A guide to Hull City's various names. Our registered name is Hull City AFC. This is the name we were registered under in 1904 when we joined the football league. The AFC was an important part of the name as it reflected the struggle to establish association football in a rugby city. The Champions League trophy will be engraved as Hull City AFC when we win it. Our playing name is Hull City and that name will be engraved on the FA Cup. After MK Dons the FA introduced a rule to stop clubs changing their playing name without their consent. This is why Hull City have to apply to the FA to become Hull Tigers. The name of the company owning the club is irrelevant. At present there is nothing in the rules to stop any club advertising themselves under any name they want, within British law. Our club insisting we be called Hull City Tigers hasn't come up before. The FA may, after this season try and tighten this up. I hope this is clearer.
At last Obi well done and thank you. There is nothing is the FA rules to stop the club using Hull City Tigers as they do now, they do not even have to use AFC on the badge, so until the FA actually change the rules there is no penalty that the FA can impose. We already have a partial name change and there is FA that can be done about it. Thank you for explaining that better than my feeble attempts did. I accept the partial name change already in the club and until the FA actually do something about it, we are stuck with it. Actually the name of the company owning the club is relevant in some aspects of the branding. If you buy an item from the club shop that has Hull City Tigers printed on it, the club can say it refers to the business and not the playing name. Poor excuse really but its the fact. It is the sole reason that the company name was changed. Allam wants to market the club as Hull City Tigers locally and he thought that by changing the company name the playing name would naturally follow. Just for clarity, the only reason I accept a partial name change is that there is little that can be done about it. I cannot object to the words Hull, City or Tigers as they are all part of the existing name. Dropping the AFC already happens and is accepted. The way that the clubs are listed by the FA does not help much as all PL clubs have either AFC or FC in the clubs names but the list is different for the rest of the clubs. I dont know if every mainstream club has AFC or FC, but I do know that not every club has AFC or FC on their club badge. My logic is that if other clubs do not use it Hull City could replace Hull City AFC on the badge and the "The" could be lost from "The Tigers". My view is that CTWD and its campaign can and have stopped Hull Tigers, but there is little anyone can do to stop the use of Hull City Tigers by the club. I also maintain that the FA is at fault for not making the maintenance of the traditions of club names and colours at the forefront of stakeholder involvement.
Not exactly true. It is true that there's nothing to stop the club from putting Hull City Tigers over the club shop door, or at the signs at the training ground, or even using the new badge that has the 'AFC' and 'The' removed. What they can't do, is use Hull City Tigers as the clubs playing name, as they attempted to at the start of this season, when they asked all the clubs we were playing to refer to us as Hull City Tigers on their programs, advertising, scoreboards etc. This is against FA rules, they must use our registered playing name for such things.
Fez, "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." The law determines who is honest and what is right or wrong, Sheriffs simply uphold the law. I am commanded by the Queen to enforce Writs of the Court. I am not the judge who's judgement is on the writ, I am not the Lord Chancellor who determines the Law. The core principles of justice are reflected in the Laws that govern the way I conduct myself in the execution of my duties. I have to obey the Law as well as uphold the Law. Personally I have to have my honesty, integrity and professional knowledge put before the court and I have to advertise my court date for Bailiff Certification in the local newspaper so that anyone can lodge an objection against me. I am required to defend myself in open court if a complaint is made. I cannot have County Court Judgement's, nor can I have any criminal record that includes assault. When I receive instruction from my appointed officer and fail to enforcement the action in good time, I can become liable, if I make an error, I can become liable. Don't challenge me on my professionalism, my honesty or my integrity, based on posts made on here and conversations with me about Hull City. You always seek to personally attack those who have different views to you and fail to understand the core function of debate.
OLM I totally agree and that is my point about a partial change. CTWD was perfectly right to challenge this practice. You and many others have always stood firm regarding AFC and I have not, for me retaining Hull City has always been my only desire.
My point is that there is nothing to stop the club calling us Hull Tigers now. The fact that there is no rule is down to the simple fact that every club using its name, an abbreviation of its name or its nickname. The FA has noted the use of Hull City Tigers and the club insistence that other clubs use it and may, I say may, introduce rules to stop it.
So do I. I think we have an opportunity to become an established premier league team. The KC and surrounding area can be developed. The council could unlock some funding, so could City. It just means working together, fans, club and council. Whether it happens is up to Assem Allam. Time will move on and opportunities lost.
Okay, The Omega Man (arf - not just any old Omega Man, how important is that 'The' ), Iâm going to answer your individual points: I wrote the underlined bit - you wrote that in bit in bold font: So you agree that unless the law determined right and wrong, there would be nothing for a Sheriff to uphold, as they âsimply uphold the law. Thatâs not a question or a clever twist, itâs a simple statement that reflects what you have written to argue against me, but the reality is it totally supports my point â nothing more, nothing less. I honestly cannot see how it can be construed any other way. All of this is simply confirming what I wrote " By the way, todays Sheriff would not exist without the principle of the law to govern what they practise ". I really do not understand your point, why you make it or why you feel the need to demonstrate to me that I have a very clear understanding of. I think you have missed the point entirely. Utter nonsense. The way in which YOU bring your professionalism to this board is your affair, you have done so in a number of threads about a number of topics - sometimes in an overbearing way (pot, kettle, hey?). On this occasion you have clearly either misunderstood your own posts or not bothered reading mine; either way, ask yourself: How professional is that? I have not challenged your honesty or integrity, but I have made points and asked you questions - the answers I get are pedantic, confused and without the expert content they purport to express. Sorry, but it you who puts it out here, not me. Your last point about attacking folk is weak and, again, wrong. I agree that this subject has brought forward a debate, so let us understand what debate is: It is you who speaks of debate, yet, again, you do not understand the fundamentals of it. I argue my corner, I try and give accurate account and I allow folk their position, but I will question it - that is what debate is, try watching the Farage / Clegg one. You have used your professional opinion to support your position and I have found that flawed, so I have questioned it. If you don't want that then don't do it - no one else does so to such a graphic level. If you don't want a debate, then don't make it one.
