FA reject name change

[TygerTyger]

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

A perfectly reasonable post, but because you disagree you resort to abuse. This is what pushes people to vote against CTWD, who no doubt wish you would grow up and stop embarrassing their campaign.

 

[TygerTyger]

You obviously have no grasp of FIFA statutes then you thick twat

And you obviously have no grasp of the Law you small minded ****.

 

[Dr.Stanley O'Google, HCFC]

A perfectly reasonable post, but because you disagree you resort to abuse. This is what pushes people to vote against CTWD, who no doubt wish you would grow up and stop embarrassing their campaign.

The reason some folks get mad is that you lot keep spouting the same old nonsense, whilst continuing to ignore the old man's spite, lies and lack of a business plan.

 

[TygerTyger]

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.

Indeed it was, but it remains the only "independently" scrutinised ballot. And, as I said, I suspect he will go down the restraint of trade path which rather makes the F A's view of the ballot irrelevant.

And thanks for a sensible reply rather than the rather pathetic "you're a twat" that the shallow end of the gene pool have responded with.

 

[Barchullona]

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.

You aren't really clued up, are you? The FA can stop a club changing their playing name. It is in the rules you sign up to abide by as members of the FA. Restraint of trade is not an issue. No one is stopping them trading, they can trade under name they want as well, which is what we are doing at the moment under the name Hull City Tigers. A lot of clubs trade under a name which is not the same as the team on the field. What the FA have power over is the playing name of the team which is in the league.

Sponsors names are irrelevant.

 

[Sir Cheshire Ben]

A perfectly reasonable post, but because you disagree you resort to abuse. This is what pushes people to vote against CTWD, who no doubt wish you would grow up and stop embarrassing their campaign.

Reasonable post? It was full of bollocks & childlike reactionary bullshit.

You more than many others have failed miserably in attempting to provide any reasonable argument for the rejected name
change.

"I'm off to bed now, I'll be back tomorrow to give you an answer" We're still waiting you small minded ****.

There's no appeal & they'll be sanctions if he initiates court action. Come out of Allam's arse & see what's happening. Your ignorance is making you look more stupid than you usually appear.

 

[Aire]

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.

The FA couldn't give a flying **** what our company is called, nor could any of our fans.

The playing name however, they can dictate.

 

[TygerTyger]

The reason some folks get mad is that you lot keep spouting the same old nonsense, whilst continuing to ignore the old man's spite, lies and lack of a business plan.

I'm not ignoring Allams stupidity. But my points are valid. I'm not saying I'm in favour of the name change, or against it. I'm merely suggesting what I fear will be the next step. I fear the effect on the club, but I don't see either side giving up soon. If CTWD want to win in the long term they will have to do so with reasoned argument, not simply by calling everyone who has any other view a ****er or twat.

 

[Stuart Blampey]

I'm not ignoring Allams stupidity. But my points are valid. I'm not saying I'm in favour of the name change, or against it. I'm merely suggesting what I fear will be the next step. I fear the effect on the club, but I don't see either side giving up soon. If CTWD want to win in the long term they will have to do so with reasoned argument, not simply by calling everyone who has any other view a ****er or twat.

Only a ****er or twat would want to change the name of our 110 year old club.

 

[Sir Cheshire Ben]

I'm not ignoring Allams stupidity. But my points are valid. I'm not saying I'm in favour of the name change, or against it. I'm merely suggesting what I fear will be the next step. I fear the effect on the club, but I don't see either side giving up soon. If CTWD want to win in the long term they will have to do so with reasoned argument, not simply by calling everyone who has any other view a ****er or twat.

Can you point to where CTWD have called people a ****er or a twat? You gormless ****ing twat.

 

[TygerTyger]

Reasonable post? It was full of bollocks & childlike reactionary bullshit.

You more than many others have failed miserably in attempting to provide any reasonable argument for the rejected name
change.

"I'm off to bed now, I'll be back tomorrow to give you an answer" We're still waiting you small minded ****.

There's no appeal & they'll be sanctions if he initiates court action. Come out of Allam's arse & see what's happening. Your ignorance is making you look more stupid than you usually appear.

You are going to lose. Again. 2517 against the name change out of a 25,000 crowd. 10%. In the long run you'll lose.

 

[Dr.Stanley O'Google, HCFC]

I'm not ignoring Allams stupidity. But my points are valid. I'm not saying I'm in favour of the name change, or against it. I'm merely suggesting what I fear will be the next step. I fear the effect on the club, but I don't see either side giving up soon. If CTWD want to win in the long term they will have to do so with reasoned argument, not simply by calling everyone who has any other view a ****er or twat.

You can always get a job as a 'Job's Comforter'

 

[Sir Cheshire Ben]

You are going to lose. Again. 2517 against the name change out of a 25,000 crowd. 10%. In the long run you'll lose.

Lose what?

2517 out of a 25000 crowd?

A crowd wasn't asked to vote. 15033 eligible season ticket holders were asked to vote by the owner. The silent majority were asked to come out & be heard in supporting AA. 2565 supported him the rest didn't. The silent majority shouted their disapproval straight back at him.

You really are a little dim aren't you. Time for bed yet?

 

[Dr.Stanley O'Google, HCFC]

You are going to lose. Again. 2517 against the name change out of a 25,000 crowd. 10%. In the long run you'll lose.

On the contrary - HULL CITY won today.

 

[Erik]

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

Allam has already changed the company name, and he's quite free to advertise it as he wishes. What he can't do is change the club's playing name (the one we all care about), and that is in accordance with the rules he agreed to abide to when he took over. Businesses are not football clubs, and vice-versa. There is a distinction.

Also, the ballot

 

[Stuart Blampey]

You are going to lose. Again. 2517 against the name change out of a 25,000 crowd. 10%. In the long run you'll lose.

Let's hope you put your money where your mouth is and stop going until the name gets changed.

 

[Amin Arrears]

You are going to lose. Again. 2517 against the name change out of a 25,000 crowd. 10%. In the long run you'll lose.

1. Our capacity is 24,505, so I don't know where this 25,000 crowd is.
2. You are a ****.
3. At least 2450 of that capacity has to be away supporters.
4. You are a ****.

 

[Quill]

1. Our capacity is 24,505, so I don't know where this 25,000 crowd is.
2. You are a ****.
3. At least 2450 of that capacity has to be away supporters.
4. You are a ****.

5. Only 15k of that 25k capacity were allowed to vote.
6. You are a ****.

 

[Dr.Stanley O'Google, HCFC]

Lose what?

2517 out of a 25000 crowd?

A crowd wasn't asked to vote. 15033 eligible season ticket holders were asked to vote by the owner. The silent majority were asked to come out & be heard in supporting AA. 2565 supported him the rest didn't. The silent majority shouted their disapproval straight back at him.

You really are a little dim aren't you. Time for bed yet?

Forget those who were FOR; those who were AGAINST; and the DON'T CARE lot. The real Silent Majority is those who didn't enter a vote, surely? All 9000+ of them......

 

[rayhenderson retired]

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.

Not the FA but the Football League that lost