I've heard some say that they're not bothered about the name change, because a new owner could just change it back. My question is, is it that simple? (For the sake of clarification, I don't want the name change full stop, temporary or otherwise). IF, the authorities are foolish enough to approve it, they'd need to offer the criteria they used to base the decision on. That being the case, wouldn't it actually be harder to change back to Hull City once it's headed down that road? Surely this same process would need to be followed, only those in favour of Hull City as a name are liable to have left.
I think it's irrelevant, as it's not going to be allowed anyway, but if it were, the FA would simply hold on to the name in the full knowledge that the next owner would obviously want to switch it back again. They'd pretty much approve the switch back instantly, just as they did with Tan's mid-season kit switch, they rushed through approval in two days(there wouldn't be a case to prove, they'd simply be reinstating a name we'd had for over 100 years already).
Is that fact, or just guesswork? Surely, a name change is a name change and should follow the same process each time?
It depends on the business case and the views of the supporters. If we are in the championship or lower and our attendances have fallen through the floor the business case is clear. Get our proper name back and people will come and watch City. If we are in the Premier League with capacity, or near capacity crowds, then the business case would be non-existent, especially if Hull Tigers hasn't attracted the investment promised in Ehab's business plan. It would then come down to whether the FA think a return to our traditional name should be stopped if the majority of supporters want it. I suspect we'd be treated as a special case unless some other team takes the name.
If the name change gets approved (big if), then the owners will have made a valid business case. Unless the criteria for changing names changes, then any new owner would have to provide a new business case that proves going back to City again is valid!!! I can't see any way a viable case will be made in the first place to change from the name we've had since 1904.
The same process should be involved and the same rules applied. I understand your concern, if there is a mass exodus from season pass holders, would any poll be effective in voting in a change back. My own view is that a reversal would be fully supported by season card holders, but I do have my doubts that any new owner would want to change the name back.
Seriously? Should it come to it, the best single thing any new owner could do would be to bring back our proper name. It would probably increase revenues, attendances, merchandise sales, etc. Which makes the Allam rebrand plan all the more ludicrous.
The only way a new owner wouldn't want to change it back would be if we were bought by someone even more barking mad than the **** we've got already.
I just have my doubts that's all. I cannot see why a new owner would buy a club playing as Hull Tigers and then change it back to Hull City Association Football Club. Whilst it would be popular, I think pinning hopes that a new owner would change it back could lead to disappointment. If the name change went ahead and a new owner came in, would they not be guided by the revenues of the PL rather than the hopes and desires of the supporters. If a new owner came in and the name had not being changed, the reverse would be true, I cannot see any new owner pushing for the name to be changed.
i know for a fact there is a singaporean businessman looking for a snappily named football club in the UK called TIGERS , he just hasn't rolled his finger far enough down the league table
I doubt the name would be available to another club, but that's based on the comments about the Darlington situation as much as anything, and I appreciate there are differences. What looks clear though, is that nobody knows if it could simply be turned back as some people seem to be hanging their hopes on. Some sort of process would have to be gone through, and there'd be less objection to the new name, and the FA would have already accepted a business plan to support it. Any future owners after a name change would get less opposition to keeping the new name than the Allams got for applying. That's in the lap of the God's and depends who it's sold too, and if it's sold with conditions. I'm asking, more for the benefit of those that can't see a problem in using it for a while, and expecting it to simply be turned back if we want later.
Darlington 1883 Limited (incorporated 2012) was not allowed to use the name Darlington FC because the new company did not pay the football debts of the old club. As far as the FA was concerned it was a new club. A similar story to Newport County. After the original company went bust the new club was called Newport AFC. It wasn't until 1999 that they were allowed to change back to Newport County AFC. Wimbledon FC didn't go bust which allowed the new club to use the name AFC Wimbledon. Hull Tigers is unlikely to go bust so there is no FA restrictions on the use of the name. Hull United could easily present a business case saying a change of name to AFC Hull City would increase revenue. They could show majority support for the name change from its supporters. By doing so they will have complied with the FA's rules.
Unless the FA were to dramatically change their rules, any application to change it from Hull Tigers back to Hull City AFC would have to go through the exact same process, along with the compelling business case, and not just to return a historic name to a club.
Cheers for that. It seems to be confirming that it's not as simple as someone just changing it back later as there's a process to go through, and that depends if the name is even still available.
Though I might as well stick this on this thread.... HCST - Hull City name-change application – the latest The FA has today written to the Trust asking for our views, as a key stakeholder, on the club’s application to change the name of Hull City AFC. We do not yet know when the application will be considered by the FA Council, but we have been asked to submit our response early next month. Our intention is to revisit last year’s CTWD submission and amend and add to it where applicable. We will be asking shareholders about this later in the week. http://hullcitysupporterstrust.com/hull-city-name-change-application-the-latest/
Looks like it will be the June meeting at the earliest then. I trust the Trust will be writing to the club asking them to confirm that those of us who don't want to support Hull Tigers can have a full refund, with any interest earned by Hull City Tigers Limited on our money being donated to the charity of our choice.
I think finding the reasoning for a name change from Hull Tigers to Hull City is actually difficult, what would they say? "It's what we used to be called.." Is that a good enough reason for the FA?
Just wait for the Why are they asking you? Why did no one ask me comments. I think its great that they asked the supporters trust by the way.
I think you're right. I can't see how they could realistically not have to follow the self and same preocedure that the initial application went through because if not, it can open up avenues for others.
