This is an interesting independant view.
http://www.lawinsport.com/blog/littleton-chambers/item/the-vanishing-tiger-what-s-in-a-name
THE DEBATE
Perhaps inevitably the debate over the change of name is emotive. The football club was founded in 1904 and picked up the nickname of the Tigers from around 1905. Fans have strongly opposed the change in name using an emotionally charged
video4 to argue the case for retaining the name as Hull City, the campaign operates under the banner ‘
City till we die’5.
On the other side of the debate Assem Allam and his family claim to have contributed
over £74million to the club6 and they have overseen the rescue from administration to top flight football. They say that they need the club to be self-sustaining and to do that they need to expand to appeal to an international audience, to differentiate themselves, and to have a brand that gives them an edge over their competitors. Commercially the club belongs to them and they have the right to do as they please with their asset.
It is not known publicly at this stage which factors have been considered by the Membership Committee, and which factors will prove influential for the Council. Might I suggest one point that ought to be included in the mix if it isn't already. The Premier League Financial Regulations put the onus on clubs to be self-sustaining, not loss making. They encourage the sort of ‘business minded’ rather than ‘donation minded’ approach, which is being proposed here. In business the decision over a rebranding exercise can be equally divisive but those who will stand or fall on the financial and commercial success of the venture take the final decision.
I would be the first to say that football is much more than just business, it is because of that that I want to see clubs prosper financially and avoid the depressingly common spectre of administration. Hull City fans are rightly proud to be ‘City till they die’ but in the international community saying that you support ‘City’ may to lead to an initial assumption that you support Manchester City – surely that risk alone merits consideration of the name change!
If the business case for changing the name is sound and football clubs must work towards balanced books under the Premier League Financial Regulation is there an argument that the proposed refusal is irrational? Injections of equity from the owner is one element considered by the rules in calculating the level of permissible loss. Owners will be discouraged from injecting equity if key commercial decisions are taken out of their hands. I haven't had the pleasure of seeing the arguments in full or knowing details of The FA Membership Committee recommendation so I look forward to seeing the details when released.
Interestingly a brief look at the history books suggests that when a club moves base it is easier to change the name. Wimbledon FC became the Milton Keynes Dons when they moved in 2002. Arsenal emerged from Woolwich Arsenal when they crossed the Thames. Perhaps if Assem Allam were to relocate the club he would find it easier to rename it. Probably not the result the fans are after…