i don't think this makes that much sense to be honest. They contradict themselves as there are two very famous sport "franchises" in the U.S called the Giants. New york and San francisco. But they both play a different sport. Sure, uniquely named teams may have an easier task becoming a big brand. Like the Lakers or Real but it shouldn't be a problem if they are in 2 different sports. There's a Real Salt lake city. Does that mean that Real Madrid struggled to compete?
Real Madrid own at least a significant stake in the club. Same as Red Bull Salzburg and New York are both owned by RB. Maybe that would be a better pitch to line up with, we're going into a global partnership with all the Tigers themed teams, it's nothing to do with the Council, we just want to make Leicester Tigers bigger than Leicester City
Oh right I still think it's silly. I am very much into my Yank sports and when I watch ESPN they always add Detroit in front of "Tigers" as It would be confusing to some otherwise. There are many more examples in the U.S alone.
Papa allam is deluded. It pains me to say this but I am now thinking the council are right to hold onto the stadium. Papa is a spoilt kid. He cant get his own way so he takes his ball home. If he continues in this light I can see the passholders reducing next season.
What? For failing to do a deal with the good Doctor? You have been taking notice of how he behaved with CTWD, haven't you? (Even though you're a 'don't care about the name change' fan).
"Allams say they saved Hull City as a gift for the city of Hull. Very nice. So how about now doing the next best thing then by handing it over to us and leaving whilst they can ?" FT 2012
We've got a Royal Charter right? Hows about Royal Hull City (as in Real Madrid) Nothing common there.
