But it won't for me, and you for to regard that decision as "utter rubbish" is just plain wrong. You still won't say where your line is, but at least I would be prepared to respect your decision as you should others.
The fact is that Wimbledon changed its name to MK Dons. Where it plays is irrelevant, its the same club according to the FA.
I will call them 'City' whatever happens. Nobody will refer to them as 'Hull Tigers' anyway. It's just some old bastard wanting his own way. He hasn't got the sense to admit it's a stupid idea.
As already said, the name is the only link left between the club formed 116 years ago and now. To call Hull Tigers the same is utter rubbish.
location - - Coventry started playing their games at Northampton - no-one thought they were a different team name - - Wimbledon started playing their games in Milton Keynes BUT changed their name - everyone believes this is a different team therefore name change equals different team - to try and argue otherwise is utter rubbish
And therein^^^ lies the fundamental difference between pro & anti name change; those chanting the mantra ''it will still be same team/club etc'' know deep down in their gut that what Allam is doing is wrong, that's why they attempt to justify it by spouting the same old nonsense. You/they/I/we aren't convincing anyone, the shallow are happy to kowtow to any **** that Allam throws their way tell the rest of us that ''it's not that bad'' ................ some of us aren't having it, and you and the rest of your ilk wish you had the backbone to be ''us''. No use replying Irememberwaggy, we're both set on our own paths.
Let's just agree to disagree. Where the club plays is totally relevant in my opinion. If that's your best argument against this specific name change proposal then it's a very weak and irrelevant one.
Does that mean you wouldn't follow the team if it played home games outside the city boundary? It would still be the same team.
If the name doesn't matter but the location does I assume you feel exactly the same way about Hull United as you do about Hull City?
AFC Wimbledon are the continuation of the original Wimbledon club, Mk Dons are essentially a new club with a new history, formed in 2004. They initially took on Wimbledon's heritage and history/trophies, but gave it up in 2007 after lengthy protests from both new MK Dons fans and AFC Wimbledon fans, so it was given to AFC Wimbledon instead. Aside from the obvious bollocks about it appealing to foreign markets, why on Earth would you want the club to be called Hull Tigers?! "Who do you support?" "Hull Tigers" "You mean Hull City" "Nope, we're Hull Tigers now." "Oh. Er, Why?" "Because it makes us sound more appealing" "It makes you sound like an U9's team" We're not a ****ing NFL side, we don't need the nickname as part of the actual name. Also, most of our money comes from the PL, so why bother fannying about in the foreign markets when 5 seasons in the top flight would see us through? Everton (Lukaku aside) and Stoke managed it in recent years on a relatively low budget, so why couldn't we?
Hull City \ \ \ WORK IN PROGRESS \ \ Hull Tigers \ Melton Tigers \ Melton Allam Tigers \ Allam F.C Be very careful siding with Toadface the Dictator
Its not. Hopefully if Hull City become Hull Tigers we'll see a new AFC Hull City arise from the ashes. We may even see Hull United become AFC Hull City. After all there's now a new Wimbledon. Back in the football league as well.
