You might not be old enough to have read the Just William books, but he is just like Violet Elizabeth Bott.
I started quoting bullshit posts from this thread to put right, but it would have been longer than one of Tickler's.
Motion carried... Trust’s heritage motions carried at FSF AGM The Football Supporters’ Federation held its AGM in Manchester today (Sunday 19th July). The Trust had tabled two motions on club heritage and communications for the FSF to adopt, and both were carried. This means that the FSF will help us to engage with the FA for the purpose of strengthening the FA rules on heritage. The two motions were: Motion 1: “The Federation recommends that the Football Association amends its Rules such that a specific and binding rule is put in place to protect the heritage aspects of its football clubs, including but not limited to the club’s playing name, the club’s playing kit colours, the club’s badge and the club’s nickname. Changes to any aspect of a club’s heritage will be permitted within the new Rule, but only after a fair, clearly worded and unambiguous ballot has been conducted amongst a reasonable spread of supporters – which could comprise any or all of the club’s season ticket holders, the club’s supporters club(s) members and/or the club’s Supporters’ Trust members.” Motion 2: “The Federation recommends that the Football Association amends its Rules such that the club’s media assets use only the club’s playing name, playing kit colours, badge and nickname as determined by the proposed new Rule as set out in Motion 1, in so far as the name, colours, badge or nickname are deemed necessary to identify the club in any media asset. The media assets that relate to the amended Rule will include, but not be limited to, the club’s name in the matchday magazine, affiliated team names (junior teams, ladies teams, etc); the club’s websites; the club’s social media sites and usernames, the club’s press, radio, TV and online advertisements; the club’s press releases; and the club’s stadium signs and banners. The use of a club name other than the registered playing name on a media asset will be prohibited, and subject to a sanction to be determined by the appropriate FA committee.” http://hullcitysupporterstrust.com/trusts-heritage-motions-carried-at-fsf-agm/
"The use of a club name other than the registered playing name on a media asset will be prohibited, and subject to a sanction to be determined by the appropriate FA committee.” Spurs? No name at all?
Tottenham HotSPUR - it is part of the name like CITY is part of our name - like CITY is part of our name - did you hear that Allam
This is a mock up of a statue, it was outside the FSF summit at the weekend, there's a campaign to get a permanent version at Wembley... please log in to view this image
Changes to any aspect of a club’s heritage will be permitted within the new Rule, but only after a fair, clearly worded and unambiguous ballot has been conducted amongst a reasonable spread of supporters – which could comprise any or all of the club’s season ticket holders, the club’s supporters club(s) members and/or the club’s Supporters’ Trust members.” This should be a ballot of season ticket holder's only, by including other groups you are opening up a can of worms regarding individuals multiple voting. And why should none season pass holder's have a say what goes in at the club.
not really because the team name is Tottenham Hotspur - ie the Spur is part of the team name - unlike Hull City where the team name is not Hull City Tigers and Tigers is not part of the team name - unless you're Allam who believes it is
Ah right, so Liverpool couldn't use "The Reds" or Everton "The Toffees" Ipswich "The Tractor Boys" for the old farm derby or derby "The Rams". etc?
Quite ironic that there was no discussion with fans to get their views and iron these things out before putting the motion forward.
Tottenham Hotspur may have a problem, they have an official and unofficial nickname. Although the FA could allow abbreviations such as Man City, Man Utd and Spurs. Hull City would then be Hull or City. Fixing rules for a particular situation is always more difficult, especially if the rules have been in place for a long time.
Twitter has an account name and an account handle, the account name is written in full, but the handle doesn't have enough characters to write many club names in full, so they're abbreviated - Tottenham Hotspur @SpursOfficial, Swansea City FC @SwansOfficial, Manchester City FC @MCFC etc Ironically, Twitter is the one place where City still have the correct name Hull City @HullCity. On Facebook all clubs would already meet these rules, except for us obviously. There would be nothing to stop clubs using their nicknames, just not as the main account names online.
All our members were emailed with details of our plans for this motion, they were also posted on City message boards and the feedback has been universally positive(not just from City fans, but from fans of all clubs).
I can see that. I agree with the spirit of it, I just think it makes for a clumsily worded motion that would make it unworkable in reality as it appears to have quite a few holes. Nicknames evolve, like the tractor boys etc, I'm not sure how adding a vote and layers of bureaucracy to using that adds to the fun of football that's dissapearing.
Do you haver a link to the discussion on here? It's the busiest on line Hull City area after all. A wider consultation could have helped make for a better motion and encouraged majority involvement as well as perhaps encouraging people to join the trust. As it is, presenting a motion as a fait accompli without encouraging wider discussion and input and then simply defending that rather than listening to comments and learning is to some extent mirroring elements of what the Allam's are accused of.
I always thought before anything could be done it had to be agreed by the membership by a ballot, well that is in proper organisations.
