Alternative to Hull Tigers...?

As has been mentioned in CTWD statements regarding alternatives to a name-change, that CTWD would like to work with the Allams to seek alternatives to help bring in club revenue.

Here's an 'out-of-the-box' idea: The MLS is growing in popularity year on year. The American market must be a good size due to the size of the country. The league is currently expanding and looking for even more additions.

Could the Allams not look to create a consortium with others to buy a slice of a franchise in the MLS, call it 'placename' Tigers and use it as a promotional tool for Hull City instead of ruining our history by instead doing it to our team?

It would seem that is what Manchester City are doing with the newly formed New York City FC which they own 80% of.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=n...2w7AbDmoCAAw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih=799

If you click the link above, you will see from the images what I mean - using New York 'emphasis on' CITY fc, and using the sky blue and white colour scheme.


As I said, just an idea - but it would hinge on the Allams actually being able to form a partnership with other businessmen. They wouldn't have to put much in, just enough to gain a percentage, along with the ideas of their 'Tiger brand' vision. I'm sure a current consortium looking to buy an MLS fanchise would probably be happy to have a ready-made link up with an English club. We could even send youth-teamers out on loan there.

 

Here's my alternative to Hull Tigers:


Hull City AFC.


EDIT: Sorry, I posted before I finished.


He should just drop it. He doesn't need to do anything involving naming something tigers. It's a ****ing pointless idea and we all know that.

 

I reiterate what I said a few weeks ago; Allam has tainted our historic nickname of 'Tigers', so we should go for something else that's both unique and different, such as Hull Hamlet Leopards or Melton Village Bobcats

#yestomeltonbobcats

 

A viable alternative could possibly see him drop it. Like I said CTWD have stated they'd like to work with Allam to find an alternative means of supporting the club financially.

 

I think a start would be boosting our profile in the Hull and East Riding area. Our first FA Cup semi-final and there is a possibility we will not sell out.

 

I don't like the notion of an alternative. No alternative is required because there's no benefit to it. Suggesting alternatives to Hull Tigers is giving some credit to the idea. It's being attacked in the wrong way recently. No one seems prepared to properly argue the key point: it won't make money and it's all about a hissy fit with the council.

 

I agree, but nothing to stop a long term plan at the same time either. It needs to be pointed out to the Allams just how poorly they engage with local fans.

It isn't giving credit to the idea at all. They've come out and said they have no more money to give, no more money to pump into the club. A means of bringing in money needs to be found to finance the club - they believe that is by changing to Hull Tigers, while the rest of us think money can be generated for the club via other means.

 

Point completely missed by you there.

Thinking of ways to make money is fine, but calling it an alternative to Hull Tigers suggests you accept that Hull Tigers would make money It won't, and that should be the main argument against it.

 

Does 1904-1930 no longer exist? Is the campaign starting to fatigue you, Obi?

 

As the Allams have now devalued the Tigers brand, I think we should look at making our nickname the black and amber cats in recognition to Sunderland's contribution to our season. Unselfishly gifting us 6 points and a semi final at the expense of their own season.

 

I missed out "since 1930" due to fatigue and an impending change in my personal life. Lets just say its been a bad week. TigerFiley, its not life threatening so don't worry.

 

please log in to view this image

 

Well, as the video in this link shows, "Team Leader Tigers" is already taken. The link also talks about Tigers chuffing at each other so we clearly need a chant with the word "chuffing" in it.

 

Good to hear. Keep up the good work. The finishing line is almost here.

 

I can't see "chuffing" anymore without being reminded of the man who said his best friend was chuffed to bits when he died.

People asked why was he that happy about it? He said he wasn't happy, not happy at all. He was run over by a train.

 

If no more money how are way paying for the new plans for the academy? A gift? Or more debt however a good idea it may be.

