He questioned the loyalty of those who don't mind Hull Tigers. You've always said you're anti name change though remember?
I am and have never said any different, but its not me who has shown such generous support to a club that actually changed its name for commercial reasons and championed its owner, is it. No that honour goes to you PLT. This thread is about Hull United and I asked a question of the poster, he places value on the name Hull City AFC, but does not see that he is posing that view on a thread about a club that changed its name purely for commercial reasons. For me that is a debate worth having. What is the difference between St Andrews and Hull City having their names changed, what makes it right for one and wrong for another? It is not a question of what I think or support, its a question of what makes someone support the opposite to what they protest against.
You mean like refusing to put money in the Allams pockets while being director of a trust that sponsors a player? You can't be surprised he's full of ****?
Yes I know Mazzer, but how do you feel about St Andrews changing their name to Hull United for commercial reasons? After all the thread op is titled Hull United. By the way, you don't really have to answer.
It was a debate worth having last time we had it. I'll indulge your question but first let's stick to the point. You appeared defensive about the previous poster questioning the loyalty to HCAFC of someone who doesn't mind Hull Tigers. You've always said you're anti name change so it's interesting that you read his post as him questioning your own loyalty. Almost as if you're not really anti name change at all and just post it to appear less ridiculous. As regards your question; what is the difference between United and City. Hull United was formed when Jamie Waltham wanted to start a serious 2nd Hull club. He got St Andrews involved and they went along with it, agreeing to disband their senior team to be replaced by Hull United. Although they were happy to do that and some of their hierarchy are now involved at United, it's an entirely new club. It was established in 2014 and has no more link to St Andrews than MK Dons does to Wimbledon. Like United themselves do, I'd consider it a new club name rather than a name change of an existing club, but for the sake of your argument, let's say it was simply a name change. The key difference is that no one minded, everyone was on board and there was none of the bullying and lying like the Allams employed. No corrupt ballots, no insulting everyone involved and no pretending to have a business plan but refusing to talk about it and simply insisting "I know best". There was no kicking off and taking it out on the local community, the media and everyone else when faced with entirely reasonable opposition. I only went to United the first time because they'd just got Ashbee and I thought I'd go see him play (the plan was for him to be a bit part player but I think he quickly realised his body wasn't up to it and never actually played a game). But from that first visit I always found myself wanting to go back and now I'm there every week. That's because of how welcoming it is and what a nice change it makes from being treated like an unwanted nuisance at City. While I've never had to pay for a game at United I've always wanted to chuck some money in the bucket because I like everything about the club, its values and the enjoyment it gives me. With City I resent giving any money over for it to be used in such an unscrupulous manner as it has been over the last two years. Remember I didn't stop going last summer after the first year of it. The attempted name change alone wasn't what stopped me going, it was the conduct of the Allams in so many areas, usually done in Hull City's name, that tipped me over the edge. The Airco and particularly the use of the ASI fund were just completely disgusting and the way they lied to us about it the whole time even more so. I just aren't interested in financially supporting that kind of outfit. It isn't my club any more its an ugly corporate machine. We were told for two years to stop going if we don't like it. So I did. At United I very much do like it so it makes my absence from City a lot easier than it would have been. While City have lost 4,000 fans, United have gained hundreds from nothing and have smashed attendance records at the levels they've played at. That's largely because plenty of people have had a similar experience to me. Even if it was a 'comercial name change' it was clearly one that was much more welcome and better conducted than the Allams ongoing attempt, which is surprising given what amazing businessmen they are.
Curtis Woodhouse has posted advertising for a chief scout which is apparently a paid position watching games around Hull. Sounds like the perfect role for Chazz. Curtis also 'liked' a post from someone suggesting "Give Barmby a call." He then posted a thumbs up symbol but that could have been in response to any of the other comments on the topic. It's probably nothing, but I thought it was worth noting.
The change to Hull Tigers was not being pursued for commercial reasons. So the question posed is based on a false premise.
Excuse my ignorance, but are only so many teams allowed, and is there no relegation from or promotion to the bottom league? Just curious as to why they needed St Andrews if they wanted a whole new club.
I have no feelings regarding St.Andrews changing their name to Hull Utd. as I don't know about the two clubs and their reasons for doing it. I think indirectly you are trying to compare it to the Hull City name change. Well in my opinion the Allams attempt to change the name had nothing to do with commercial reasons, they just wanted the name City removed from the clubs name due to their dispute with Hull City council. But we all have differing opinions on that matter.
To be clear, am I right in thinking that St Andrews changed their name to Hull United & in doing so became a completely different club with no attached history to it's predecessor? If so, it's a good job we had people willing to step up to the plate which enabled us to keep our name & maintain an association to our history.
Time plays tricks with memory, or, maybe, memories can be selective. I think TOM started by being ambivalent to the name-change, allowing the dropping of AFC as okay and, I'm fairly certain, giving some support to further name-change if that was what the owners wanted. That might of hardened in time to a position of fence-sitting, saying the name-change was not ideal, but refusing to condemn it. Anti-name-change would not be a term I would attribute as an always position regarding TOM's gradually changing position on the matter, it's just not true.
The attempt to suggest that changing the name of a 10 year old amateur club that had pretty much no following at all, is the same as changing the name of a 104 year old professional football club with tens of thousands of fans is pathetic.
Not sure about that. Even the definition of bottom league is very vague. United started in the Humber Premier and there are plenty more Saturday leagues below that. My guess is they maybe could have started at a much lower level without taking any existing team's place, but that would have meant that getting promoted to the higher levels of the non-league pyramid would take maybe 5 years longer.
So HCST has a director who is a season ticket holder at a different club. Who also doesn't watch Hull City but goes to watch and support another team. And finally, thinks a new club taking another clubs place to start higher up in the leagues, with a new name is just fine. Like MK Dons did. Which previously he's described as an abomination Won't give Allams his money but helps sponsor one of their players. Claims to be a City fan but supports another team. Despises MK Dons but supports a team created in similar circumstances. Nice principles there Mr Premier League.
I have never supported the change to Hull Tigers, I have said that I would have supported a change to Hull City Tigers, for me AFC is not as important as "City". I believe that compromise can be a solution to disputes. I supported the first protest march and after seeing the reaction in the West Stand Upper, I did not want to be involved with anything that could be considered protest in the KC. I also said that I did not support any chants or banners against the owner. As for Hull United, it was a club that changed its name for commercial reasons, no matter how it gets dressed up.
I don't think you can argue with any of that. Just a question of interest though, you're obviously developing a keen interest in Hull United - what will happen when the Allams do leave? Will you return, or have you found a new love (football wise)? I can see it being a difficult scenario (perhaps)? Though it may be completely straight forward?
