A new low??

Agreed. I really didn't know much about them but I read their website t'other week and it's really good.

 

The thing is if the fans now start using the word Tigers, the Allam's will twist the supporters goodwill and claim that the supporters are behind their plans to rebrand the club.
They may be petty, vindictive and childish ****s but they are not daft. And they certainly know whats going on in forum land.

 

I don't see what the problem is, that sounds absolutely a great, local, charity.
And for hud to say Allam gives the bare minimum is showing total disrespect for the man, he gives millions away to the city of Hull, he doesn't 'have' to give a bean

 

You don't have to post that again just cos nobody commented on it first time.
It was ****e then, and it hate to break it to you, it's still ****e second time around

 

When did I post that before?
You don't think the Allams have twisted the word and actions of the supporters?

 

Im sorry that the original point of the post has been lost. My point was that they should fund the Tigers Trust themselves and nominate another worthwhile trust ie Teenage Cancer Trust which we can support by bucket collections etc.

The Tigers Trust has a number of big backers already McDonalds and the Premier League to name two.

 

Just read through this thread this is what I thought the original post was about, not a name change to include 'Tigers' (although I don't see why it was needed) but the fact the club are effectively giving the money to themselves instead of an outside charity.

 

Reference your last sentence..

I'll take the opportunity to tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine then.

Thanks for that

 

How are they using it for their own ends?
It's a great idea.

 

Do some people consider using the name Tigers a dirty word or being pro name change???
Personally I always call us City but some have always calked us Tigers.
Everything doesn't have to end in name change crap on here does it.

 

Oh, sorry it was some other anti allam bollocks you posted on page two, it gets so tedious now you must forgive me for thinking it was the same

 

Care to expand on that or have we reached the limit of your debating skills?

 

I seem to remember a while ago somebody posted that they went to school with Ehab and that he was a bit thick then. The onset of adulthood and maturity doesn't appear to have improved him.

 

When you're singling out that it's to avoid paying rates on it, and it's only worth £100 (to a £30M+ turnover company) you really just highlight to the court the contempt you view the Council with. Probably not a great idea when you're in court accused of breaching your lease with them and they're highlighting the contempt and ultimatums/demands for illegal guarantees you've given them to demonstrate it's a wilful and intentional breach.

The thing with them being the charity partners is that the club has essentially said that it's going to be it's own charity partner. I know the saying says that charity begins at home, but when you run a charitable scheme receiving plenty of outside funding anyway, you can probably pick a better charity partner than yourself.

 

I think Angus Young meant £100,000. I'd be surprised if the SMC pays Business rates of less than £200 a year.

 

Young was lying or omission to make a good story?
Lapped up