Name change discussion
- Thread starter RicardoHCAFC
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Thanks Captain Obvious.
So you'd be ok with the press, and other clubs billing their games against us as being against "The Tigers"?
****ing hell, all this time Dr Allam could have just cut the Hull and City out without a murmur of protest?
HULL CITY A.F.C. - nickname: The Tigers
Why do you pretend to be so dense? It's very tiring.
Most clubs refer to themselves by their nickname. Exeter advertise match tickets as 'The Grecians vs Team X', Mansfield as 'The Stags vs Team X', Bradford as 'The Bantams vs Team X', etc... It's a fairly normal thing. They don't refer to themselves as 'Exeter Grecians', 'Mansfield Stags' and 'Bradford Bantams', do they, because that would be ******ed. Also, their owners haven't had petty tiffs with the local council and had a paddy as a result.
I cannot get my head around this so someone may be able to clarify things
From the op on the CTWD First General Meeting Thread
"This First General Meeting will be a chance for members to contribute to the future direction of CTWD. Should CTWD become an independent supporters’ organisation, or remain a single-issue campaign group? Should we ask the Tigers Co-op formally if they would like to merge with CTWD and form a reinvigorated supporters' trust? Should we remain independent from Hull City, or should we seek a supporters' involvement in the running of the club? Should we arrange meetings and events that will allow members to get together?"
Extract from an email to me from Supporters Direct.
"I met with **** ****** from City Till We Die on Thursday in Manchester. We had a very long conversation and he told me about various activities and aims that they have and whilst they are campaigning against the name change, they are about doing other work including community work within Hull. I had no qualms about them not being a single issue protest group. They may be protesting about something but just like the Cardiff City supports trust are protesting about the change of team colours, they are doing other stuff as well."
I would respectfully ask someone from CTWD to explain why did your representative give the impression to SD that you where not a single issue group. PM me if you like.
From the op on the CTWD First General Meeting Thread
"This First General Meeting will be a chance for members to contribute to the future direction of CTWD. Should CTWD become an independent supporters’ organisation, or remain a single-issue campaign group? Should we ask the Tigers Co-op formally if they would like to merge with CTWD and form a reinvigorated supporters' trust? Should we remain independent from Hull City, or should we seek a supporters' involvement in the running of the club? Should we arrange meetings and events that will allow members to get together?"
Extract from an email to me from Supporters Direct.
"I met with **** ****** from City Till We Die on Thursday in Manchester. We had a very long conversation and he told me about various activities and aims that they have and whilst they are campaigning against the name change, they are about doing other work including community work within Hull. I had no qualms about them not being a single issue protest group. They may be protesting about something but just like the Cardiff City supports trust are protesting about the change of team colours, they are doing other stuff as well."
I would respectfully ask someone from CTWD to explain why did your representative give the impression to SD that you where not a single issue group. PM me if you like.
I read that as CTWD is a single issue campaign group, but that once it's resolved, some members would like to explore avenues that the group could contribute to if it stayed together once its original raison d'etre was over. They probably thought they could 'retire' after they'd dealt with syp for us.
Why some people seem desperate to look for conspiracies is lost on me. Especially when they just try to drag things down rather than add anything constructive themselves. It smacks of envy to me.
Why some people seem desperate to look for conspiracies is lost on me. Especially when they just try to drag things down rather than add anything constructive themselves. It smacks of envy to me.
Always a pleasure to help you, The Omega Man.
The quote from CTWD seems clear and unambiguous, so we move on.
The quote from a private email to you, from someone within Supporters Direct, seems to discuss both campaign work and, then, separately, other work, including community work. It does not, in my opinion, infer there is more that one campaign issue.
There are a couple of things I would like to question of you, just for the sake of clarity and balance:
1. Did the email, from Supporters Direct, pre-date the announcement from CTWD?
2. Why are you doing it in an open post when you offer an opportunity of a PM in return; could you not of asked OLM or Obadiah privately for advice? It seems a strange or contrived action, considering you, apparently, are able to operate behind the scenes with some alacrity.
3. As the email is a private one, between you and Supporters Direct, one which it would appear you instigated, does it not strike you as blindingly obvious and sensible that you should be requesting clarity from the writer of that email?
4. What purpose do you believe this serves, when you read the openness of the full announcement from CTWD, especially if the answer to question one is that the SD email predates the CTWD announcement?
I would recommend that any responses to this now remain in the public domain.
At the time of the SD meeting before Christmas, CTWD was considering its potential longer term role as a supporters association and Trust. This was made clear to everyone that signed (and to this day signs) up for membership, and may be coming to fruition after discussion in two weeks time - subject to the views of our members. If the person at SD that emailed you thought that these longer term roles had already commenced, then he/she was mistaken.
Fez:
The email is from a series of emails between Supporters Direct, myself and others who where considering at the time the formation of a Supporters Trust.
Supporters Direct will work with only ONE supporters group from each club and for Hull City that was the Tigers Co op. They will not work with any single issue campaign group.
I posted this on here because a series of posts between me and members of CTWD, that where along the lines of Tigers Co op where founding members of CTWD and where effectively one and the same. The same posters repeatedly stated that CTWD was not a single issue group.
