Assem thinks we should be called Hull Tigers, Hull City Tigers is merely a stepping stone, if you accept the first name change, be sure the second is coming, that's why I've put them together. This is a vote about what the club is known as generally, to us it will obviously remain City.
But it not a black and white issue is it, that's why fans are sitting on the fence. Some want to keep Hull City AFC, some don't mind losing the AFC, some would accept Hull City Tigers etc..
As I just said, in my opinion, if you allow Hull City Tigers to go through unopposed, then expect Hull Tigers shortly afterwards, it is absolutely the aim.
Assuming you're the same RowZ that's on CI, two weeks ago you were adamant that there was no change at all.
Having two options on the poll is rather restrictive. Personally I've always called them Hull City or Tigers and will continue to do so. The other option is I don't give a **** what we're called, I certainly don't agree with that. I would object if we were re-named Allem Marine FC, I mean he could pull out of his business and we'd be shortened to Allem's FC, which could eventually lead to the slippery slope of being named AFC.
I hear you loud and clear OLM - Allam has indicated further change into the future, i.e, Hull Tigers. The question though for me is a tactical one - IF on the basis of "City" being the key word that needs to be preserved (and I accept that anything less than Hull City AFC is too much of a compromise for some) - is Allam more likely to respond favourably to the idea of compromise in the form of Hull City Tigers or stubbornly move towards Hull Tigers on the basis of "no-one will tell me what to do", if faced with total opposition? I don't claim to know the answer to that and therefore can't really argue strenuously one way or t'other. I just get the feeling that if the position I outlined in my previous post, (that "City" is the key word, as against the letters AFC, and "Tigers" will always be there anyway), is correct in the sense that there might be a large proportion of people that feel that way, then people concerned with getting a satisfactory outcome should start turning their attention to achieving that outcome. Getting hung-up on AFC - and I duly note you haven't done that in the options you offer in this poll - or accepting the inevitability of Hull Tigers, may end up ruling out the possibility of Hull City Tigers (protecting the word City) which may be an acceptable outcome - at least until the next owners.
I have no problem with the fact that as the owner of the club he is entitled to change the club's name, as long as he follows due process. I do have a problem with the fact that the change has been processed in a dishonest and insulting manner. The historic name of our club (it is ridiculous to pick at the individual words) requires no change for enhanced marketing, nor is it irrelevant or common. Assem Allam was directly dismissive and massively insulting to all those Hull City AFC supporters, past and present, who hold that name with fond memories and as a core to their collective club loyalty; there is no way I will ever give my loyalty to his wallet.
Sport magazine are taking the piss now, in their report on Saturday's game, they called us Hull Bay Wildcats.
Why is it that when an alternative opinion is put forward on this forum, it is nearly always met with scorn, abuse and name calling by the people (and we know who these people are) putting forward the original discussion--ending in argument ! I, for one and I am sure there are many others, use this forum as a way to find out more about the football club that we all support. Can we agree to disagree on the subject of the brand name. Some are against (and are very vocal about it), whilst others may support it . The vast majority feel it will not affect the way they call the club (CITY or the TIGERS) If the clubs owners feel they can enhance the clubs status and value in the world market--isn't that a good thing ! ! Or do you people wish to go back to the days when supporters walkrd around the ground at half time, carrying sheets and blankets to throw your money into. Some of the younger fans won't remember those dark days at Boothferry Park, I'm sure the older fans certainly do. Not to mention being locked out of the ground(Boothferry Park again) by the man(?) who came here purporting to be the clubs saviour! The back room staff and manager(Hateley) were equally sh** and only wanted fame and fortune. I was one of the idiots who got taken in at the Station Hotel when David Lloyd introduced himself and took to trumpet blowing! 'nough said. All I ask is for other FANS who hold an alternative view to left to their view without all the stupid abuse and namecalling. Alternatively --grow a set of balls--and shut up
Does anyone support it? I see only those who oppose it, or those who are prepared to tolerate it, I don't see anyone who actually thinks it's a good idea(other than Assem, obviously).
Do you have two log ons? In your rush to post, you seem to have posted the wrong link, I wanted one that supported the claim that the majority do not feel it will affect anything. The link you posted doesn't prove that.
I thought that link was interesting. It demonstrates whether you look on here, on other forums, on HDM comments etc etc.... there is never a united opinion on this issue.
