Nope. It's still registered as Hull City AFC in the written copy, and has always been Hull City on the other, AND there's a few chants with "City AFC" in them.
They are doing, rules on playing names and club colours/badges will be introduced to stop these things happening in the future.
It this thread makes you yawn, why bother coming on it, it's not like you don't know what the topic is. CSM
DMD in football history the registered name is a move able feast. Portsmouth have been Portsmouth...Portsmouth City.....Portsmouth, Brighton dropped "Hove" and there are loads of clubs who changed from town to city, etc. We are an Association football club, I accept that, but the vast majority of people in Hull, I would guess would not see that as important as the City element of the name. Fez has an argument (along with others) that the only reason for the change is to have a go at HCC, removing City from the name being an act of reprisal. So how does that stack against the loss of AFC, the two are linked, yet Assem Allam always says that Hull City Association Football Club (The Tigers) is too long and he wants to shorten it. Doesnt he have a bit of a point? I put forward in 2010 a name change, Hull City Sporting Club. To replace Hull City AFC (The Tigers). Some of the suggestions to bring in new funds have been to develop a sporting club. What would that be called, Hull City AFC (The Tigers) Sporting Club? I hold the view that the retention of City in the clubs name is the core of the argument and the AFC is secondary. I also believe that the majority of supporters share that view. They think that CTWD is for the retention of City and they do not even consider AFC as part of the campaign.
Future not present. They missed the boat with us didn't they? They should have acted when Tan started on the name and colours of Cardiff, but they didn't. They knew that this was an issue for the present as government had to tell them to change, The PL and the FA did not consider supporters as stakeholders in the sport. They will change because they have to not because they want to.
Why is the playing name different to the registered name then? Do you sit watching the results shouting at the telly "Its Hull City AFC, not Hull City"? I bet you do actually.
The reason it's different isn't clear, the fact is that it is different, and has not ,been changed which was your claim and what I'm replying to.
Because the registered name is what will be engraved on the Champions League trophy when we win it. The playing name is what we be known as the rest of the time. Hull City AFC is our Sunday best name and should remain as such.
They haven't missed the boat with us, they've rejected a name change, the rules were already put in place to allow them to do so. They made is a mistake not putting similar rules in place for kit colour changes, but that was because they foresee anyone actually wanting to change their kit, rather than the fact they didn't care.
I don't know how you have managed to make that conclusion from one statement and two questions; did you actually read it. To qualify my position, I have been against name-change from the very beginning, when it was being denied, but being implemented through the backdoor. It was, then, a simple process of being lied to that turned me from pro-Allam, to anti- Allam.
Informal use of a name is not a name change. If you shorten Melvyn to Mel on occasion, you aren't changing your name by deed poll, you're merely using an informal version. Assem Allam doesn't call his business Allam Marine Ltd. in everyday conversation, but Ltd. is on the company's letterheads and on their Companies House registration. If you don't understand the differences between formal names and informal names, you're not as clever as you think you are. Unless you do know the difference, but wilfully feign ignorance to make a point.
My point is that the "Formal" name changes in football quite often, the playing name not so. There is no informal name, its the "playing" name. The FA have done nothing yet to protect the traditional names of clubs. They do not even make it a consideration in the rejection. They are only interested at the moment in the commercial viablity or need for change.
Your confusing the formal name(as registered with the FA) and the limited company name. The former hardly ever changes, the latter changes regularly and nobody gives a **** what that is. The FA decision wasn't only based on commercial viability, far from it.
