponsorship does.

 

Nope, you're building a straw man. It, and the other bits of my answer you ignore, do in fact make your point less valid.

 

How is a team changing its name devaluing a completion when it was called Division 1 to The Carling Premiership to the Barclays Premier League. Why is a team change more devaluing than a competition change? How would a team name change harm anything when it seems a competition name change does not.

 

I don't really. It would still be arguably the best league in the world. Besides Manchester are the United and City. They have strong identities. Tottenham Hotspur is also a strong brand. Fulham Cottagers isn't very good is it. I'd be supprised if they tried to push that through.