I think the fact people have chosen to try and belittle the campaign rather than post solid reasons why the name change is a good idea on the thread set up specifically for that says a lot about the motives of such people and as I put before, the names of the posters 'opposing' were pretty much predictable.
I am anti-name-change, although, having seen the issue progress, I believe any opposition is futile in all respects other than a sense of having tried. That's a pity, but it's how I see it. There are those who oppose the name-change and will take part in a campaign to fight it; I would class these as a vociferous minority. There are those who aren't fond of the name-change, but really can't be arsed to fight it, as they see it as a done-deal. These are the ones who AA has always relied upon and are by far the majority. There are those who like and embrace the name-change, these, thank God, are another minority group. The two minority groups are the polarized north and south of the argument, the majority can be found at all points in between and would contain most of the 16,000 regular supporters and a good many of the exiles.
I disagree with your figures. Could you show some justification? I know of no City fan personally that isn't opposed to the change. I know of no City fan that has given a good, justifiable reason to show the change will be constructive and despite many words, I've yet to see justification posted on a message board.
I'm pretty sure you were for the name-change when this thing first started, Dutch. Or were you just being Devil's Advocate? P.S. - I can't be arsed to go back and find the relevant posts.
I've never been in favour of the name change. My biggest argument has always been the lies that surrounded it coming in. I'd be intrigued to see the posts that made you thin I was in favour.
What?? Are you for real? Where have I mentioned mods? Here you go again blurring the lines between your personal posts and views and those of moderation. You make bold statements about me not being able to substantiate digs against moderation when I have never (in this topic) mentioned it. I have made comment about General tone and selectivity of some posts and tried to do so without being personal; it was you who took it there. If you are posting at me as a Moderator, then explain what I have done wrong and do it in open forum, rather than your weak personal messages. If you are taking part in the debate, then stand your corner and stop this move on bullshit; you're not as impressive as you appear to think you are; as a number of decent posters have found it necessary to point out to you. Polished your awards lately?
I don't think so. Hard to say without seeing the post in question, but I think you may be putting my name to someone elses post?
Very hard to keep track of who is who, like the word 'City' it now seems that 'AFC' has also become so common.
Conversely, I've yet to see any good reasons not to change the name. Heritage is clearly a personal thing, as demonstrated by how certain people view that in this thread. The good old "I don't mind change but..." argument holds no water and there is no substance at all behind the "there will be no commercial gain from a name change" one either. I trust Dr A to carry on doing what's best for the club, I've always called us mostly the Tigers or some variation of that, I like the name Hull Tigers. My dad always called us the Mighty Tigers, and so did my granddad. So for me, its fine. Surely the starting point for those organising this campaign is to present an argument against the name change and to gather as many people to that banner as possible? (I think it's futile btw, Dr A will do what he thinks is best, because that's always worked for him). If it remains at the current level, you're gonna need 50 badges to start off, not thousands. If it's just meant to be a cliquey representation of AN and CI then fine, but if it wants to be taken seriously it needs much much wider support, and to do that, a non abusive and sensible argument needs putting forward. Some people like me, would take a massive amount of convincing, but the majority of people are really not arsed one way or the other, surely those people are the aim for the campaign? Insulting them is hardly a clever way to go about it. Let's see a proper list of solid reasons why we shouldn't change the name. Both sides of this "debate" on Not606 have some, shall we call them pedants, who just like to argue for effect, or like to call people names if anyone disagrees with them. As has been pointed out loads on here, if you don't like these peoples views, ignore them, they're perfectly entitled on here to read and respond to anything they want.
I think Fez raises some good points. If I'm not mistaken he's saying that at present we are a small minority and how are we going to persuade all those who are unhappy with the name change to get involved which could mean everything from wearing a badge, signing an on-line petition, marching or other forms of protest. In the last week we have seen the numbers contributing to the campaign increase. People are coming forward with ideas and money. We are moving in the right direction and we have until April when the Premier League has to agree that Assem Allam has abided by their rules before it can approve any name change. One of the things they will do is compare the consultation carried out by Everton with the consultation carried out by Hull City Tigers Ltd. Happy Tiger, many people call us City. By changing the name you deny them that privilege. If they carry on as Assem Allam suggests then over time, especially if we are successful, they will look like cranks. If you don't believe me walk into any of the old banks in the city centre that are now pubs and ask for your change in shilling pieces. As you know they still exist unlike the ten bob note. Finally why would we want a new nickname? Don't you think The Tigers is perfect?
I think everyone can judge your childish response for what it is, I'll not give it legs by adding anymore.
I'd say that there's been plenty of evidence to show the name change won't work, but some seem intent on ignoring it, favouring it might be alright, as an option. In argument, the onus falls on those making the positive statement to prove it, not vice versa. That means the onus is on those in favour (or not against) the change to show how it will be successful. As there's been evidence to show that the research isn't even completed on that, I'll be intrigued to see something support that claim. History also works against those favouring the change, with a long list of failures, many mirroring the process of change we're currently going through. The nearest I've seen to an argument supporting it, is it can gain fans in Asia. Experience of other clubs shows this to be flawed, but I'd wager any increase in merchandise/sponsorship would be mirrored or even exceeded by a loss in local fan base. If this is about the Tiger brand. It can still be done without changing the name, and building on tradition, as it's tradition that's held in more esteem that crass, cynical commercialism. Also, the whole question of this being about Asia is quite likely a massive red herring, with the main goal being the local council.
