Forgive my ignorance if ive read the situation incorrectly,but an outsiders view is less emotional I think sometimes the big picture is what to concentrate on. Hull could quite easily be Portsmouth without the investment to turn them into a premier league team If the owners think changing the name will bring in sufficient outside investment to help them become a regular premier league team then really it's just a small price to pay isn't it? I would much rather see Manchester blue sox playing in the top division week in week out rather than going to see man city playing Scunthorpe
I'd rather lose league position that history, but there's NO evidence to show that the name change will bring in any more income or raise the profile. If anything, the profile and income streams have both sunk because of the change and the way it was implemented with confusion, cloak and daggers.
Exactly - re numbers - that's why I pointed out that you said "one opinion per section" which is contrary to your suggestion. We don't have to respect Allam's opinion. He's wrong.
For me, the deceit over the last few months is equally worrying. They've been lying through their teeth- how can you believe what they say anymore?
No, it's the whole package and even more so, the manner in which it was done that shows contempt for us as fans. David Lloyd suggested a ground share with RL and was hounded out, a few years later we moved happily. It's a about how things are perceived.
What concerns me is what else have they lied about? Nick Thompson said we would never have goal music for example...
If changing to a silly name would significantly increase income I would accept the change but I just don't see it. I'm sure many clubs would have done it. The few who have done were not successful.
History to me is just that,the past and most of ours has been periods of incompetence sandwiched between periods of being utter ****e Hulls situation reminds me of Cardiff and the shirt change colour I presumed you were happy with the owners but it appears not,what's the accusation of lies all about?
When questioned in the media about this perceived stealthy rebranding, they have continually denied it. Then yesterday they admitted it.It's been going on behind the scenes since Spring.
We where told the only changes would be commercial ones and would not affect the football side. The club has lied about this from the start.
Well, it was essentially rebranding by stealth. The first hint of Hull City Tigers was at our awards evening back before the end of last season! Things like e-mails and letters and statements came out with the name, even the training ground sign was changed to Hull City Tigers. All that time we were told it was just the 'business' side of the club. Two weeks ago, Nick Thompson (our Managing Director) came out on BBC Radio Humberside's SportsTalk and publicly denied that the Allams were going to change the name, and that they never would do so. Bunch of ****ing lies. I mean, if they had come out with the rebranding idea at the beginning of the summer, there would have still been outrage of course, but it wouldn't have made as volatile a situation as the one we currently have, as we would not have been lied to.
Fair enough then,don't think the majority spare much of a thought for the supporters,the people who will be there to pick them back up when it all goes tits up Hope it goes well for you this season and you manage to survive & prosper
I,ll keep my opinions to myself re the name change, but the above quote really scares the **** out of me. Maybe they are no better then some politicians.
I would have thought that there would have been significant research into this that suggests that the rebrand would increase revenue, particularly in the east where the tiger is a powerful symbol. Successful businesses usually don't do things like rebranding on a whim. If there has been such research the allams should tell us, it may appease some of the fans. If they have done it on a whim that would be a major concern.
Exactly my point on another thread. It would be major concern if this was done on a whim, but the likelihood of that IMO is slim to none.
All that stuff about making us a powerful marketing tool is misguided nonsense. People in Asia won't suddenly support us because we have Tiger in our name. Not when they support the more successful clubs. We've got sod all chance of out selling the likes of Chelsea, Real Madrid, Barca etc. What will happen is we'll be down the foot of the table this year, and most likely he'll feel a backlash from the fans if we're relegated. Which is more than likely. People who think we'll win stuff because of this have their heads in the clouds.
Rosie, I don't believe it is solely aimed at selling a few more shirts, but more looking at attracting investors and sponsorship from those parts of the world
I mentioned in another post that I'm not offended by the name 'Hull City Tigers' but I wouldn't want it to be 'Hull Tigers'. It seems to me that Mr Allam has been badly advised on this. Firstly he has taken an almost confrontational stance with the supporters, when a collaborative process would have prevented most of the anger and protest. He could easily have said the name will be adopted for this season initially and then reviewed with fans opinions being taken into serious consideration before the final decision is made. Secondly his remarks about the word 'City' being common are ill-informed. I think he has been advised by people who take the American / Far Eastern markets into consideration, but have little understanding of the English football culture and particularly the fact that football clubs generally retain an indication of their core fan base, ie. town, city, united. This is a point of difference to teams in other sports and one that football supporters value. I can't see why bringing the word 'Tigers' into the name upsets so many people. It is probably the most common name supporters use conversationally, it goes back to almost the start of our history and we have always used it in our songs. Add to those reasons that it's a such a brilliant iconic animal to be associated with makes the whole idea of incorporating it into the club name a no-brainer for me. Finally the AFC part of the name being dropped has stirred a lot of anger, but in reality when is it actually referred to either by our own fans or the wider football world? The truth is it became redundant donkey's years ago. Personally I don't think this rebranding campaign could or should erase the official name from our minds. We will always appreciate the club is historically 'Hull City AFC', but it will simply become "known" as 'Hull City Tigers'.
