A timeline of club names from newest to oldest: 1969 Swansea City have the youngest name. They changed from Swansea Town in 1969, to celebrate Swansea earning city status. 1928 Stoke City are next. They also added city to their name having originally been founded as Stoke Ramblers. 1914 It is 100 years since Arsenal became, well, Arsenal. Before that they’d been Woolwich Arsenal. And before that they’d been Dial Square. 1908 Cardiff City are next. They have been Cardiff City since 1908. Before that they were Riverside AFC. 1905 Chelsea have always been Chelsea. Crystal Palace have always been Crystal Palace. They are the youngest clubs in the Premier League never to have changed their names, and they were both founded in 1905. They’ve had the same names for 109 years. 1904 Ironically, Hull City, the cause of all this, are one of only five teams in the Premier League never to have changed their name. They’ve been Hull City for 110 years, but possibly not for many longer. 1902 Norwich City have had their name since 1902, and it has remained unchanged since then. 1902 Manchester United started life as Newton Heath. Rumours that Ryan Giggs has been playing for so long he actually appeared for them are unconfirmed. United became Manchester United in 1902. 1900 West Ham United started life as Thames Ironworks, hence the “Irons” nickname which has stuck to this day. They’ve been the Hammers for 114 years. 1897 Southampton began their existence as the St. Mary’s Young Men’s Association FC, then became St. Mary’s FC, then became Southampton St. Mary’s. They settled on the simple Southampton in 1897, 117 years ago 1894 Manchester City rejoiced in the name St Mark’s (West Gorton) when they started. Then they became Gorton Association FC followed by Ardwick AFC. 120 years ago they changed it to Manchester City. 1892 Newcastle United started out as Stanley. We’d rather like a Premier League club simply called Stanley, but it wasn’t to be. The morphed into Newcastle East End, and a merger with Newcastle West End led to the formation of Newcastle United in 1892. 1892 It must surely be to the endless amusement of Evertonians that their nearest neighbours started with a name similar to their own. Liverpool grew out of a split in the Everton club, and they began life as Everton FC and Athletic Grounds Ltd. The FA at the time decided two teams called Everton was too confusing, and so after a couple of months Liverpool became Liverpool. 1888 Fulham were originally called Fulham St Andrew’s Church Sunday School FC, and also dabbled for a while with being called Fulham Excelsior. It was in 1888 that the current name was adopted. 1884 Tottenham Hotspur played their first matches under the name Hotspur FC. The Tottenham was added in 1884 to avoid confusion with another club of the same name. 1881 Sunderland’s original name was Sunderland & District Teachers AFC. The club adopted the shorter version of the name in 1881. 1880 West Bromwich Strollers was the first name of the club that became West Bromwich Albion. 1879 Everton nearly have the oldest name in the Premier League. They started out as St Domingo’s FC, but changed to Everton in 1879, because they were recruiting players from outside of the parish. That’s 135 years ago. 1874 Aston Villa are the undisputed Premier League kings of the long-standing name. They were founded as Aston Villa in 1874, and have never changed it. 140 years and counting.
Didn't we start as Hull Comet? Leicester City were Leicester Fosse until 1919. Leyton Orient 1987. Although that was a reversion to a previous name. The list is endless.
You've missed the most recent, Stevenage removing borough from their name. Modifica: just realised its a list of EPL clubs.
there was a Hull Town but as far as records go they didn't appear to be a club as such but participated in a couple of FA Cups, perhaps as a representative of the city.
The Economist view pioint http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2014/01/marketing-and-tradition-football?
Interesting article pity they don't fully understand how business works. If Assem Allam sold the club the only negotiation would be about how much of his debt would be written off. Once the club had been sold and the debt written off the new owner would have a football club with little or no debt in the Premier League. If you ask me that wouldn't be a bad place to be.
Another poor article that. The first paragraph is shocking; they get our name wrong in a thread about the name refer to Hull as 'an unloved corner of North-East England' (**** off ****s) and talk of an 'investment' by Allam, which paints a rosey picture but as we know it's actually a loan we can't afford to repay and are doing nothing to try and address. That last point is something which the media really need to get their heads around. Then it finishes with more bollocks by saying Allam leaving would lead to a perilous financial situation (he's the owner ffs, where's he gonna go without finding a buyer?) and ends with that total ****wit question that people really need to stop asking "...whether they would prefer to cheer for Hull Tigers in the EPL, or for a diminished Hull City in the Championship or worse." It's such an irritating question, there's no link between the two, **** off asking it. Ta.
They must surely understand it, it's just more lazy journalism. There's so much about this situation they could be investigating/reporting on but instead the media are focusing on the easy, superficial angle every time, saying nothing that hasn't been said before, but a lot which has already been explained to be nonsense before.
Obi and PLT So the economist magazine doesn't understand business! Out of all of the summaries of the situation, this is one of the most balanced. It doesn't support either side. Hull is in an unloved part of the North East. They missed out the "A" in Hull City AFC, big deal. I think you have become too blinkered.
I said the exact opposite. A paper such as the economist shouldn't be making such stupid errors and the article is poor. 'Balanced' isn't always a good thing. They should investigate and report what they find, not just give generic opinions they've seen others give. They should be reporting new information, they didn't.
It looks like even the Economist can't demonstrate that the name change will have a positive effect. The expansions it talks of would be as likely to happen as Hull City, The Tigers equally well, if not better.
****ing hell PLT, a poster of your experience should have noticed two names on my post. I think that they understand the issues and explain it in a simplified way that gives the reader a flavour of the situation. The article doesn't set out to be investigative, it is informative, end of.
It also says that the brand is the clubs biggest asset. Putting into perspective the rational behind the desire to make use of the Tiger element in the Asian market. Not shirt sales but sponsorship. Global marketing aims at the risk of losing local support. Will it work, we may never know. If Assem Allam walks away, the club will suffer, there can be no doubt about it.
I'd say there's plenty of doubt about that. I'd also say a shrewd businessman would have pushed the Tiger nickname to promote the Hull City brand, expanding to new markets and consolidating the existing one, rather than ballsing up both.
Clubs generally suffer during periods of changes in ownership. The transition can be painful. It happens in quite a few businesses, not just football. I agree about the brand being stronger as Hull City "The Tigers". It's a pity that there was not enough time to demonstrate this to Assem Allam. I also believe that the longer name does work in Asia.
The article is more of a sound bite to its American audience and is somewhat derogatory in its labelling us as "barely a household name across England". It does however suggest that AA needs an "integrated marketing strategy", something that should have been demonstrated at the time the name change was announced. If only he had one.
We possibly have one season to market our brand - this season. By putting unnecessary pressure on Steve Bruce AA has jeopardised that chance. If he was the fantastic businessman people make him out to be he would have had a team in place days after the Cardiff game, ready to exploit overseas markets with a brand already in place. He has wasted this entire season in that respect, virtually all the publicity we have had worldwide has been embarrassing and divisive.
