Actually a well reasoned argument. With some good points. Needed to see the other side of the coin on here.
It's the same old AA BS manicured by EA It's full of flawed logic, wishful thinking, assumptions and undemonstrable hypotheses. I pity anyone dumb enough to be swayed the content of this desperate last throw of the dice.
Although it was thoughtfully written (i only read up to the Bit about being a Yo Yo club) i have to say this . . I'd be happy for Hull City to be a Yo Yo club , i think in 2009 most of us would be well happy with that , i dont need my thighs stroked with 24/7 premier league status. Nor does Hull City , provided the club finances itself within its means we will be a yo yo club - the only real problem has been spending to outstay our welcome in the prem . I'd loath to sell our soul to the devil for a few quid and be playing championship football at Hull Tigers - there are plenty of clubs with expensive squads that have fallen out of the prem
Nice try Mr Allam but we are not falling for that old trick. Jacqui Smith tried that and look where it got her. Her old man wrote glowing articles to the local paper under another name saying what a wonderful MP she was. Yes that's the same husband who thought that his porno films were a legitimate tax payer funded expense.
"The Allam’s track-record is one of stability on and off the field, with strong leadership they have demonstrated committment to the club, the manager and the team; remember that the previous administration(s) were either incompetent or unscrupulous. " Outrageous. What a ****ish thing to say. Still it stacks up with rubbishing previous managers eh Ehab? It's curious that the author(s) are being so coy about their identity and who they are, these 'number of fans.'
Registrant Name: Hull Tigers Registrant Organization: Registrant Street: Boothferry Park Registrant City: Hull Registrant State/Province: Registrant Postal Code: HU4 6AY Registrant Country: GB Registrant Phone: +44.440148222207x2 Registrant Phone Ext: Registrant Fax: Registrant Fax Ext: Registrant Email: [email protected] Registry Admin ID: Admin Name: Hull Tigers
That was always a concern of mine. For the first time in many years, this City is on the up, with a brighter future and he's been a big part of it. Needs to grow the **** up.
The statement lauds the Hull: City of Culture line, whilst ignoring the fact that 'Dr' Ass will have absolutely nothing to do with the City Council - and, by extension, the City itself. If the posting about the East Riding victory tour is to be believed, it's another sad, sad thing. Hull City AFC should be part of the Hull: City of Culture celebrations.
Far from the only one. As always there are 2 sides to the coin. The fact that the 'yes' campaign has had far too little publicity may well contribute to a loss in the ballot. Little effort has been given by the Allams or from elsewhere to win the hearts and minds. The EA interview and this article are probably way too little and much too late. Because of his 'emotionally UNintelligent' approach, AA has so far pretty much only managed to get the backs up of a big proportion of even the 'not too bothered' support, probably turning many to 'no voters' in the process. Personally I am really struggling to vote in the ballot. The option I would chose is not there. I would rather keep the name but if it changes, it changes; I'll still support the club. But then, do I want the Allams to continue? No, if AA continues to be so disrespectful to sections of the support, and if they cannot find a way to work constructively with the Council. Yes, if these 2 (major) issues could be addressed. Hearing EA finally speak, and seemingly finally perhaps being given some headroom, gives at least a little hope that things could change. Probably what gets me even more is the total lack of integrity from the FA. As so well put in the lost post above from the 'yes campaign', I simply cannot see what on what grounds or what right they think they have to refuse the name change given that a) they've already sold the soul of football in this country (for the reasons given and many more), and b) there are numerous past examples of changes to names, colours, badges, and, worst of all, having allowed Wimbledon to be moved to a totally different part of the country. Irrespective of yes or no views, it's their refusal that makes me most angry; to me it beggars belief that they could refuse given what they've already done.
This site deserves a DoS Attack. I suggest we enlist the help of Anonymous.....or do it ourselves with LOIC http://sourceforge.net/projects/loic/
Assem Allam has supposedly been speaking to the Council Leader of East Riding of Yorkshire, Stephen Parnaby today. The Chief Executive of East Yorkshire Council, Nigel Pearson, goes to watch City every week so it could happen.
It's because the FA have lost the respect of many in football, that they're finally waking up to the realisation that they have an obligation to protect the integrity of the game. I think this whole thing will shortly be followed by new rules on club names, shirt colours and club badges, so at least something good will have come of it. With specific regard to Wimbledon, the FA absolutely opposed the move, it was only after a legal challenge that they screwed up and gave it to an outside body to handle and they approved it. I hope Coventry are next on the list to be sorted, that ridiculous situation should never have been allowed to happen.
I certainly don't believe this is a bad piece of writing, far from it; it doesn't conform to my view of a preferred outcome, but it doesn't have to. I think it is poor that some are rubbishing it without reasonable qualification. It deals with much of the debate in a reasoned way; the fact it might not be in accordance with the CTWD view (and mine) makes it in no way less worthy of representing another opinion. I have read, on numerous occasions, criticism, from the anti camp, that the pro camp were missing, so here is something to be dealt with in an adult and sensible way. A quick read tells me it deals with: HERITAGE - the view on the Tigers is reasoned and not (to my understanding) inaccurate or false. It is though, focussed (cleverly) on the word Tiger, something I embrace as a nickname. It is the exclusion and derision of the historic City part of our heritage that is not discussed or reasoned, and it is that which makes their argument incomplete, insincere and unbalanced. THE FA - the action the FA have taken is knee-jerk, insincere and provocative. It is all of these things because the Grandees of our football upper-echelons have, for time immemorial, sat on their fat haunches and allowed our senior sport (and national treasure) be raped for the sake of tv rights. They have been instrumental in creating a sporting Frankenstein that strides forward taking all before it, a monster that pushes aside the peasants while it's masters get richer; its master's being the players and agents, those folk who take out the lifeblood of the 'Beautiful Game', it's grassroots investment. THE MARKETING ARGUMENT - when taken seperately from the heritage argument, is difficult to argue against. I don't expect a company to give in to demands from its customers (who are not shareholders) to expose its five-year business plan (whether or not it actually has one is academic). Nor do I believe that, if it is the express wish of the sole-funder, there can be a robust argument to prevent some level of rebranding. The anti group argue the future will show no real revenue improvement, the pro group say it will - neither has really shown anything other than subjective reasoning to support their view, but one has offered millions of reasons to be entitled to follow their hunch. THE OWNERS - it hits on the huge (my opinion) issue of fighting the aims and aspiration of the owners, the funders, whilst actively asking for, supporting and recommending their continued ownership; this, I believe, is hugely insincere and massively self-serving. The owners have manipulated and lied to their customer base, the supporters; they are not to be trusted. The timing of this and the ballot is irrelevant, as the owners were always fairly certain of the FA outcome, the initial one at least. They clearly have a plan B and the ballot questions are a part of that. The whole scale and nature of this very open and hostile dispute (you can pretend it is something other, if you wish) is such that you are now either pro or anti the owners; I have always been anti the owners, because as I said at the outset, I do not shake the hand of someone who is urinating on my shoes. Their dishonesty had let them down.