Okay, Omega Man, lets get back to the name-change. My position has never changed: I do not wish to see any change of our name, it is that simple. I do not wish to see the owners changing it by default (it does not actually change, but their intent and objective is the same. I accept 'The Tigers' as our nickname. I accept the media calling us 'Hull City' and informally dropping the AFC (just as folk call me Al or Alan, or you Mel or Melvyn), I do not accept a formal dropping of the AFC. You have been put right, by others, on the elements you have misconstrued. I have re-stated my position, nothing has changed for me; yours is a moving feast of inaccuracy and dogma, coupled with sentimental hope that others are working to bring to fruition - I hope they succeed.
Fez, I am not trying to justify the Allams, nor am I supporting them. I am saying that the name change has been partially implemented and it is only the playing name that is under review by the FA. If even the badge on the shirt can say Hull Tigers, should the club wish it to, then the FA have ****ed up. Call it what you want but the loophole that can be exploited is been and has been by many clubs in the past. Hull City Tigers is everywhere in the club, it is only as OLM has said restricted in pure footballing matters. The FA cannot do anything about it and has failed. It can stop Hull Tigers but in reality its reach is limited. If the FA accept that Hull City Tigers can be used by the club commercially, I accept that there is nothing much I can do about it and nor can you. Now that may be seen as a weakness by you, but it is simply an acceptance of the reality. If it is a weakness for me to accept it, then it is a weakness for the FA. There has not been a campaign to stop the commercial use of Hull City Tigers perhaps you could start one. My point about accepting Hull City with no reference to AFC is that in daily use it is redundant. I do not dismiss the heritage. Hull lost Corporation, its still part of the heritage and history of the city, but does anyone hark back to the days when it was in use and say that we should have kept it? The fact is that Hull Tigers is a different argument. It is a fundamental change and I congratulate CTWD for their fine efforts in opposing its introduction, but like 15000 other season pass holders I haven't joined.
By the way The Omega Man, my favourite film, my favourite car one of my favourite watches. Nothing to do with "alpha and omega", no religious symbolism, simply as above.
A couple of points. We have campaigned against the use of Hull City Tigers in relation to our football team. it may have not been the most high profile part of the campaign but it is there and the FA are aware of our concerns. As are a number of other clubs who have been told what our playing name is. Our football team should be called by its playing name or its nickname only. Once the FA says no to the change in the playing name it may be something we pursue as the FA has no rules to stop it at present.
As Obadiah points out, again, you are fundamentally incorrect in what you say. I am against the officially applied for change and I am against the changes that have been dishonestly (previously denied) imposed through the back door - including the misinformation to other clubs and media outlets. I have always been aware about the nuances between the name types - it has been posted on here a number of times - I didn't feel it was necessary to regurgitate it all, but, clearly, I was wrong. The fight against the applied for name-change is about won; that is the first battle I have spoken of. The second battle is fighting the internal changes - not so easy and that needs support - I always anticipated the lack of majority support for CTWD, which is exactly why I said I would join, but I regarded it as necessary, but futile; maybe some of those 15,000 might consider it a worthy cause, because I believe it is - they can then make my futile comment unnecessary. The Corporation argument is ****e, forget it. AFC is not redundant, it is relevant to our club, it's history and it's future, in a city that many refer to as a 'Rugby City'. To Keep it causes no problem whatsoever; it is not a hindrance to effective marketing. Tell me, what is the problem with keeping it for heritage reasons? It is easy to keep deflecting blame to the FA; as I have agreed, they are an imperfect organisation. What baffles everyone is that they are being told they should have legislated against a sodding maniac randomly changing a club's name, that maniac did not even understand what the club's name was! That same maniac has not been able to offer one single shred of evidence to uphold their constantly changing business plan. That maniac (and his son) has told public lies about that plan, about the incoming investment and about their ongoing intentions: lie after lie after lie, after . . . . . . don't blame the FA, work to focus 15000 on the fact they should join together to say, 'We want to support both you, and our club, Mr Allam. We want to give you our loyalty, our friendship, our respect and our hard-earned cash. All we ask of you is the truth.' I believe the best way to achieve that is to join CTWD, who have done an excellent job so far. They have published their ongoing plans for all to see. I knew that; you have said it before; it is how it is known and identified. .
Wait, that doesn't make sense Obi, are you suggesting the team should be simply "The Tigers"? That sounds like you'd be happy if other clubs, and the results, reports etc identified us as "The Tigers". Even I wouldn't go to that length!
Well they're not as forward thinking as we are, they don't even play their best players in massive games, so that would be "The Tigers beat Sunderland". Which like I said, is a step too far even for me. "Hull Tigers beat Sunderland", yes. Stan, I know you can't help yourself but I was asking Obi for clarification on what he said, because he's saying that should be ok. I don't think it is. I suspect nor does he.
