FA reject name change

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
tigers40 said:
They wont because the old fool wont let go. There is still a long way to go on this subject Im afraid
Click to expand...

the only end possible is him selling the club. This was fairly obvious months and months ago. That's it. Let's just hope we can limit the damages in the process.
 
Barmbys_Tan said:
He always does it just in time for a game doesn't he? It's like he's asking for bad press.

Figuring theres going to be around 30,000 city fans at Wembley, on TV, in the FA Cup Semi Final which is a big occassion, i can see the fans embarassing him on TV. no doubt Wembley doesn't have a ban against banners like we now have since the banner-gate against Palace.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have a ban, but they can only be so big and you have to pay for the advertising space. For an FA cup semi final on worldwide tv that will be a hefty wedge, they out priced a Yeovil fan by charging him £1500 for a banner far smaller than the CTWD for last years league one playoff final.

So I doubt to see any banners in there, and if there are, they will be so small so as not to matter.
 
The FRENCH TICKLER said:
Here Here and so say all of us - hopefully.

Is anyone surprised by what the FA said though ?, anyone who thought it would be a yes can join OLM's remedial class.
Click to expand...

Are you as thick as you seem to be, Frenchy? CTWD would appear to be ready to 'go out of business' as the FA have rejected the proposal of the mad 'Doctor'.

He looks as if he won't let it drop.

So, CTWD will still have a job to do.

Obvious to anyone with even half a brain (so it's escaped you).
 
If Only Captain Ehab & Prof-Admiral Ass-em took the good captains advice ...

[video=youtube;yPfB3eRX130]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPfB3eRX130&noredirect=1[/video]


Let it go ...
 
Siegfried's cat said:
Just a thought. If (barring any court appeal) we are Hull City for next year, won't Allam ha've to do the next sponsorship deal based us being Hull City, and as deals are usually 2-3 years are we safe from him trying again next year?
Click to expand...

If you listened to Ehab's last interview, he said there wasn't anyone lined up. Even if we became Hull Tigers.
 
Golaccio! said:
If you listened to Ehab's last interview, he said there wasn't anyone lined up. Even if we became Hull Tigers.
Click to expand...

What ??

So he wants to change the name with no guarantee of inward investement and a 100% certainty of degraded brand .

Genius <laugh>!
 
So, in essence, those people who persistently claim to not be bothered, yet voted for the change, have now simply made this process drag out and on and on which will be to the severe to the detriment of our club.

Like it or not, the FA is the ruling body of the sport.

I suggest those who voted ‘Yes to Hull Tigers’ to petition their leader to cease all further legal action; or petition him to actually withdraw Hull City from the league.

No doubt when I turn on Humberside at 6pm there’ll be the usual from our esteemed loyal fans who’d do anything for the club:

“ I hope he teks his money out and we slide into the Conference”
 
Siegfried's cat said:
Just a thought. If (barring any court appeal) we are Hull City for next year, won't Allam ha've to do the next sponsorship deal based us being Hull City, and as deals are usually 2-3 years are we safe from him trying again next year?
Click to expand...

You have of course put your finger on the problem. The "appeal" is likely to be on Legal grounds. I doubt the F A can legally stop the owner of a company from changing its name.

They can, of course, then stop "Hull Tigers" from entering their competitions. This however would be extremely difficult for them to do, the logistics of expelling Hull from the premiership would be massive, and even more so if (as seems likely) we win the F A cup. Would they promote an extra team from the Championship, or not relegate Sunderland?

If they did I would expect a case in court for restraint of trade. Especially embarrassing for the F A in the light of their own record of "Name Changes" for their flagship knock out competition "The Budweiser F A Cup". Most likely the F A would not challenge the case as they would lose. The whole thing is in danger of becoming an unmanageable Holy mess.



1871&#8211;1994 No main sponsor The FA Cup
1994&#8211;1998 Littlewoods Pools The FA Cup sponsored by Littlewoods[17]
1998&#8211;2002 AXA The AXA-Sponsored FA Cup[18]
2002&#8211;2006 No main sponsor The FA Cup
2006&#8211;2011 E.ON The FA Cup sponsored by E.ON[19][20]
2011&#8211;2014 Budweiser The FA Cup with Budweiser[21]

Best get your tin hats out lads, the fact is the poll went in Allams favour. If he had lost by 48 votes you would expect him to have dropped the issue, as he won he is entitled to expect the same. That is the way a court will see it. And, lets face it, AA can afford to go to court, CTWD can't, and the F A won't.
They were embarrassed enough by losing the Massimo Cellino affair, they won't want the cost of losing another high profile case.
 