 

I would have thought next year's TV money. I know I keep saying transfer fees are paid over time not up front, but that's when I'm talking about the accounts that show profit/loss rather than the bank statement which shows how much cash we've got. If they've done the transfers the way I think they have (it's how I'd do it if I had the cash) they've already paid them out in full because they like the safety of all the debts being to them rather than to outside groups as that way there's no requirement to pay it back at any particular point. So this season there's been roughly £25M spent on players (£10M or so in the summer, and £14M in January once Jelavic's £1M topup for us staying up needs paying), and the Allams were expecting to have to put in £11M (I've explained why I think Long/Jelavic are included in that comment from August before). So, if we're £11M short when we're paying out £25M in fees we'd obviously have £14M spare if we didn't buy anybody. (just ignore the whole finishing lower in the league result of doing that)

Next season when the Allams don't put any money in (they've said they can't either way) the club will have that £14M spare to play with. £6M put towards the academy etc would still leave £8M plus the proceeds of any player sales to spend on our own signings. They've already said they don't think we'd need to spend as much next year as this year, and to be honest I'd be happy in the summer with making Livermore permanent, bringing in on loan with a view to permanent which ever Kyle it was that said he's not happy playing left back at Tottenham (stick him right back, Rosie left back, and Elmo RW) then looking for a winger with what ever is left. Maybe a defensive mid as well if we've got the funds available but Meyler has pushed on a lot since he got back in the team so it's not as important.


For anyone looking at the "will they cancel it if they act in their interests rather than the club's side of it", spending on the academy rather than on signing a player also ties in with spending that way (it does both, I'm just saying it's not something they'd cancel due to that change in stance). If they spend money on a player we all know it's a gamble as to whether it works or it's a waste of money, so clearly that spending is an attempt to benefit the club now and doesn't really give shareholders anything. Investing in the academy and training facilities is less of a business gamble, it will result in the club owning something, and it will be something that's better than what we've currently got, and at worst they've got property out of it in an area that's about to have a massive amount of jobs created (boosted economy = increased property values), so from a shareholders point of view they're increasing the value of the business by at least as much as the cash going out so it's making it more sellable. Obviously the benefit to the club is already well explained.

In terms of the repaying themselves the loan, I think they'd know they couldn't kill the transfer budget completely without dropping out the PL, so year after next it'd be about £10M, only instead of spending the spare £4M or so on the academy like next year they'd repay some of the loan (I'm not ignoring interest, the interest we're getting charged is already included in the figures that got us an £11M shortfall this season). The following year the new TV deal kicks in and I'd see them splitting the increase between the transfer budget and their repayments. That would be the best way to try to sustain the club in order to sell it, whilst also getting the money back out the club in the mean time. That's purely opinion though, there's no hard science to it as you're relying on the transfer spending being done well or the whole plan goes up **** Creek.

 

does any of this matter if we go down to the championship?
how much will city get for davies? prossy etc?
couldcity even afford the team we have now?

 

Depends how big the wage reduction clauses on relegation are. I initially thought they'd need to be about 80%, but then I twigged I wasn't including parachute payments that make our natural turnover in the Championship look like a minor concern.

 

I think you missed the point - it's an alternative to US (Hull City AFC) being renamed. Therefore an alternative to being called Hull Tigers.

I don't think Hull Tigers would make any extra money and think it is a daft idea. But I don't see any reason why a 'Memphis Tigers' or 'Denver Tigers' couldn't be successful as they would have no history or traditions to ruin. But even then I don't think they would become a success due to being called Tigers, the reason they could become a success is because American teams are more like brands than teams. Look at the Brooklyn Nets - they went from having one of the worst merchandise sales numbers in the NBA and are now one of the best - this despite not being the most successful of teams. It's all due to clever design and marketing creating a brand that has made the team into as much a fashion label as a basketball team. It could never work here, as tradition and history ARE the clubs key selling points, but there is no reason why a team can't be a successful brand in America where they don't seem to care as much if a team has a history or not.