Oh Dutch, you never disappoint. I don't post as a gnome, just as you don't post as a rude young boy sticking his 2 fingers....oh, yeah, I see why you're confused. Anyhow, thanks for the proper evidence, I'll have a look and get back to you.
124 pages before I got involved on here! Found a couple of interesting web pages regarding shirt sponsorship, at the time a new and innovative way of making extra revenue that the FA banned. Look where we are now!! http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1058182/ http://www.soccerbox.com/blog/history-of-sponsorship-deals-on-football-tops/ "It was not until the late 1970s that sponsorship deals between commercial companies and football clubs became legal, in 1976 Kettering Town signed a deal with Kettering Tyres, the FA banned the club from exhibiting the sponsor on their tops and threatened the club with a fine of £1000. The following year in 1977 the FA backtracked and shirt sponsorship was allowed. The first English club to secure a sponsorship deal was Derby County, they only wore the football tops featuring the Saab sponsor once for a photo shoot, Liverpool were the first club to wear a shirt featuring a sponsor during a league match, this was in 1979 with the sponsor Hitachi. Sponsorship was initially extremely unpopular and up until 1983 television companies refused to broadcast matches that featured clubs wearing football tops with sponsors on." We learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it's mistakes.
The FA have learned from the history of MK Dons and set up a procedure that is fair to all stakeholders whilst allowing the club to make a reasoned argument for the change. It would appear that the club has failed to do that to the satisfaction of the Membership Committee.
Fair point, nothing I can dispute there. But since there is precedent for cultural change in the game, what is to stop our owners rewriting and re-presenting a new, stronger case for change? One that does satisfy stakeholders. Lets not forget, this name change has been badly handled/managed from the start.
I am paraphrasing............ notice that I said that I cant be arsed to trawl throught your pages of ****? so now you are denying you said it? I'd go to the quacks, get your head looked at, that senility is catching up to you pretty damn quick.
Nah, they've always been City fans and they follow the club home and away, even the ones that live in Texas.
I dunno about that...... they were prepared to drop their team over a name change! seems a tadd plastic to me
Nothing. I suspect that all this is to do with the City Council or he thinks he can sell the club easier as Hull Tigers to somebody in the far east who'll give me £80 million without the freehold to the ground. I don't know. I think we are coming to the end of a great season on the pitch and a very sad season off it. From my viewpoint all this has been unnecessary. He could have sat down with the council and be setting up the infrastructure to expand the ground and our income. Instead we are in this mess. Only in Hull.
