I do very much agree with that bit. Both sides are trying to prove something that has rarely been done in the past. Well, mind you , AA is not trying to prove it, merely saying he believes it will. But that's where my Bonus question comes into play. If you wouldn't change your opinion had AA come up with a master plan then the question about having a marketing plan or not is neither here nor there. If I had a 1 v 1 interview with AA to try and convince him to stop, I would not even mention the marketing plan. Because there is none and because even if there was one it wouldn't change people's current stance. I would focus on the heritage and the heritage only.
But the point still remains. If you had a TOUCH/DO NOT TOUCH list of things related to Hull city. What would you put in each column and why? Why does a kit change to a plain amber not create as much uproar? When our black and amber striped kit is probably the most striking symbol of our club. Is it purely down to the fact you can always wear an older striped version? or that next year's will go back to stripes? Or because it's been done in the past? There seems to be an incredible reverence to the past in this country especially. Yet many current teams have changed in the past, albeit not after 109 years... but still. For 15 years Leeds united were called Leeds city and for 60 years they played in blue and white stripes. yet now you would only associate them as "the Whites" (or ****s) Arsenal were Woolwich Arsenal for 21 years Newton Heath was Man united's name for 24 years Coventry were "Singers FC" for 15 years. It'd be interesting to know how much of an affect those changes had at the time. 100 years later and I assume only a tiny percentage are still upset about them. Change only seems to affect those living in the present. 100 years down the line, when we're all dead, do you think it will affect your great great grandson? I think this makes "City till we die" ever more true. PS: after some research, I have just found out we share our nickname with Gloucester city afc... guessing most of you already knew.
Arsenal have been Arsenal for 100 years, Man United have been Man United for 103 years and Coventry City have been Coventry City for 115 years, they changed back during a time where attendances were tiny compared to now and there was no history, the comparison is daft.
I am not comparing and I did mention it "albeit not after 109 years... " I was just trying to point out that these changes only affect those who were present. So is there a landmark number of years where change becomes unacceptable? Should the fan base number matter? I'm not convinced there's a factual and objective reason to explain why a name change is off limits. I'm not saying you need one but still, it's very hard to justify why it is unacceptable, when everything is about money these days. I suppose you can't quantify history and its impact on those that are a part of it.
I suspect that NT is stepping down partly because he has been made to look a bit of a prat by AA over this name change fiasco.
The biggest false hood on here is your not a real supporter if the name change is not such a big deal . People have there own reasons for not being that bothered
fashions change and so kits have always changed.This is generally accepted I think. Most of the examples of previous name changes have been a case of natural evolution as clubs outgrow the original suburb,factory or church/sporting club,or move out of their original area as in the case of Arsenal.Most did it with consultation or support of the followers/stakeholders of their respective clubs.I am sure you could have taken the time to read some of the articles covering this rather than regurgitating the same old,same old...anyway,Hull Tigers F.C. is a wholly manufactured change being attempted without any real consultation(at present).They are not the same things.And while I agree with some of Craigs' point that history is just the documentation of the present,if this poorly thought out plan goes ahead there is no guarantee that it will ever be reversed if it is a failure,as non of us know the future. On a personal note,I think it's a cheap and tacky name that will gain very little,if anything at all and will leave a stain on the clubs history.
There's no need to stoop down to their level tbh. I get slagged off because I don't fork out £150 per weekend to go up north and see the team play. You're more of a fan if you go see more games. If you spend more on merchandise. If you sing louder. If You have been following the tigers longer. If you choose to stand up over sitting down. If you sit in East rather than West and the list goes on... Don't let other sad people, with nothing better to do, tell you how much of a supporter you are. No matter how much you, attend, sing, spend there'll always be someone who supports the team more than you. Just enjoy the football on your own terms.
All I'm receiving is responses that try and contradict a point I didn't make. I'm not making a point here I'm asking for your opinions as to why you feel a name change is a step too far. What is it about that specific kind of heritage that shouldn't be touched ? What else would you add to that list?. Speaking of kits. I must say that I enjoy my kits and (was) looking forward to a "no cash converters/no adidas" kit but the name and crest change will most likely put me off.
From Devil's Advocate's original post - I'll go for reasons A and C. A + the bonus question - I really think Allam should have produced the evidence for increased revenue potential before going on a mad name change dash. Had he been able to say to the fans "Look how much benefit this will be to the club in terms of investment" before going ahead with the name change application, I think that would have been a good base for a reasonable conversation. C - I worry that our potential name change could open the floodgates and in the future we may be facing the Cardiff City Dragons, Leicester Foxes and West (Boing Boing) Brom Baggies! All of which sound too much like American football teams of teams from one code of Rugby or another - neither of which interest me in the slightest
Some of that I agree with, such as the stand you sit in and how much you spend on merchandise, they obviously mean very little, but how can someone who doesn't go to games possibly argue that someone else who does attend games isn't more of a supporter than them? Surely attending games is the most basic criteria for being a supporter? I know people have reasons for not being able to, such as yourself, but that doesn't change the fact that if you're not there you're not supporting the team. It's sad that football is pricing people out of supporting their team.
I think Devil has posed a good question and one that nobody above has really answered - would people be as upset if what was proposed was that we stay as Hull City AFC but - We play in red shirts - because 'teams in red shirts win more trophies' We drop the 'Tigers' - because 'animal nicknames are corny' ???
yawn.. I am getting really bored with this name change argument. OK some are for it, some are against it. you are never gonna convince people either way. Firstly I wasn't bothered, then I felt helpless about the change, and now? This argument has gone full circle for me and I don't really care - I'd rather concentrate my time on the players and the games that are taking place during the season.
I might care a bit about the shirts but not that much.As I did say above,kit changes...as for the 'tigers',it's a nickname.I'm happy with it but,apart from the company name,it isn't the official name,never was.If we change to HT what would the new nickname be?
So Johnfirth, who is 3 times your age and has been supporting them for 3 times longer than you, who has emigrated to the US and can only make about a game or two a year, is less of a supporter than you? You could argue he spends more in that one trip than you do all season just to see City. Tbh the tickets aren't pricing me out... the £70 return train tickets are. I agree that being in the stands is the 1st port of call if you want to be considered a supporter but my point is that if you start going into those details it becomes pathetic. OLM missed the opening game due to holidays. Is he less of a supporter than someone who has yet to miss a game this season? My defence against all of my accusations is that some attend games regularly but moan throughout and sit on their flask without a tune out of their mouths during the whole 90 mins, yet better when I do go, I have a sore throat and cramps in my legs by the time I'm home. However, I can't stop people from making comments about my support so that's why I told Filey to ignore it and just focus on himself.
I know you are young and your balls have yet to drop, but stating that supporters aren't supporters unless they attend games is a bit simplistic. So you are basically saying that if we crack the asian markets with this name change thing, those people that buy the shirts and invest in our clubs aren't real fans? OK PMT or whatever you're called.. run along now sonny and here's a quid for a Mars Bar.
