That's because they see no reason to rewrite their history. MK Dons no longer refer to the history of Wimbledon as being their history. They even gave up their entitlement to the FA Cup. So the question is will Hull Tigers follow the example of 19th century Manchester City or 20th Century Mk Dons?
Watched the Superbowl play off thingy the other night I half expected the match to be seattle seahawks v hull tigers Saying that, the noise levels at seattle are ****ing scary but that's another subject
The company name is Daimler AG, before that it was DaimlerChrysler and before that it was Daimler-Benz.
Not really, all you've offered is odd examples where something hasn't changed. That would only work if someone was arguing that everything in history always changes. Nobody's arguing that. What's argued is that history can and does change. People have offered examples of where that has in fact happened, including examples from football. Your point doesn't counter that.
But that argument is both extreme in excess an irrelevant. It implies that Assem Allam, or another, will go on a Henry Tudor style campaign to remove any record ever made of Hull City AFC, replace it with Hull Tigers, have anyone who mentions the name Hull City AFC executed, and get the next Shakespeare to rewrite the clubs history in the way he wants it to be. Do you seriously think he'll do that? My guess is, if the name change is approved, it will be Hull Tigers Founded 1904 Which will be correct.
It wouldn't. If you need it proving to you, check when clubs such as Arsenal, Manchester United, Birmingham City, West Ham United to name but a few were founded, and have a look at what names they were using at that point. And just for some of the other posts, for about the thousandth time, comparisons to MK Dons are completely unrealistic and nonsensical. The two situations are nothing alike.
How about 'AAAAA Hull' ? Like enterprising taxi cos the world over, we get our name in first in any directory.
I reckon it would read "Hull Tigers were founded in 1904 as Hull City AFC" changing their name to their present name, Hull Tigers, in 2014.
Hull City was named as such because the founders or some of them had a degree of civic pride, and were proud of their city status, conferred in 1897. It also suggested size, wealth and power. It's a great concise name which has done us proud for 110 years and attracted wealthy backing.
In very simple terms yes history can change. But there is no simple yes or no answer to it really. It's a complex subject that even the experts cannot agree on. The events of history themselves do not change. So maybe a better way of saying it is the only thing that changes about history is the perception of it in the present. Quite how this relates to Hull City I haven't figured out yet.
The discussion was simply that history can be changed. Some seemed to struggle with that. It can be expanded to City, because as you agree, history has shown that present changes can change perceptions of the past, which could end up with Hull Tigers taking over the history of Hull City. I'm not really sure why people struggle with such an obvious case, especially given histories examples.
