Name change discussion

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
OK... I like that.... the equivalent of running around with your fingers in your ears "lalalala I cant hear you!"
You can wish in 1 hand, and **** in the other.. let's see what is left after it all shall we?

The FA will reject the name change tomorrow and we have no plans to move to Melton, it's not me who's lala. <doh>
 
Its all turned out fine in the end, the Allams have their 'excuse' to stay now without, in their opinion, losing face, and the FA will reject the name change. All done and dusted.
 
Its all turned out fine in the end, the Allams have their 'excuse' to stay now without, in their opinion, losing face, and the FA will reject the name change. All done and dusted.

That's not my idea of fine. Pair of devious ****s need to go.
 
Ye think they will stan, and AA will appeal it and probably win. Who knows.

It is unlikely because the process was fair. The decision belongs to the FA and only the FA. Any appeal would have to show that the decision was totally unreasonable and perverse based on the evidence. Ehab Allam said there were no sponsors queuing up because of the name change which confirms the statement from the FA that the business case hasn't been made.

For the same reason I think an appeal to the courts will also fail. If he does go to the court it will be interesting to see what FIFA and UEFA do if we qualify for Europe.
 
Ye think they will stan, and AA will appeal it and probably win. Who knows.
If they do appeal, and I'm sure they will, it isn't going to help anyone let alone the team. It's a line in the sand moment for the FA and football authorities, if they allow it after such a definite no they are abdicating all authority to anyone with money.
 
If they do appeal, and I'm sure they will, it isn't going to help anyone let alone the team. It's a line in the sand moment for the FA and football authorities, if they allow it after such a definite no they are abdicating all authority to anyone with money.

Correct.

It&#8217;d be a purely selfish act that would rightly make the club and its fans a national and international pariah amongst other stakeholders.

From laughter to hatred: all in the name of such an embarrassing and unworthy rebellion.

Let's hope AA actually puts the shareholders first this time and protects his investment.
 
If they do appeal, and I'm sure they will, it isn't going to help anyone let alone the team. It's a line in the sand moment for the FA and football authorities, if they allow it after such a definite no they are abdicating all authority to anyone with money.

Thats why it may happen. Expect it to be announced some time during the WC, probably when/if England win a game.
 
Personally I believe that the meeting will rule that whilst rejecting the clubs application for a change this coming season, it will establish a protocol for changes to the traditional elements of clubs in line with government recommendations. Changes to team colours, badges and playing names will only be considered along preset guidelines and that stakeholders must be shown to have been fully consulted. The guidelines will be dependent on the level at which the club is current playing in order not to penalise smaller clubs.
The application by Hull City to change its playing name will be put on hold whilst these protocols are established.
A committee will be formed that will introduce these changes to the rules.

Fudge anyone?
 
<laugh> Another conspiracy theory.

Er no it isn't. They list the names of all their writers, except the "boss" who is just listed as "El Presidente", and some details about him, but not his name. I was just curious as to who he is because that can taint or whatever views they hold between objective or totally biased.

My assumption was "Ian" might be "El Pres" but it's not obvious.

No need for the paranoia, I hadn't actually considered Mr W until your conspiracy comment.

Do you know who the Ian on there is or not?