I wonder who will count the votes? I remember when the rumours about the name change started and Nick denied them - he may have been kept in the dark - but the Allams certainly didn't step in to clear up any confusion.
Thats fine, they are entitled to their opinion. I don't see how our name change will destroy or damage our game.
Which takes me back to my first point this morning that the FA have been influenced by the media viewpoint that all our fans are against the name change and our owner.
We must have done a really good job then(though the against our owner claim isn't true, as the papers are clearly reporting that there's no Allam Out campaign going on).
That is why a ballot of season ticket holders has some dangers for those who are “City Till I Die”. The timing of the announcement of a ballot might seem something of a coincidence. Supporters have, for months, been calling for a ballot so why is it only now, within a day of the FA application seemingly being lost, that the owners have placed their trust in democracy? Whatever, a ballot is welcomed and, with polls showing around 80% opposed to the name change, this ought to put the issue to bed once and for all. However, the owners appear intent on using the ballot as a referendum on their own futures. We vote for a name change and they agree to stay, we vote against and they put the club up for sale. It’s not unrealistic to say that, while many would oppose the name change, they want the Allams to stay and fear the consequences if they don’t. That’s why the two issues should be separate. The ballot should ask season ticket holders whether they want the club to be called Hull City or Hull Tigers, a single question without mention of the owners. Then perhaps an additional question on whether the supporters want the owners to stay. So, the two issues are separated and many, me for one, would vote to remain as Hull City and for the owners to remain in place. We’ll see if the ballot happens; what the questions are and, importantly, who counts the votes. The FA may be preparing to say no to the idea of Hull Tigers but it’s unlikely you’ve heard the last of a monumentally daft idea. http://fourfourtweet.co.uk/hull-city-whats-in-a-name/
Tickler might be on to something here. As much as I support the "two question" approach suggested in this thread, if the question of the name change is not put at all, it is effectively dead for all time and the point - from the Allams perspective - would be that a favourable result on the single question of their stewardship allows them to be magnanimous. That is to say they would be in a position to declare their generosity of spirit - in spite of the mean old FA - and retract their statement to leave, on the basis that they do not desire to punish the fans due to something that was out of their control.
You have done a good job and i commend you for it. And i know CTWD say they do not want Allam out. But I fear their actions are doing just that.
If the FA were influenced by newspapers Harry Redknapp would be England manager. They are more likely influenced by those that have a financial stake in English football and regard a change of name to something resembling a netball team to be against their interests.
I think everybody accepts that there are some supporters who are not against the name change. The pro name change people seem to complain about things that are not actually the case.
Harry Redknapp is not the England manager because of his court case running up to the decision. The FA did not want to be associated with a crook. He had money in banks under his dogs name for **** sake. How he got away with that is beyond me.
Of the two questions we proposed, either could just as easily be posed on it's own, but we don't believe that to be the intention.
They perception of the media is that all fans are against the name change. The should be saying that the 2000 or so in city till we die are against the name change. But that doesnt carry the same impact for their story.
Some people's logic: Wrong man: The FA are influenced by the media. Right man: Not in the case of Harry Redknapp. Wrong man: That was because he was a crook. It would seem that the original statement is irrelevant and drifts into the background. We see this on all the threads here. The pro name changers make wild claims and when the claims are successfully countered they just come out with further wild claims another time. The Allams are similar in their change of mind regarding balloting the fans. When they decided on a ballot they should have been able to decide what form it would take but two days later there is still no information.
Yes they did, but on this occasion the FA decided his court case made him too hot to handle. The England manager needs to be squeaky clean.
