Reading this thread is a bit like approaching a car crash on a motorway. As you reach the blue lights and ambulances you want to look away from the carnage, but you can't resist one quick peek ..
Here we go again...
- Thread starter originallambrettaman
- Start date
-
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
-
I did indeed.
In fact, if you click on it, it takes you to Mark Herman's Twitter feed.
Modern technology eh?
It actually takes me to the [HASHTAG]#notohulltigers[/HASHTAG] list of posts.
So what's happened then?
He's sent a letter?
So a new app is imminent?
But it will be the same as before?
Why?
It will just drag it out further with no different outcome likely.
So why?
I will await developments. If it is a new app, whether it's the same guff as before, or new stuff entirely, I'll be sacking it off. The enjoyment of Hull City has been crushed out of me.
He's sent a letter?
So a new app is imminent?
But it will be the same as before?
Why?
It will just drag it out further with no different outcome likely.
So why?
I will await developments. If it is a new app, whether it's the same guff as before, or new stuff entirely, I'll be sacking it off. The enjoyment of Hull City has been crushed out of me.
The panel's decision not to instruct the FA to consider it means it failed and a new application is required.
As far as I understand it, the application was to change the name in the 2014/15 season, as Obadiah says that season is now nearly finished, so the FA are saying to apply again next season. I guess the point is whether an application can be carried over to the next season, if not then they have to apply again, which they said they would not do, and it appears issuing a LOI, they are trying to stick with their statement.
Exactly my line of thought.
We need to get the club relegated for its own good.
Although the players and manager hve been doing a good job of ensuring the clubs safety themselves, maybe they won't need back up.
Ha ha yes watched it a couple of weeks ago
The bit where he knocks the salesman out is quality
Now there's an idea
Surely, it would be implicit in a statement that another application would not be made, that the first application fail. The first application has NOT failed, it has been declared void; the issue has not been resolved.
That it should be considered abandoned, and a new one started.
Thought you'd read the ruling. If so, you'd know.
Last edited:
The decision of the panel is explicit. The application was to change the name of Hull City for the 2014-15 season. The FA decided to reject the application. The Panel found that decision flawed and declared it void. The panel then had to decide what to do with the application. They could have referred it back to the FA Council for another vote or they could leave it on the table. They decided to leave it on the table which meant we would remain Hull City until a new application was made. The original application had failed and if no new application was made we'd remain Hull City.
To become Hull Tigers he needs to submit a new application which complies with the requirements set out by the FA and endorsed by the panel. A convincing business case and a poll of supporters which shows a majority in favour.
Our chairman is an utter bellend, his continued disregard for supporter opinions unless they side with him is lunacy. He brings a lot of bad press to our club and the worst thing is he is dividing fans when we should be all sticking together in supporting our great club Hull City AFC. Shame he could have been our greatest ever owner. But this only my opinion!!!
Again, the original application had not failed, the court decided that the decision had to be set asside (void). Due to the length of the process and the fact the original application was for season 2014-15, the owners were invited to re-apply.
The point about this is that Assem Allam said if his application failed he would not make a second application. As it stands his application has not failed and because of the FA Rules he must now re-apply. But as far as what he said is concerned, this is not a second application following a failed first application because the first application did not fail it was set aside.