The AGM thread included was from last week.
The email from Supporters Direct killed off the opportunity for a supporters trust that was a being put forward as an alternative to the name change, with a long term plan that would have the support of all sides. Without the specialist facilities within Supporters Direct it is very expensive to set up the IPS that would be the foundation for the Supporters Direct.
You have constantly stated that a Supporters Trust was pie in the sky, but the fact is that you are wrong on that point. I have said that the development of the KC is not viable at this moment in time. Until the interview with Ehab the figures banded about that where needed in order to prevent the name change were more than a trust could raise. Ehab came out with a figure and time scale that was actually within the capabilities of a supporters trust.
The alternative Supporters Trust would have had the support of the club as it was not based on the name change campaign group CTWD. It could have raised the underwriting needed to form an IPS.
It was a viable alternative to Hull Tigers being applied for. And it was effectively scuppered.
The email is from a series of emails between Supporters Direct, myself and others who where considering at the time the formation of a Supporters Trust.
Supporters Direct will work with only ONE supporters group from each club and for Hull City that was the Tigers Co op. They will not work with any single issue campaign group.
I posted this on here because a series of posts between me and members of CTWD, that where along the lines of Tigers Co op where founding members of CTWD and where effectively one and the same. The same posters repeatedly stated that CTWD was not a single issue group.
The AGM thread included was from last week.
The email from Supporters Direct killed off the opportunity for a supporters trust that was a being put forward as an alternative to the name change, with a long term plan that would have the support of all sides. Without the specialist facilities within Supporters Direct it is very expensive to set up the IPS that would be the foundation for the Supporters Direct.
You have constantly stated that a Supporters Trust was pie in the sky, but the fact is that you are wrong on that point. I have said that the development of the KC is not viable at this moment in time. Until the interview with Ehab the figures banded about that where needed in order to prevent the name change were more than a trust could raise. Ehab came out with a figure and time scale that was actually within the capabilities of a supporters trust.
The alternative Supporters Trust would have had the support of the club as it was not based on the name change campaign group CTWD. It could have raised the underwriting needed to form an IPS.
It was a viable alternative to Hull Tigers being applied for. And it was effectively scuppered.
That's simply not true, almost every supporters trust came about through some sort of campaign group.
Even if that were true, it works on the assumption that the Hull Tigers name change was motivated by finance and that simply isn't the case.
For a long time I've not got involved in this discussion but have been watching it, to some extent from afar (not the Ethiopian region). I've rather thought that I have no right to comment as I'm not in a position to put my money where my mouth (writing) is. Whilst I have been a passionate supporter since the early 1960s when first taken to Boothferry Park by my dad, and grew up with his stories of the Raich Carter era, I've only ever been a season ticket holder for a couple of years. Though born in Hull and spent the first 20 years of my life in Hull and the East Riding, plus a few more later at Hull University, I was rarely in a situation to be a consistent 'finacial' supported. My connections with the city have now faded over the years as I've been living in various countires worldwide for the past 30 years. Hull City Football Club is, and always will be, an indelible part of my identity, part of my soul, as it will be with my own 5 children, despite their even greater distance from The Tigers in any real terms.
However, I will be arrogant enough to offer my thoughts, yet remain humble as a mere 'distant supprter'.
I have to say I find myself somewhat indifferent to the name change, though inclined to accept the Allem's direction for a number of reasons.
Primarily, I feel incredibly grateful to the Allem's that I still have a club to support - regardless of any speculative questioning of their motives (alltruism is unfortunately is always questionable).
Furthermore, I think there is some merit in the 're-branding' idea commercially. I see a certain inevitability in 'football/soccer' as a whole being re-branded for commercial reasons to appeal to a growing younger, and global, generation who have no knowledge of a club's history, or little interest as they often cannot access it - significant aspects are too culturally alien. Indeed, I would not be surprised to find that the game itself may well become increasingly inrecognisable to the 'older generation' in a reltively short time. Young, overseas supporters are often incredibly fickle. One could explore what some of our Professors of 'future change' are suggesting. In this respect the Allem's could be regarded as being ahead of the game. I also respect what the Allem's are trying to do in terms of the business of ensuring the club is on a solid financial foundation to survive. Any football club without ownership of its stadium is inevitably short on assets to cover those tough times of relegation (how many clubs have never been relegated?), leaving the players as the main financial asset - the viscious downward spiral kicks in as clubs have to sell players to maintain their existence. The Allem's (it seems to me) have consistently said the re-branding would not be necessary had they been successful in attempts to purchase the KC and develop the stadium area commercially.
Thus I cannot identify too much with the CTID campaign, though am not without uunderstanding and sympathy. At times it does not help itself with excessive irrational emotionalism.
However, I do think the re-branding as such is unneccessary, perhaps somewhat misguided or misinformed. The Hull City AFC badge/logo alreay has both names clearly prominent. There is no doubt the cultural significance of the tiger in many parts of the world will bring exposure and commercial gain through sponsorship, and other means. All that is required is a change of name 'emphasis' when marketing in different areas. Any potential European (perhaps also eastern seabord US, and Canada) markets may well prefer the sense of history & connotations associated with 'Hull City', whereas Asian (and African) markets would likely prefer 'The Tigers'. The bonus for 'The Tigers' in any market is that it translates easily into many if not most languages.
