ull City owner Assem Allam says fans who sing "City till we die" in protest against his plans to change the club's name can "die as soon as they want". Allam, who took over in 2010, presided over the club's return to the Premier League last season but has infuriated fans after revealing he plans to rebrand the club as Hull Tigers. Several supporters protested during last week's game against Crystal Palace at the KC Stadium by unfurling a banner which read "We are Hull City". A campaign group called 'City Till We Die' has also been established and has called on Allam to hold a consultation with all the fans regarding the proposed change. "They can die as soon as they want, as long as they leave the club for the majority who just want to watch good football." Assem Allam Allam, however, has little time for the opposition and he told the Independent on Sunday: "I don't mind 'City till we die'. "They can die as soon as they want, as long as they leave the club for the majority who just want to watch good football." He added: "How can they call themselves fans, these hooligans, this militant minority, when they disturb and distract the players while taking away the rights of others to watch the football, and of companies who have paid good money for advertising? "If they want to express their feelings they are free to do so, either outside the stadium or pay to take space. "Seriously, they are welcome to talk to the stadium management about buying a space for a permanent banner, 10 times as big if they want. I am a supporter of democracy. I would have no issue with that." On the possible repercussions of ongoing protests, Allam said: "I'm a simple man. Do they want me to stay? If it's 'No thank you', fine, in 24 hours the club is for sale, I do not put in one more pound and hopefully things happen quickly." ---------- Be thankful for our owners!
Apart from those eight words, it's not actually beyond reasonable. The fans can protest just not during game time which helps no one. He's even offered to sell the club if they talk to management reasonably rather than riot about it or put up their banners if they pay for the advertising space. He's not a great owner, but the fans aren't exactly innocent. Huge uproar over something trivial (in my opinion, mentioned my views on the whole City thing already) which they're making a mountain out of a molehill about. I think football fans are far too sentimental and afraid of change. Hull City, Hull City Tigers or Hull Tigers. It's the same damn **** whichever way, they've got Tigers on their badge already. If I were Allam, I'd be trying to sell the club and **** off elsewhere. I guess what he said was borne of frustration more than anything and he'll regret it the next day.
****. But you're not being completely renamed, are you? You're dropping the City part and using your already existing nickname instead - Tigers! It's not remotely similar. Liverpool Reds Hull Tigers That's a slightly better comparison, but even that's not too great because 'Reds' isn't on our badge whereas Tigers is on yours already. You know what, I don't like it, but it's not worth the amount of hate and anger which is being tossed around.
Personally I can see both sides. On the one hand he's put his money into the club, helped them get to where they are today, and is trying to take the club forwards to get a bigger profile and more success in future. He's not just changing the name to try and piss people off or for his own businesses, like the SportsDirect St James Arena Park or whatever it's called at the moment. And the Hull fans will keep calling the club Hull City no matter what - it's not really going to affect the club other than for sentimental reasons. The whole thing just seems like a reaction to modern football owners in general - I wonder if Arsenal fans were up in arms when the club dropped the 'Woolwich', or if Utd fans protested when we stopped being called Newton Heath? Tho' on the other hand the owner doesn't help himself by acting for all the world like he doesn't give two ****s about the fans. I think that's probably where most of the anger comes from - most Hull fans would be willing to consider the name change if they'd been consulted about it, or if there was actually some tangible benefit. If Allam turned around and said "We've got a sponsor willing to double our shirt revenue if we switch our name to Hull Tigers, what do the fans think?" then I think many of the fans would probably be in favour. But to say it's for unspecified 'global brand benefits' and then ignore and abuse the fans is only asking for trouble.
Allam has had meetings with the fans and then made agreements and then gone back on his word days later. The MD said the playing name wasn't being changed and now it is. Hull Tigers sounds so mickey mouse. I looked at the rugby league table recently and it's full of Leeds Monkeys and rubbish like that. This countries football is admired around the world and one of the reasons is the traditional names. There is no evidence that anybody is going to throw money at us because we are called Hull Tigers. We are more likely to be ridiculed. The only way to make money overseas is by having a successful club. The Newton Heath and Woolwich Arsenal examples are spurious analogies - many clubs changed their names in their early days but not after 109 years of continuous use. The FA has a rule saying they will only agree to a change of name after consultation with the fans. Allam has said there's no need for any consultation. He also says that it's only a minority of fans who are opposed to the name change but practically everybody on online forums and at the matches is opposed to the name change. Let's see how far Allam gets by trying to ignore the FA and the fans.
I believe all football clubs should belong to the fans and to the people in the city they are based. We have a good example in Barcelona. No billionaire owners who can trash the reputation of the club. We should get rid of the Glazers, the FSG, and other American billionaires, the Russian ones, the sheiks and the far Eastern ones too. All they are interested in is to make a fat buck or in the case of some like roman and the sheiks to enhance their egos. Let us return our football clubs to the fans.
I might be wrong but isn't there a rule in Germany that all football clubs have to be at least a certain percentage fan-owned, (50%? I'm not sure)? The money isn't there but I do believe they've not had a single club go into administration since 1960. Unfortunately over the last 20-odd years English football has been moving more and more to the American style commercialisation and it now seems the only options we have are: 1) Sell your soul and tradition in the hope of briefly earning a bit of cash for the owner, (see Cardiff City, Hull City) 2) Overspend and then implode, (see Portsmouth) 3) **** it all off and form a local team in Division 8 in front of crowds of a few hundred with crap quality football, (see AFC United of Manchester, AFC Wimbledon) Personally I like the German way better.
Most German clubs have a 51% ruling where those shares have to remain within club ownership - if you think that e.g. Hamburg S.V. have 50,000 club members then it more or less means fan ownership. There are a couple of exceptions where clubs have associations with certain firms - Bayer Leverkusen and VFL Wolfsburg for example, or Schalke 04 who are owned mostly by Gaszprom (Russian) however, even in those cases more than 50% private ownership does not imply the same voting rights. No private individual or corporation can have more than 49% voting power in the running of a German football club. This prevents ****ers like Allam or Bassini (the one that nearly ruined Watford) gaining a foothold in German football.
We could get the German way over here too, if our fans were as active and willing to stand up to the clubs as theirs. I remember a few years back when Schalke bumped their ticked prices above 20 euros for a standing ticket and over a thousand fans held an active boycott of the game. In England the closest we came was when Arsenal's prices reached £62, and even then it was only a few hundred City fans who couldn't afford them, rather than actively snubbing them. We'll only get change if people vote with their feet - no use Hull fans (and Utd and Liverpool fans before them) protesting the owners whilst continuing to funnel hundreds of pounds towards them in ticket prices. If all the Hull fans are so opposed to the owner, then take up his offer of a refund on the season tickets en masse and he'll be out the door in no time. Then buy the tickets back once the club has an owner you agree with.
Liverpool Warriors - here we come All joking aside that ****ing Hull owner needs throwing off a bridge. What a complete and utter w(a)nkblooper
He is a twatfish of the higest order See his smug ****ing face yesterday He's lived in Hull for a good few years apparently as well so its not like he doesnt get it if you know what I mean
Hicks and Gillet were ousted by fan power as well as the banks and LFC regularly consult with supporters groups on many issues, don't think the Glazers were ousted or that they liaise with Utd supporters, could be wrong though.
The Glazers have not been ousted...YET asaik! Wish they they were though. They took over a profitable club using a massive mortgage on the club itself. How the authorities can allow that sort of **** is beyond me.
We ousted the pair of ****s that saddled us with debt and Utd fans start a minor league football team in protest at the Glazers, bit of a difference there.
