How old is this FA rule? If it was created at the start of the FA then he could technically go as far back as: Founded in 1878 as West Bromwich Strollers, The name change occurred in 1880, 'Albion' being a former district of West Bromwich St. Domingo's. The original name was chosen in 1878, taken from a Methodist Cricket Club of the same name. The name was changed to Everton FC a year later, in 1879 Dial Square was founded in 1886, changed names in 1893 to Woolwich Arsenal, and in 1914 changed again, this time to just Arsenal FC Manchester United was founded in 1878 under the name of Newton Heath LYR and changed their name in 1902 Leeds City started in 1904 with the name Leeds United being adopted in 1919 Thames Ironworks FC. The London club was started by an Ironworks company in 1895, changed names to West Ham United in 1900, and joined the league in 1919
The name change rule is relatively recent, it came in after the MK Dons debacle and was also aimed at preventing clubs from having sponsors names in their club names(ie Red Bull Saltzburg).
The majority dont care what the club is called. Have you not seen the vote ? Just over 2500 said NO to a name change which is hardly a majority is it ?
I suspect they will hit the FA with EU law. If they do then the FA will have a problem. After Bosman and Kolpack we could then have the Allam ruling. Just a possibility.
You know full well that poll meant nothing. It's just another demonstration of Allam's sheer ****itude that he was prepared to stoop so low for such a needless cause.
Okay, to save you the trouble, they're not using EU law, they're appealing on the basis the fans should never have been asked for their opinion.
I agree the questions were poor. However there was nothing to stop the Majority voting NO to a name change regardless.
As you all know I don't agree with you all everything. But it is a real dick move from the Allams to appeal on those grounds. It's outright offensive that they talk about the fans as if they are insignificant. Of course the FA should consult with the fans to gage their/our response. My main problem with the Hull Tigers move is not the name change itself but the Allams conduct. One day they had an idea and ran with it. Regardless of what the fan might of thought they decided to just do it anyway and it came out of nowhere. There was minimal contact with fans. No outreach to the majority and not just supporters groups. No paperwork, no leaflets or booklets. No real consultation. No facts or figures of why it is beneficial. No quality research and no reasons why they wanted to do it. They could have avoided all the hostility if they spoke to the fans on a respectful level and used to decorum and pr skills to present the idea in an articulate and readable way. They could have at least been a bit tactile rather than acting like dictators and saying this is happening and we are going ahead with it whether you like it or not. Regardless of the fact that in 10/15/20 years time you will still be here and we will have gone. Instead they did it out of anger because of the council situation and have taken it out on the wrong people. Now I am a big fan of the Allams and they have turned our fortunes round, made us the best we have ever been and made us one of the best ran clubs in the country. But they seem unable to sit still and always need to be trying to fix certain things that don't need fixing.
Wasn't it "YES - and the Allams to stay" or "NO"? The hidden meaning is "NO - and the Allams to quit" - that would have set you and all the other 'pro' chancers to claim that CTWD was against the Allams. And you know it, surely?
Here's why I don't think he'll win under EU law. its a long read and includes other stuff as well. http://www.hullcityindependent.net/?page=forum&forum_id=8&thread_id=19566&selpage=0