There is however some misunderstanding as to whether the 'Hull Tigers' name will work in east Asia which seems to be the intended and most lucrative market currently as it seems to me they will refer to 'the tigers' anyway, either in English or their own language, as in English, Hull is very difficult to say for chinese and related language speakers!
Enough, I've said my piece.
What will be will be.
However, I will be arrogant enough to offer my thoughts, yet remain humble as a mere 'distant supprter'.
I have to say I find myself somewhat indifferent to the name change, though inclined to accept the Allem's direction for a number of reasons.
Primarily, I feel incredibly grateful to the Allem's that I still have a club to support - regardless of any speculative questioning of their motives (alltruism is unfortunately is always questionable).
Furthermore, I think there is some merit in the 're-branding' idea commercially. I see a certain inevitability in 'football/soccer' as a whole being re-branded for commercial reasons to appeal to a growing younger, and global, generation who have no knowledge of a club's history, or little interest as they often cannot access it - significant aspects are too culturally alien. Indeed, I would not be surprised to find that the game itself may well become increasingly inrecognisable to the 'older generation' in a reltively short time. Young, overseas supporters are often incredibly fickle. One could explore what some of our Professors of 'future change' are suggesting. In this respect the Allem's could be regarded as being ahead of the game. I also respect what the Allem's are trying to do in terms of the business of ensuring the club is on a solid financial foundation to survive. Any football club without ownership of its stadium is inevitably short on assets to cover those tough times of relegation (how many clubs have never been relegated?), leaving the players as the main financial asset - the viscious downward spiral kicks in as clubs have to sell players to maintain their existence. The Allem's (it seems to me) have consistently said the re-branding would not be necessary had they been successful in attempts to purchase the KC and develop the stadium area commercially.
Thus I cannot identify too much with the CTID campaign, though am not without uunderstanding and sympathy. At times it does not help itself with excessive irrational emotionalism.
However, I do think the re-branding as such is unneccessary, perhaps somewhat misguided or misinformed. The Hull City AFC badge/logo alreay has both names clearly prominent. There is no doubt the cultural significance of the tiger in many parts of the world will bring exposure and commercial gain through sponsorship, and other means. All that is required is a change of name 'emphasis' when marketing in different areas. Any potential European (perhaps also eastern seabord US, and Canada) markets may well prefer the sense of history & connotations associated with 'Hull City', whereas Asian (and African) markets would likely prefer 'The Tigers'. The bonus for 'The Tigers' in any market is that it translates easily into many if not most languages.
There is however some misunderstanding as to whether the 'Hull Tigers' name will work in east Asia which seems to be the intended and most lucrative market currently as it seems to me they will refer to 'the tigers' anyway, either in English or their own language, as in English, Hull is very difficult to say for chinese and related language speakers!
Enough, I've said my piece.
What will be will be.
Fair enough, Addis, but Allam wanted the KC for nothing - he wanted to use it as security on which to raise money for development of the surrounding area (incl. Walton Street car-park/fairground).
Some good points. Even if they managed to get more revenue from the Asian markets as a rebranded entity (which I sincerely doubt) they are missing the opportunity to market the current name around the rest of the world. The current name and nickname, as has been pointed out many times, gives the owners everything they need to market the club successfully. All it needs is for them to accept what we have is the best of all worlds, and get on with it.
I would not be so presumptious as to make any claims of knowledge towards the Allem's intent in terms of the site development or how he went about it re its financing but presumeably those are matters which would be part of the whole purchase negociations and agreements, which would inevitably involve various controls, regulations and provisos which may well have been particularly limiting, if not prohibitive for the Allem's, with the city council involved. It seems however, things were a long way from that level of negociation for any assumptions of intent to be any more than speculative.
Read the email. A CTWD representative told Supporters Direct that you were NOT a single issue group but were already a involved in other supporter and community activities. The CTWD says quite clearly REMAIN a single issue group. What is the truth?
So Assem Allam isn't skint as you have constantly told us, he has the money all along and has never wanted to profit from developing the area around the KC and he didnt get upset because HCC wouldnt give him it for free? He just wants to have a go at HCC, wow.
We are a single issue campaign group, we have so far done nothing but campaign against a name change, as that campaign comes to an end(hopefully), our members will now decide if we should move on to becoming something else(ie a supporters trust), as we have proposed. It's not complicated.
That's not what I said at all, you're being deliberately facetious. AA obviously wanted to develop the land around the stadium and does want to increase income, but the name change didn't come about as a way to increase funding. Increasing funding was simply used as an excuse to try and justify a name change that was actually about AA wanting to get at the council.
We do an appalling job of marketing the club on it's own doorstep, i'm astounded that anyone would seriously think that we could mount a concerted campaign in Asia. What's happened over the past six months has made us far less appealing to sponsors and investors, I understand that even our shirt sponsor has done one.
