From the Daily Mail: "There was a lot more support than expected on the FA council, especially from the professional game, for the Hull City name change. Indeed, it was only rejected by a 47-27 majority. Those who spoke out in favour of chairman Assem Allam being allowed his Tigers rebranding after investing £74m in the club were Football League chairman Greg Clarke, Barnsleyâs Barry Taylor, Oxford Unitedâs Ian Lenagan and Lancashire FA chairman Brett Warburton."
It's only a matter of time. If you're not with them etc. Proof there being every single person or article that was not for CTWD has been attacked on these forums. Some in extremely poor and offensive taste. All by your supporters Al. Grow some balls and take some responsibility for them ffs.
Right, I bet these ****s would be happy for another club to suffer rebranding but Barnsley Bulldogs?, Oxford Ostriches? and Bolton Cosmos? These turds would not dare try it at their own clubs- they know it would fail there too.
Don't you think there is a certain amount of spin on the HDM report? They could have just as easy have reported that a large majority objected to AA's proposal. 63.5% against isn't exactly a close shave is it ?
So you now comment on subjects based on posts you anticipate coming in the future? And you wonder why people throw fruity insults at you.....
HT, you've a right to your own opinion on here the same as everyone else and you've been vehemently against CTWD. But to see anything about CTWD in the OP when it's not there is worrying, I seriously believe you need professional help because that just seems like obsessiveness.
Nothing more than a purposefully disruptive influence, with absolutely no substance to his accusations and empty remarks. A troll of the worst kind, no attempt at humour and wit, not having a laugh and a bit of a wind up, just turning up on every thread smearing utter **** all over the place with the intention of preventing any sort of debate. Happy Troll Tiger should be banned, nowhere else would put up with constant made up nonsense and fantasy scenarios, so why should we? It's best for the flow of the board. I can't remember a thread in the last few weeks that hasn't been vandalised by his ridiculous anti CTWD propaganda, whether there's even been any mention of CTWD or not, as we can see here on a completely unrelated thread. Perhaps we should have a poll, and see if his much talked up silent majority stand up for him. The questions could be: No to happy tiger and the hull city forum continues to exist. Yes to happy tiger. I don't really care and will carry on using the board regardless. Sounds fair doesn't it.
The FA Committee that reviewed all the evidence put forward by both sides unanimously recommended the proposal be rejected. It would be interesting to know why 36.5% of FA Council members who weren't present when all the evidence was put forward felt that they were in a better position to assess the merits of the case than the Committee. If the Committee had been split and people could say that their position is usually more similar to one of the members who said Yes then fair enough, but nobody that was presented with all the evidence said Yes. Greg Clarke was expected because he's previously spoken out in support of allowing it because he didn't want a precedent being set with us that would prevent a L1/2 club from making a change in similar circumstances because that could jeopardise the future existence of clubs at that level (on the assumption that there were actually sponsors behind our move). And the two club representatives are presumably thinking if we're not competing with them at the moment, if we let them do it and it works we'll copy them, if it doesn't work then they've ****ed themselves so there's no loss for us either way. The Lancashire FA is an odd one though. If you look at it even further, 1/3 near enough ignored the Committee to vote Yes. Presumably though there were people on the No side who were also going to vote No regardless of what the Committee said. In the case of ERYCFA we know it's down to a poll of members determining their vote. Chances are though that the Committee recommendation actually influenced less than half the votes, which does raise questions about whether that's enough to justify things being as they are. (Should they scrap Committees if unanimous decisions are going to be ignored by so many, or should they change who is on the Council so that informed recommendations are followed by more of the Council)
I think committees have their place. They looked at the evidence and presumably if they found any evidence in favour of a name change they would have alerted the members. This left the members who were still in favour of the name change to go with their gut feeling. The remaining members were either against the name change or were influenced by the committee's findings. The Allam's will continue to issue threats about what they will do with the club but it is obviously in their interest to make the club successful and deep down they know that is more likely to happen with Steven Bruce being able to make progress on the playing front. There's a top seven in the Premier League who are out of reach but then there is Southampton and Newcastle who we are capable of joining if we can get away from the bottom 11. Newcastle seem to be punching above their weight and a few clubs like Stoke and West Ham and maybe Swansea could do better. If the Allam's are going to sulk about not getting the name changed rather than concentrating on proper marketing then I worry about progress. I would still like to increase the ground to 34,000 capacity - which can be done cheaply - and then more tickets can be sold to away fans and prices can come down to fill the home areas. There would also be more income possible from merchandising, food and drink and programmes as well as hospitality.
You're adding nothing to this board nowadays, you're just a whining **** and it's getting very tedious.
