In WW1 the troops in the trenches were oft described as 'Lions led by donkeys' The donkey reference, not being the modern gash footballer parlance, rather the donkeys being the generals, who through their stubbornness and indifference led the troops to their deaths. Tigers led by donkeys.
For those who missed it... http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01tct2t Part 1- 10:53 Part 2- 17:11 Part 3- 37.41 Thanks for that. I missed it live but have caught up now. Follows Ehab's reasonable recent Sky (?) interview too. Put all the unfortunate past PR blunders from AA aside (as difficult as that is), and same with pre-conceptions etc. The fact is Ehab talks hell of a lot of sense IF people actually bother to listen to what he's saying. Of course nobody knows what benefit the rebranding will bring, but the reasons for wanting to try it are crystal clear and logical. I want my club to be the best it can be, and if that entails trying out the name change then, begrudgingly, so be it. The club has moved forward, and with today's latest announcements continues to move forward to levels we could only previously dream about. Yes, it's been done so far as 'Hull City', but that's silly logic to use as a case for staying as it; surely it's not difficult to understand that 'the model' used to date has to change now we are where we are, and that at least having a go with the re-branding is seen as a major part of that. The only thing that holds me back from voting yes is AA's attitude to certain supporters and his refusal to work with the council. Countering that, it seems Ehab may finally be taking the lead, and so far is doing a very decent job of it, and maybe, just maybe, something can finally happen with the council without AA.
Trying out the name change? Is that like trying suicide? Once changed, it's gone. Just because two OAPS locked horns.
Why cant they just call us Hull Tigers in Asia and the US? Just copyright the name and be done with it. No need for a name change just make that the nickname that they use here. It isnt that uncommon for teams to be referred to by their nicknames. The fact that this is an obvious solution just shows that it has more to do with the council spat than marketing.
I think that's already been suggested. Allam will only accept Hull Tigers as a single global brand. As we all know it's his or the highway - or freeway in your case
So not having any companies wanting to come put money into us, not having any financial details or a business plan is crystal clear & logical to you? How exactly is wanting to keep the name silly logic? We're about achieve the best finish we've ever had and we've surpassed ourselves in the cup. All as Hull City. The figures he did announce today (dunno here he got that from) is pathetic. It's not worth doing all this for, or taking the FA to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. What is silly is believing we can change the name, and suddenly everything will go right and we'll become successful on and off the pitch. Or as Toplass put it- as big as Everton & Spurs (shakes head). Stop brown nosing them and living in the realms of fantasy, Driff.
They appear to have become silent on the shortening of the name from Hull City to Hull Tigers theory. Can't think why.
It wouldn't matter if we all voted yes, the FA obviously think that even if there was a financial benefit to us (which they doubt) there could be detrimental financial ramifications for English football. It's their job to protect the interests of every club in the association, not the selfish interests of one maverick owner who probably won't be involved in football in a year or two.
Allam seems to have been the one wanting to make it all about himself and his family, not very clever as it puts him in the corner over the whole issue and makes it more personal.
You are ignoring the fact that this isn't about money, it's about an old bloke sulking over a fall out with another old bloke. There is no business logic or justification to this, it's complete and utter bullshit.
so if if it is all that simple, by inference is your campaign ultimately about supporting one old bloke over another?
They were St Domingo's until 1879. I'm not the best at maths, but I make it that with a change to Hull Tigers we could make it to fifth in the league by the year 2149
i thought it was the old man been senile but ehab confirms it. these are ****ing bullys with no clue. get rid of them. dont forget tigers eat mccoys crisps
-> You are ignoring the fact that this isn't about money, it's about an old bloke sulking over a fall out with another old bloke. There is no business logic or justification to this, it's complete and utter bull****. Correct, I am ignoring it, as it's nothing to do with the Council fall out. Come on, for heaven's sake. -> re. the Everton comparison. It's not that difficult is it. Everton are not the new kids on the block. The've been long established in the PL, and Europe. They have built up their name, reputation, status etc over many many years. We are the new kids. As are many other clubs from whom we have to some how stand out from. We can't do that by our own history of success, tradition, location, size or whatever. We MIGHT just do that by doing something different. Even EA acknowledges it might not work, but then again it might.
