No, it doesn't. I'm struggling to any of the positives. If we're pitching to India, China (who's year of the Tiger isn't for another 9 years, so that's good timing ¬_¬) or Thailand, then we need to do it with more than just saying "We're in the PL and named after an animal you apparently like". We're also twinned with Freetown in Sierra Leone, so why don't we start doing some stuff over there too? They produce some great players (Medo at Bolton is a cracking little player); the lad that we made the video for, Mohammad Bangura, now plays for AIK in Sweden (how's he getting on Febbos?). There must be something there?
it does seem the wrong reason to make the name change - to appeal to far east business - as all they are interested in is Success , they would support in anyway possible Barca , Man Utd , Chelsea , Milan clubs etc regardless of their name , logo , team colour etc . But it seems Allam thinks that pushing TIGERS may help compete against the likes of Newcastle , Sunderland Everton and Villa - bigger clubs in everyway - the Name change is always reversible so i dont see it causing any damage and provided it all remains sensible is there any real harm trying ?
Aside from pissing off a lot of fans? It's not really reversible in the short term; if we do it through the PL, then it lasts for a season at least. And one season is far too many. The word sensible doesn't really apply here; I can see what you mean, like if a future owner came in and changed it back. But honestly, it's not going to be for a while and I can see this being an ongoing issue. If you were to go to China, how many Newcastle, Norwich or Swansea shirts would you see? I'm guessing not many. I think it's to try and drum up investment for the club; after AA's interview saying "there's no more money for me to put into the club", the only logical choice is to get a rich Eastern investor in. And even if that's the case, there's still absolutely no need to change the name of the actual team. From somebody who is a self confessed no-hoper when it comes to football, AA really should've consulted a few external sources about what the feedback from fans would be like.
Hang on. If we stay up then we get all the television money from the Premier League. And that's actually a given, where all this "Tigers" brand bollocks is pie in the sky, and him hoping it works out. He should've consulted the fans and, it seems, his own MD, although he might be covering his own back.
Please reread the comments and try to understand what your reading and not what your opinions on the rebranding tell you to think other people are saying KNOB ! !
Yeah, but the money from the PL goes on a number of things, from buying players to stadium improvements. It'll become clearer as the season goes on, but the main goal has always been to make the club self-sustaining. AA doesn't want to put any more money in, but that doesn't mean that the outside investment has to stop completley. I agree about the fans being consulted, but if he thought it was going to make money, then he wasn't ever going to listen to us anyway. It's all about the money; he's a businessman and if that means pissing off a large proportion of us to make the club self sustaining, then it's clear that his priorities don't start with making the fans happy. Now, this raises the issue of "If AA decides that he doesn't want to invest any more AND we end up getting relegated, then where does the money come from?" Or even from our point of view, "If the name change is truly for the benefit of future investment (wrongly assuming that he has our best interests at heart), then can we oppose the name change to the point that it means the club continues to struggle?" What if the name change meant investment, but not changing it meant continuing as we are? They're both just theories, but as AA has stated that he isn't going to fund the club anymore, then I think it's safe to assume that we're looking for somebody to come in and buy him out.
It's depressing to read that we have one or two idiots whose response to this fiasco is "Well I'll continue to call em City like I always have done"
Not quite ready for a serious debate are you son? Best go and find your mate Agro he's more your level.
Did anyone hear that dick on Humberside interviewed on the protest? "If City signed Messi they'd complain" and "None of them probably know what AFC stands for" What an imbecile.
As I've already said, you think Hull City Tigers is a good name, so what's to debate? You're entitled to your opinion, but as I think your opinion is ****ing ridiculous and it seems you are alone on this board, I've no desire to debate it with you. Anyone want a debate with Craig?
Even better, the guy who claimed it's only the new Premiership fans who are against the change. Incredible.
I do fear for some people out there... That one makes absolutely no sense - if anything, it would be the new fans who are for the name change.
There's ten pages of debate, I just don't see the point in debating with someone who thinks Hull City Tigers is an improvement on Hull City. I didn't debate with my brother in law when he called his daughter Mercedes either, some people just don't get it.
There was another poll that was closed (tbh it was pointless, like this one) because it was deemed pointless. So no, I don't. http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull...atform-build/story-19045704-detail/story.html is as much effort as I can be arsed with, thats from last season. They've been called a few things over quite a period of time, so this as I said is not some recent stealthy change that suits your agenda over this. I doubt anyone was up in arms about the HDM's article either. The mens team get called a small mix too, and always have been, hardly anyone ever refers to AFC though. The BBC's page for us calls us Hull City, their PL table shows us as Hull, the actual PL table shows us as Hull City, Sky seems to show us consistently as Hull City. Most live games or highlights show as HUL or Hull, rarely Hull City. Not exactly any consistency there is there, other than no AFC. Have you complained to the BBC, Sky and PL about the missing AFC?
How can you possible argue that it isn't a stealthy change? Only two weeks before the name change became known, they had NT publicly stating it wasn't happening. I don't think he even knew. James Mooney and Ash Lord knew nothing about it either. If that isn't stealthy what is?
When people don't have opposite views it's not exactly a debate is it? Anyway Mercedes is a great name unless her surname's Allegro.
I've asked you several times why you keep banging about the AFC and you keep ignoring me. I didn't want the AFC dropped, but it has been and that's a pity, but what's far more important is what our football club is known as(as you're well aware Hull City AFC was our company name, that full title was never used by anyone and is a complete red herring). As I've stressed several times now, this is a vote about being called Hull City or Hull City Tigers(or Hull Tigers), there is no mention of AFC in relation the question posed on this thread. You've run out of ideas and keep banging on about something no-one else is disgusing, you're happy with Hull City Tigers, when it comes to it I'm sure you'll find a reason for being happy with Hull Tigers, either that or you'll bang on about AFC again.
As there are ten pages of debate here it rather makes a nonsense of "You're entitled to your opinion, but as I think your opinion is ****ing ridiculous and it seems you are alone on this board, I've no desire to debate it with you." Which was your next post. Face it, there are many people who disagree with you, some of whom actually prefer the name Hull City Tigers. They are just as entitled to their opinion as you are. You would do better to persuade people to share your view rather than alienating them with abuse and petty name calling.
