According to the Daily mirror West Ham United are set to become West Ham London - but only on the club's badge.
Good point! - bit of a technophobe! http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/west-ham-plot-badge-change-3725309
(In a bid to increase their worldwide appeal, the Hammers are consulting with fans in the hope they will approve the move.)
The Mirror have in the headline that they are to be West Ham London, but that's not what Sullivan has said... Sullivan added: “We believe that, commercially, it is better for the club to have - on the logo, nothing else - West Ham United, London. It will help us increase our revenue and increase our status. And in stark contrast to us... “We are getting the old and the new badge and say to supporters, ‘You vote. You pick it. It’s your call. You tell us, going forward what badge you want.’ "It's the supporters’ vote.”
Why would anyone thinking changing their name on the badge would be better commercially for them? Madness! I liked the So, they think they're the 4th best in a list of 4? Also, he's a traditionalist, and doesn't want to change the name. Except on the badge. lol
Conveniently forgetting Leyton Orient and Dagenham & Redbridge. Last time I checked Southend and Colchester were in Essex as well.
I can see the merits - there is no club with London anywhere mentioned - they are all named after the various boroughs in which they either reside or used to reside. There will be a backlash from the fans on this no doubt - change is always vetoed initially as an automatic reaction
Bloody hell. Iv spent the last 50 years thinking that west ham are a Birmingham club. They seem to have forgotten Everton are a London club .
Personally I don't see anything wrong with this, its not a re-brand or a name change just adding the clubs location to the badge. No different to having tacky Latin phrases, the date the club was founded or the clubs nickname on there. I doubt it will help in terms of fan base or revenue though.
Oh right. So changing the name of the club on the badge isn't the same as changing the clubs name and more importantly, its perfectly ok? Really? So if Dr Allam had just changed our badge to Hull City Tigers, you'd have been ok with that would you? It's not changing the name of the club after all, its just the badge. Oh wait, of course you'd demand a vote etc, under YOUR terms, then CTWD could do another campaign, the result would go against you and you'd claim it was fixed yadda yadda. If their commercial name is "West Ham Utd London", you'd think putting that on the badge is ok would you?
I can only assume you do know the difference and your looking for an argument, otherwise your an idiot.
This. West Ham United are going to remain West Ham United, there is not a proposal to change their name(though the Mirror stated they were in their headline to confuse stupid people), they're just proposing adding their location to their badge.
*You're. They're changing the name of their club on their badge. Only stupid people wouldn't see that. You lot are getting your knickers in a twist over a less controversial change to our badge, i.e. no name change, no mention of it at all, and the name at the moment isn't changing. Any change at all to our badge or name you get all angsty about. Yet, changing the name of the club on West Ham's badge you're ok with. You're not even challenging the premise that its being done to increase their commercial appeal. You've stated time and time again that changing something so old is madness. By your logic over this, you'd be just fine with "Hull City Yorkshire" on our badge. By your usual reckoning, this is just the first step for West Ham, unless you bizarrely think they have great owners. I suspect the only reason they're not attempting to change the name at the moment is because of the FA decision with us, but it's quite clear that a few clubs agree minor tweaks to old names could reap their own rewards. Of course you don't agree, and of course you'll be abusive in response. I expect no less.
Do you understand why people are annoyed by the changes to our badge? It's nothing to do with what words are/aren't on there, most people have nothing against re-designing the badge. People are annoyed because they have been lied to again and are not treated with the respect they deserve as paying customers. Also the hypocrisy of diluting the clubs identity out of spite because his move to strengthen it was rejected really winds people up.
"It will just be a big 'West Ham United' on the badge and a small âLondonâ underneath." Tell me HT,what part of this statement is confusing you? Also,if it is unpopular with their fans then they seem amenable to dropping the idea,unlike the attitude of a club owner closer to home.
Imagine if Allam had never said anything about changing our name to Hull Tigers, and then decided to have a badge with our club name 'Hull City A.F.C' on the top with an added nickname/location such as 'The Tigers' underneath. I imagine it would look something like this...
