No one who was around in 1904 can verify so all we can go is on the documented fact. I know the pic you mean- it's from page 12 of Chris ELTON'S definitive history published in 1989. On page 107 of the same book he has another photo purporting to be the team and directors before the Notts Co game, in black and amber stripes. This picture has every single player and director named, unlike the 'white shirts' pic which has none. If you compare the two pics they are clearly not the same groups (and why change strips before playing the game when you've just had your photo taken?). Mike Petersons centenary history has a third picture- of the players in white shirts. This third one is of City's players (they match the faces on p.107) but there is no evidence to suggest they actually PLAYED in those white shirts. Mr Elton has a lot to answer for by identifying those two photos as depicting the same event!
On the basis that I don't believe that football teams have team photo's taken of themselves in kits they don't play in, I think it's pretty safe to assume that they at least played some games in that kit.
Just out of curiosity, when did the away strip (and third strip) ruling come in? I mean - we have a unique strip (in stripes) even though there would be an obvious clash when playing Wolves.
Why can't we appeal to the Asian market or whichever market he is aiming for (if you believe that) by exploiting the fact that our nickname is the Tigers. I do not agree that we will have "done no harm" by changing it. It will be very harmful because it sets a precedent. What if he gets another idea of attracting a sponsor by promising to call us something else that he would appeal to that particular sponsor. Other clubs are in the same boat as us and manage to market themselves somehow. He has a one track mind and should really be looking at other way of attracting investment. As for saying when asked that you support City I do not agree that if you were in a different area you would just say City. Maybe in Hull you would but if you were anywhere else you would say "I support Hull City" you would be daft not to. The game might be about money but there are somethings that should not change and the name is one of them.
I posted a kit quiz based on something I stumbled on. The quiz is .HERE. The kit page is .HERE. "In 1921 the Football League ruled that the visiting club should change shirts in the event of a clash (previously the home team changed): normally (and to save on the expense of having additional equipment), change shirts were worn with the usual shorts and stockings. Bradford (Park Avenue), who usually wore broad hoops in red, amber and black, adopted white change shirts with a broad band in the club colours, a kit that was identical to that worn by the Bradford Northern rugby league team."
There is no evidence to suggest that. What you are assuming is reasonable ......but there is photographic evidence (the one on p.107 in C.Elton's book) to show we played the first game in black and amber stripes. The fact that we got nicknamed 'the Tigers' in early 1905 shows were were playing in black and amber stripes in the the games back then. If some website with no local connection or authenticated evidence says it was white shirts, personally I would be sceptical, as they are just recycling other people's assumptions. I know City have a big canvas photo print of that page 12 pic on the first floor of the lobby at the KC. They probably like to say "'Look, our first game.." to visitors. Someone should say 'Yeah? Name those players then" No one at the club will have a scooby, they just assume that 'someone' 'somewhere' knows what they are talking about. And in this case unfortunately they don't.
As the club are now in a period of arbitration with the FA over the name change procedure, the question to be asked is what do they hope to gain from it? A clear and concise procedure would be the best outcome for the club. Assem Allam has stated that he will not apply again for a name change, but in his eyes the second application will be a continuation of the first. The FA may say come back and start again next year, this is the procedure. They may say this arbitration finds the FA acted correctly on all points but feel free to try again. Either way, I would not rule out this nonsense outliving the owners tenure. Let's hope a buyer appears before a relegation does. This could still run for a quite a time.
there is absolutely no reason to believe anything he says - just look at his cv - its a gift, going to melton, going within 24 hours, already gone to arbitration, loss of £1million sponsorship, up for sale since April, and so on and so on, 'Have I ever said anything and gone back on it@ - er yes, quite a few times actually
It's a very good question. AA has said he won't apply again, but even if he won at arbitration, all it would do is allow him to apply again. Seems utterly pointless.
If taken in context with his business reasons for a name-change, it is a natural progression of his incredibly dull and self-indulgent campaign to play the BIG-I-AM. How about a big round of applause from all of the acolytes?
You seem to have picked up on the point I was making, well done to you. The fact he has stated that he will not apply AGAIN for a name change, may not mean that another name change application will not happen.
A lesson from recent history - never underestimate Assem Allam's ability to do the things you think are doubtful and unacceptable.
No I do not as the loss of income would be a hammer blow, I think he is doing his best to retain the clubs premier league status at all costs. A sale price for the club would be dependent on which division the mighty tigers ply their trade in. There are no guarantees in football and relegation would have serious implications for the club and fans. I think we will stay up this year but I am in no position to guarantee that and neither is anyone else.