Just has others have pointed out to you; that is absolute bollocks and it seems like a deliberate corruption of the facts. You are using weak and contrived argument that serves no purpose. The registered playing name of our club is Hull City AFC, the one that the owners have applied to change and the FA seem to be against. Many full given names are not used from day-to-day, but cherished and retained. You are using old argument that has been heavily discussed, overwhelmingly discredited and, frankly, nothing more than a poor stab are creating pointless discussion. Again, others have adequately answered you. The only thing I would add is that which I made: the FA are imperfect, you are right, but this (our) name-change argument was borne from spite and vitriol against HCC; it is being progressed through a FA process of accreditation and that process looks like it will not allow the change, by any degree. In this the FA are doing their job and your argument against them is not relevant to this thread or debate. It is just another red-herring. If you want to discuss the general merits of the FA then start another thread on that topic and do not obscure the name-change issue with tripe. You tell us all that you work in the financial sector and you frequently write with a level of authority that ends with the question; ‘but what would I know?’; I would have thought (when considering football club owners, for instance) that being intelligent and conniving (shrewd would be preferable, but reality rules for many) in business would be an everyday feature of brokering deals, but outright dishonesty and heavy-handed manipulation (emotional/team security blackmail) would simply be frowned upon. Father and son support each other and are equally complicit; I find their combined behaviour indefensible and your half-hearted excuses for them are unrealistic and poor. They remind me of the old land-grab barons of the old wild west, when the small farmer relied on a strong sheriff to uphold his rights; what happened to the sheriff in you, Mel - perhaps he is sat on that fence, out there on the range, waiting for the Lone Ranger to ride in and do the job? He has no point whatsoever, this poster answers you and discredits your argument in one go: Mel, you are trying to split hairs where there are none to split. A name is a name is a name, it is registered or changed by legal means; otherwise it can be shortened by whoever, unless covered by legal protection. The whole reality of your point is that you do not have one. Edit: Look for the clues in this:
Fez you are wrong. The business name that we are registered under is HULL CITY TIGERS LIMITED In the Directory of clubs in the FA we are Hull City AFC In the Directory we are known as Hull City (our playing name). CTWD pointed out to the FA that the club where calling themselves HULL CITY TIGERS and they still do on the web site and other area's. Other clubs have it seems stopped calling us Hull City Tigers. The FA have not stopped the use of Hull City Tigers within the business of the club. I personally have no problem if the club wants to keep using Hull City Tigers as long as the FA still regard us as Hull City. If the club badge was changed to say just Hull City, I would not object. If it said Hull City Tigers, well to be honest I would not be too happy with it. But it wouldn't stop me going to matches. The fact is the badge says Hull City AFC "The Tigers" I hope it remains that way As for Sheriffs riding in to save the day, we don't we uphold the law. The Allams, even CTWD say that they do not have any issues with the Allams tenure other than the name change, yet you feel that I should share your view. I don't share your view of the Allams, you may be right about them, but plenty of people would not like to see them go and would still do business with them. As for a supporters trust being a red herring, again CTWD have this as an objective, so at the AGM you can tell them what you think. No reports on the FA recommendations mention "tradition" the reason generally given is the club failed to show any commercial advantage (in some it also states lack of consultation), the views of stakeholders where taken into consideration but the reason given to recommend rejection was commercial. If the FA rules are so good why are they tightening them? Why did the Government recommend they changed them?
You seem to take more satisfaction from defending the indefensible and arguing for the sake of it, than defending your clubs heritage. That is your right; but it is sadly wrong. I'm not wrong. Look at the names again, look at how we are known and understand the difference between malignant tweaks of a title and an accredited name-change through appropriate channels. If you persist in defending the indefensible it can only be concluded you are of the same mealy-mouthed, money-grubbing ilk as the owners. Is there really a higher God that you aspire to? Hope - what does that mean when it is left in the hands of no-mark turncoats who have not got the courage of their convictions - but what is a conviction, when compromise is your bed-friend and excuse for betrayal? Honesty and integrity are crucial aspects of the law; as are the principles of right and wrong. By the way, todays Sheriff would not exist without the principle of the law to govern what they practise - you don't seem to understand the core principles of your own profession. You, and everyone else sees me argue against the CTWD stance in respect of the Allam ownership; why do you think you should be something different? I think your motives for spewing half-cocked support is a personal financial motivation of business hope; pie-in-the-sky. yet again, you fail to grasp the point. The supporters trust may well be a after-game, but CTWD have expressed the intention to reshape, reform, re-elect, before they move beyond their well-stated primary and well-stated single objective - defending the name of our club. That is very easy to understand, unless you are politically motivated, or very stupid. Yet again you write total bunkum. I do not defend the FA, nor do I defend any minutiae of their argument; what I do is say they are defending our name and looking for reasons not to change. We all know their systems and structure are archaic and in need of overhaul , but some of us can see there is a determination to do the right thing - even though there are those who like to bump their gums with inaccuracies, simpering argument and, worse of all, disloyalty to the core club ethic. You never come out for or against, you try and argue financial or quasi-business logic with more holes than my mums colander; the fence is not the place to be, because your profile is exposed and easily shot down. I am disappointed in you; too clever by half!
