I don't get why the FA can possibly say no to allowing this change. Firstly the owners surely have the right to change anything they like about their club? Secondly, there is surely precedence with the like of Wimbledon - MK Dons, & Orient, Leyton Orient? Thirdly, there is also precedence in other sports like Cricket and Rugby league. Also, if the chairman thinks it will bring in additional revenue and makes the club self-sustaining, isn't it a good thing?
Actually I think the FA should say no - the fans must have some kind of say? What if some rich bloke bought Arsenal and wanted to change your name to London Gunners?
Arsenal already sounds cool so I doubt that would happen. Hull City is just too drab and as MM says, it makes business sense to change.
Don't get me wrong, I have (some) sympathy for the Tigers fans, but the points I raised still stand. If our chairman decided he wanted to change our name (which he wouldn't as we are a global brand) then it's his perogative.
Does it? How? The FA and others consulted couldn't find one. We're already the Tigers, we're already Hull City AFC. Investment was never really a serious reason, it was a petulant reaction to falling out with some of our local Councillors.
I don't think you can compare MK Dons or Leyton Orient with Hull City.The owner of Wimbledon was allowed to move to MK so the name was changed,Orient changed their name because they play in Leyton.The stupid American style names given to RL & cricket teams was because new leagues were formed but some RL teams stayed with tradition and kept their original names e.g Hull & St Helens.I have every sympathy will the Hull fans and I hope the name change is blocked
I see the FA as custodians of clubs, they have an obligation to protect fans and ensure a degree of sustainability, I certainly wouldn't be happy if some arrogant foreign rich kid appeared in our board room and tried to push a name change through. Sadly they can't go far enough, they've tried to bring in proper checks on owners and fair play rules but neither appear to be working
I'm with the FA on this one. As mentioned they are the custodians of the game. If you allow rich foreign owners to do what they want based on commercial revenue streams, you'd see all sorts of changes that could completely change the landscape of football clubs as we know them. We've already had stadium name changes, Kit colour changes, club name changes have been mooted, how long would it be before an owner moved a club from a provincial town to a major city simply to attract more revenue ? You see it in the NFL all the time, clubs move thousands of miles to new cities on the whim of an owner.
Piskie, the last NFL team to relocate was in 1997 when Houston moved to Tennessee and were renamed the Titans, admittedly there were two major moves a year or two earlier when both Los Angeles teams (Rams and Raiders) relocated (to St Louis and Oakland). Your point is valid and I agree with the intention, but the NFL is now not only more sustainable it's better marketed, fairer and better structured than it ever has been, and if the Prem League adopted some of its' principals (particularly in regulation and financial security) it would be a much better league for me....