TygerTyger said:
You have of course put your finger on the problem. The "appeal" is likely to be on Legal grounds. I doubt the F A can legally stop the owner of a company from changing its name.

They can, of course, then stop "Hull Tigers" from entering their competitions. This however would be extremely difficult for them to do, the logistics of expelling Hull from the premiership would be massive, and even more so if (as seems likely) we win the F A cup. Would they promote an extra team from the Championship, or not relegate Sunderland?

If they did I would expect a case in court for restraint of trade. Especially embarrassing for the F A in the light of their own record of "Name Changes" for their flagship knock out competition "The Budweiser F A Cup". Most likely the F A would not challenge the case as they would lose. The whole thing is in danger of becoming an unmanageable Holy mess.



1871&#8211;1994 No main sponsor The FA Cup
1994&#8211;1998 Littlewoods Pools The FA Cup sponsored by Littlewoods[17]
1998&#8211;2002 AXA The AXA-Sponsored FA Cup[18]
2002&#8211;2006 No main sponsor The FA Cup
2006&#8211;2011 E.ON The FA Cup sponsored by E.ON[19][20]
2011&#8211;2014 Budweiser The FA Cup with Budweiser[21]

Best get your tin hats out lads, the fact is the poll went in Allams favour. If he had lost by 48 votes you would expect him to have dropped the issue, as he won he is entitled to expect the same. That is the way a court will see it. And, lets face it, AA can afford to go to court, CTWD can't, and the F A won't.
They were embarrassed enough by losing the Massimo Cellino affair, they won't want the cost of losing another high profile case.
Click to expand...


The poll went in his favour bit is wonderful comedy. He asked the silent majority to back him & they didn't.

Consider yourself tagged, desperate small minded irrelevant ****er.

You must log in or register to see images
 
TygerTyger said:
You have of course put your finger on the problem. The "appeal" is likely to be on Legal grounds. I doubt the F A can legally stop the owner of a company from changing its name.

They can, of course, then stop "Hull Tigers" from entering their competitions. This however would be extremely difficult for them to do, the logistics of expelling Hull from the premiership would be massive, and even more so if (as seems likely) we win the F A cup. Would they promote an extra team from the Championship, or not relegate Sunderland?

If they did I would expect a case in court for restraint of trade. Especially embarrassing for the F A in the light of their own record of "Name Changes" for their flagship knock out competition "The Budweiser F A Cup". Most likely the F A would not challenge the case as they would lose. The whole thing is in danger of becoming an unmanageable Holy mess.



1871–1994 No main sponsor The FA Cup
1994–1998 Littlewoods Pools The FA Cup sponsored by Littlewoods[17]
1998–2002 AXA The AXA-Sponsored FA Cup[18]
2002–2006 No main sponsor The FA Cup
2006–2011 E.ON The FA Cup sponsored by E.ON[19][20]
2011–2014 Budweiser The FA Cup with Budweiser[21]

Best get your tin hats out lads, the fact is the poll went in Allams favour. If he had lost by 48 votes you would expect him to have dropped the issue, as he won he is entitled to expect the same. That is the way a court will see it. And, lets face it, AA can afford to go to court, CTWD can't, and the F A won't.
They were embarrassed enough by losing the Massimo Cellino affair, they won't want the cost of losing another high profile case.
Click to expand...

You obviously have no grasp of FIFA statutes then you thick twat
 
TygerTyger said:
Best get your tin hats out lads, the fact is the poll went in Allams favour. If he had lost by 48 votes you would expect him to have dropped the issue, as he won he is entitled to expect the same. That is the way a court will see it. And, lets face it, AA can afford to go to court, CTWD can't, and the F A won't.
They were embarrassed enough by losing the Massimo Cellino affair, they won't want the cost of losing another high profile case.
Click to expand...

The fact is that the 'ballot' was a shambles and the FA is well aware of that fact. I fear the 'Doctor' will get laughed out of any appeal hearing he attemps to win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back