Have they linked the right one? The one on the HDM site just regurgitates the same old threats and bullshit.
More bull**** that has no foundation & cannot be substantiated. It only confirms the adage " like father, like son". A little further emotive blackmail which now confirms Ehab's ignorance is on par with that of his father. They want out. The riches they were expecting have not materialised, due in the main to the fact that both the local council & our owners could not act like adults. It is though, our owners who continue to act in a spoilt, arrogant & petulant manner. Basically back us or we'll sell. Then sell, that's not walking away though.
I thought it was quite a sensible and coherent argument. Whether you agree is different. I get fed up of the spite on here and this article makes some good points for debate if you want to debate rather than mock. The section about Hull being just another team in amongst a pack all after the same deals makes a lot of sense. Needing a clear USP is a credible strategy. You can't knock the issues but you can argue if the name change is the answer!
There are two basic tenets of the letter, which gives me cause for continued concern: 1. They talk about them being 'sound businessmen' and about 'emerging market's, naming North America as one (also saying it has a 'natural affinity' to the Tiger). What absolute bollocks that is. The credibility they crave, as sound businessmen, is totally undermined by this nonsense. The use of North America is there simply to butter the PL bread; it's a disgraceful corruption of the facts. 2. As previously stated by DMD, their threat to sell simply continues the already distasteful blackmail they stoop to use as their reasoning tool; it also shows that they believe the club, in it's present, commercially unattractive guise, is a saleable commodity. What's all of the fuss about, then; sell and stop talking ****e. [SUB][/SUB] Edit; For the sake of Mr Shoes - our USP is our nickname ' the Tigers' - it is unique in that pack of 'City' teams. Any savvy marketing bod could exploit that to a huge extent and any savvy PR bod would tell you the name-change is needless and self-harming. So come on, let debate commence!
Presuming we stay in the PL, in what part of the business will we be losing money? Wages? Stadium Maintenance? Pitch? Advertising? Sales? Transfers? There's appears to be plenty of play within the TV income to maintain the current wage structure & pop a few bob in the transfer kitty. There should be enough left to pay the rent & service the debt to the owners, maybe even pay some of it back. All other income, tickets, sponsorship, prize money, marketing etc should be free cash, shouldn't it? What am I missing? Income is around £130m according to Ehab's letter.
Jesus christ, I don't post often as my post count shows but bloody hell people, since I have no preference either way, to me, ill call them city, tell my friend / family I'm off to watch city, I know seeing Hull tigers as our playing name doesn't really strike me too much but overall, the message is pretty simple. Its not a threat or anything hostile about selling a club, they are making a general non threatening comment that they have put in all they can, saved the club and that the pockets are not endless and that with their own backing cannot keep sticking the money in like other owners do. - is that not a completely fair comment? Also, No, there is NO proof in that statement about investors , well of course not! this is a little misleading from Ehab I agree, I believe we already have sponsorships / investments in place subject to name change, I have no proof of this before anybody starts its my opinion. The way this is been portrayed is that if we change name we will attract a big investor ahead of other clubs, Sure I agree this is a misleading statement but I believe it is a tactic to take any attention away from the sponsor so they can say that we acquired the investment due to the name change rather than the truth of the investment is subject to the name change.
Nick Thompson has already confirmed that none of his discussions with potential sponsors or investors were in any way linked to a name change. I don't think that anyone is arguing that we shouldn't be looking to increase revenue and make the club self-funding, the issue that many have is that they don't believe that a name change will have any benefit whatsoever, that the club could be marketed as The Tigers already and that the club is doing more to alienate fans then attract them and that's bad business.
As the people who say there aren't any sponsors lined have said how they know, feel free to elaborate. You could include why the name change would matter, given we're already The Tigers. The floor is yours.
USP? Don't you mean UIP = Unique Ignore Point? One of the main arguments against us changing our name is we want to retain our credibility and not be seen as some kind of joke or comedy club. We can push "Tigers" as a nickname for those sponsors who think it's important and keep "Hull City" for those sponsors who respect our history. If the owners decide to sell the club it will be irrelevant how much debt there is other than deciding on the price. The shares will be sold and the debts will be cleared one way or another - the buyer will most likely pay off a portion of the debts and the rest will be written off.
Neither of these have anything to do with Hull City, the stadium & pitch are the responsibility of the SMC & Hull City income should be used toward this other than through the rent the club pay for use of the facilities
I do see that has been said, but realistically in a real world scenario, surely that situation HAS to be lied about? they cannot come out and say the Sponsor is subject to the name change as if it goes ahead that will be a major backlash against that sponsor / investor. So this line of innocence from Ehab that we are hoping to acquire investment due to the name change is a win win for the club / investor etc as the club get to say "we told you so" and it deflects any negative attention from the new money.
FOR SALE a few not very careful owners! Now that would make a good banner! If they've taken us as far as they can then sell it! And stop the f'king whining!
I think you could argue that in terms of football, or soccer as they'd have it, the USA (not Canada as they've no interest in football) is an emerging market. As football is in the process of rapid growth in activity and popularity. However, I don't disagree with your point that changing the name is in no way sound business. In terms of City being too common and differentiated you could argue that the name Tigers is even less unique in those target markets of of Asia and the US:- Tigers_(sports_teams)
No sponsor/investor is going to take the blame for pissing off most of that companies customers, even if there had been someone who wanted a name change, he'd have run a mile by now and I simply don't believe there was anyone who ever requested it, this is all about the fall out with the council.
It really is a pointless article. There's nothing in there that we don't already know. We've had the Tiger Head emblem for as long as I can remember We playing in black & amber/ black & amber stripes We're nicknamed the Tigers We used to come out onto the pitch to Tiger Rag Which was replaced by Eye of the Tiger & the Blake poem Tyger Tyger. How many Tiger references do we need at the club? It looks tacky if we have Tiger this & Tiger that everywhere. It's just a nickname. HCAFC will always/ should always be our name.
Well written horseshit. You can take an ugly fat bird and put her in nice clothes and loads of make-up but at the end of the day she's still an ugly fat bird.
