CTWD is hugely disappointed that the club has chosen to introduce a new badge without any consultation with supporters, especially having promised that consultation would take place. There is no reasonable rationale for changing a badge that has been proudly worn by Hull City players who, in its existence, have achieved four promotions, top-flight football and reached an FA Cup Final. Ehab Allam states that due to time constraints âconsultation with the fans about the new crest wasnât possibleâ. This is, quite simply, untrue. This redesign has not happened overnight. A supporter consultation could have easily, and quickly, been conducted if the club wanted it. By not asking its loyal customers the club has reneged on a promise made in a statement on 9 August 2013 that a ânew badge, to be used from the 2014-15 season, will be designed and created in consultation with fansâ. We also take issue with Ehab Allamâs claim that changing the badge âcelebrates the Clubâs heritage and historyâ. Over the past year, the current owners have demonstrated exactly what they think of Hull Cityâs heritage by their attempt to change its very name. Season card holders have already remarked that their renewal forms did not bear the name of the club, nor is Hull City mentioned anywhere in this club statement. CTWD maintains that the reason the badge is being changed is simply because it contains the words âHull City AFCâ. It now appears, bizarrely, that the owners of Hull City do not want to use the name of the club because the FA refused them leave to change it. This is remarkable. It also makes commercial nonsense. We fear that many supporters have already been put off renewing their season cards for the coming campaign due to the sudden price hike. We are now very concerned about a further loss of revenue as people refuse to buy merchandise that does not show the name of the club. CTWD calls on the Allams to reverse their decision to change the badge for the coming current season and to start treating the clubâs supporters â its customers -with respect. If the club wishes to introduce a new badge, let it do so in conjunction with, and not in spite of, its fans - the lifeblood of Hull City AFC. http://notohulltigers.tumblr.com/post/89354228506/ctwd-statement-on-club-badge?
But in our long history the badge has changed a number of time so isn't this just part of how things have always been I would have liked the badge to be just a tigers head embroidered into the shirt . Then again I don't buy myself much from the club shop and I won't be buying a shirt for myself
The issue is not with changing the badge, these things regularly happen at most clubs, it's about the way it's done and the fact that the club didn't consult because they knew that people would object to having the name removed from the badge(and everything else).
I;m not really surprised there was no consultation. How many times have those ****ers gone back on their word now? http://www.ambernectar.org/blog/2014/06/compare-and-contrast-iii-2/
Wouldn't have minded just a tiger's head, as we originally had on our shirts. but the shield looks c**p and having 1904 is stupid and pointless.
Has anyone realised as well, the new badge is a blank canvass for whatever name he wants to put on it in the future?
It is a marketing master stroke by dumb and dumber. As we play in Europe for the first time targeting new markets we'll be seen as '1904' or 'Anonymous' the club with no name. Epic Fail. ****wits.
Yes, you're right. The word 'Melton' can be easily added at the top and if AA changed the name on the 19th April there'd be no need to alter the 1904.
Assem Allam logic - wants to increase revenue from foreign markets, removes the name from the badge. ****er.
does this mean norwich city are ''Anonymous' the club with no name'? please log in to view this image clearly there is an ulterior motive by your owner in changing the name its officially referred to though, so i hope you get it changed back.
New Badge looks bloody Shiite though. The shield is Crap 1 out of 10 Just the head with 1904 underneath would have been much better.
I understand the need for CTWD to issue a statement but the wording could have been a little more conciliatory, e.g. why start with the words 'hugely disappointed'. Why not just 'disappointed'. The added adjective is subjective. Historically, the name on the badge is only a recent addition over the last 40 years more or less so is not an intrinsic part of the identity on the kit. Every action AA takes now (and I want to make it clear he 's no favourite of mine) is instantly criticised not because of those actions but just because it's him (for example if Adam Pearson had changed the badge to this design no one would have objected because of the faux-messianic status he commanded amongst fans). CTWD need to offer an olive branch of some sort to the old git and try and repair the relationship, not easy I know, and good luck with that.
He is being criticised on this because he lied about changing the badge and then lied about consulting the fans about it. He has also as undermined his entire stance on the name change by diluting the clubs identity rather than strengthening it.
Changing the badge without the promised consultation is quite frankly inexcusable and contemptible. I do not mind the badge being changed, I personally do not mind if it was blank, a black and amber shield, whatever. If the supporters had been given some sort of choice. That choice was promised and for me that is unforgivable. For me this is a promise broken and I will never wear that badge in any shape or form, nor will I willingly purchase anything that bears it. I actually quite like the idea behind it, but there is no getting away from the point that Ehab did not keep his word and that is it for me. I have defended the owners to a degree in the past but breaking your word is beyond the pale. "I give you my word" means nothing once your family break it Assem Allam and it brings shame on your name.
