FA have voted against allowing the owners to change the name. Will please the traditionalists, but will be interesting to see how the owners react -has their bluff been called, or will they try to sell up or simply stop investing (they say they are cleaned out already). Seems that football clubs are like Grade 2 listed buildings, you have to get the council's permission to change them (excluding kits, obviously).
I think this was a great bit of news, why change 100+ years of history with re-branding. I think some of our players are old enough to be Grade 2 listed... Sorry, I'll get me coat!
Well, the owners reckoned they could generate much more cash overseas with the name change, that's the reasoning. I reckon most supporters would prefer to keep the old name rather than have £15m to spend on players. Perhaps even to the extent of being relegated, which is what might happen to Hull next year if their owners try to get some cash back and start selling their better players......
I am a bit hypocritical in my opinion. I think the FA are being like Big Brother and are operated by generally moronic cronies, so I am disappointed they have wielded their power as usual. At the same time, I think the proposed name change is all a bit American really and I would be seriously unhappy if some foreign owner wanted to change QPR to Shepherds Bush Destroyers, or other such rubbish.
I really thought tango and cash were going to change our name to London rangers. From a purely business POV, it would really make sense. I don't think the hull name change makes sense at all though.
Chesea should be forced to change their name being a misnomer and all. As for us TFL is how we are right now, we'll probably be in red and white hoops by the time the Malaysian's finished with us.
That's a very fair point, it's just sad that football has come to this but yes money has to come in from somewhere I guess!
The reasoning was based on: Everton get £5M a season from their Asian sponsor, and that proves that if we change our name we'll get a similar deal. and: "The Tiger is a powerful image in advertising. In fact I saw one in an advert on the telly the other night, what was it, oh yeah that was it, McCoys crisps have a tiger in their new advert. What's a tiger got to do with crisps?" You'd like to think I was joking, but that is pretty much word for word what our vice-chairman (the owner's son, and actually the more convincing one of the two of them) came out with on the radio when he was trying to convince us all it was a good idea. The fact they've had a falling out with Hull City Council to the extent where last season we had a celebration at the stadium instead of an open top bus parade through the city because he didn't want the Council to be attaching themselves to our success has absolutely nothing to do with him wanting to drop the City from our name.
Dont know what all the fuss was about tbh. I like the name "Tigers" how funny would it have been if they had a player named Tony......Not sure if they have but he'd have been loking for a new club surely Shepheards Bush Destroyers.....mmmm...Loftus Lions maybe...??
Maybe in the days before image rights. Nowadays they'd be in the office with the money men getting themselves a bumper pay deal to be the face of the club. I'm not one of the most emotionally against it fans (I've openly said I'd be fine with changing the name if there was a good case for it), but the name is the only constant through the entire history of the club. We've had different grounds, we've had different colours (not just stripes/plain, we had sky blue kits when dyes were unavailable in the post war years), we've had different owners, managers, players, and obviously there's not likely to be any fans around from 1904. The club has had several business names behind the playing name as well. If the name is changed then there is nothing of the original club left, we'd be the Trigger's sweeping brush of football. Given the fights we've had as fans in the past to keep the club and the name alive, to give up that one constant just because the owner is having a hissy fit with the local council who have a very similar name to us is naturally going to produce opposition, especially when no benefit is shown by owners who repeatedly lie to and abuse the fan base for having a connection to the name. We already have the nickname of "The Tigers" on our club crest along with a tiger's head, we play in black and amber stripes, we have 2 tigers as our mascots. If the marketing department can't sell the tiger branding based on all that, I don't see changing the word City to Tigers in our playing name is going to suddenly stop them being incompetent. And surely The Tigers would be a better marketing device than Hull Tigers. "The" is unique, as opposed to being one of many sporting teams called Tigers (eg Leicester Tigers and Castleford Tigers who are both obviously massive in Asia compared to their competition ) and they've said they want us to have a name that's unique in the PL because that'll lift us above Aston Villa and West Bromwich Albion. (Yeah, that's another from the interview, a unique name will help us be better than two other teams with unique names)
