If the name had been changed already I don't think I'd be too bothered about a reversion at the end of a deal, but that's a secondary issue. Investment would secure it with the way the club is now because we're currently £80M in debt and still losing money. If the investment would clear the debt and allow the club to put itself in a position where it was self sufficient and stable then I'd view a temporary name change as being acceptable. If we're looking forward a few years and saying we're running as a self sufficient midtable team and the debt had been cleared from the TV money then I'd be less interested in the idea as it would be purely about buying success. So pretty much, I'd trade the name for a few years to stop the club's existence being dependent on somebody else's benevolence/patience, but I wouldn't do it for glory. I assume that's to do with me saying he said he'd run out of money and objecting to the inclusion in the question if we were being given a fan survey? In which case it's not a judgement call to say that the money to invest doesn't exist. If Allam Marine have had better than expected performance and that's provided extra money then fair enough. As things stand their results haven't been announced so they haven't as far as we've been told, so I'd not be happy with there being a magical suggestion that there's money to be invested being used as a way of leveraging the results of a poll. I believe that trying to get him to listen to the objections at this point is a futile exercise because he's convinced it's a minority, so it's better to get the undecided to listen so that the volume of dissenters becomes louder and AA has to accept there's more objection than he currently thinks there is. It's harder to demonstrate it with politics because obviously the elections aren't a one issue thing, but look at the independence referendum for Scotland. Did the SNP get that granted by Westminster because they as a minority kept on them for years and years and years, or did they get it because they went out and made it part of their election campaign that won them a huge majority in the Scottish Parliament which left Westminster having to acknowledge the support for the party was bigger than they gave it credit for? I think as soon as you (people in general) start using words like liar and manipulator it doesn't matter whether they're right or not, it lowers credibility in the eyes of a lot of people because it makes it into a personal thing rather than an issue based thing. It's more effective to highlight things and ask the questions to get them thinking and draw their own conclusions than to try to tell someone what their conclusion should be. The more aggressive a campaign is the more resistance people are likely to offer it, so you have to get the balance right so that people are aware of things without feeling pressured one way or another.
Hull Tigers Ladies? the women have already got the name. guess the men are next. http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/HULL...isappointing/story-20408721-detail/story.html um do the Hull Tigers Ladies wear last seasons men's shirts? 'TOTESPORT'? http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull...pes-proud-FA/story-20252250-detail/story.html
Perhaps they are both simply mistakes, as Hull Tigresses and Tottysport would have been more appropriate.
The club used to donate a set of old kit to the HCSS football team. They were the best turned out team in the supporters league.
Ricardo thanks, you have clarified 4 points, and so let me take them in order: 1. Your acceptance that the clubs name might be changed to and fro, potentially between more than two names, seems strange. Investment deals will come and go, as will expensive players who create a need for inward investment, so you seem to be advocating, or at the very least accepting that various club/team names can come and go with those deals – do you not believe we would be the laughing stock of sport? If an investment deal is in line with your example and has duration of 3yrs, then a bairn growing up from 6yrs old to 18yrs of age could see the club playing under 4 or more club/team names. This is taking the Americanisation franchise change to the nth degree, I realise that, but feasible nonetheless - a dreadful prospect under a mercenary owner(s). My point is that to offer one change and subsequent reversion sets a precedent for more and a loss of control. I have been very careful to understand what you have said and I believe these are the possible repercussions of what you have said. 2. This is the point about whether or not Allam should use his wealth to influence the vote. All I can say is that in my experience the vote is nothing more to him than a part of his wider business strategy (sic). Any businessman, especially one, who on buying the business, has declared he will run it in normal business terms, will use his wealth to support his business strategy. Surely he would be a fool not to. We might not like the fact that he is able to do so, but we would be churlish not to accept it makes a great deal of sense for him to do it. Don’t you think that how he arranges his family and business finances is his affair and we should be grateful for what we get – his total wealth is not a Hull City AFC resource, is it? 3. This is about getting him to listen to the objections and you say it is a futile exercise. To be fair that is a good choice of words because from the very outset (some months now) I have also said it is futile, only I added the caveat that despite that, it was still necessary. You also say that the volume of dissenters needs to get louder; perhaps more people joining CTWD (for however long) would help the volume of the CTWD voice to demand more attention – it is not insignificant that most of the brickbats that CTWD have to deal with on here are aimed at their membership numbers. Your political analogy is certainly better than the previous ones, because I believe you give us a choice as to how the SNP achieved their success, but I would argue that it was not a choice, but the strategic use of both tactics with one being in ascendency at the beginning and the other taking prominence later – I believe they still employ both tactics to this day - so I think that is fine for the no campaign, also. The fact as it stands though is that the best focus is the FA, but we must not, ever give up on Allam. 4. Lies, deceit and manipulation cover your final point. My view is very simple, I disagree with the name-change and I am deeply offended that the owner of our club believes he can lie to, deceive and unfairly manipulate his customers, the clubs supporters. What other business gets away with this? This unsavoury element of his character must be raised and kept in the public awareness until he accepts it is wrong and offers some form of apology (Tan has apologised, via his MD, for the Mackay turmoil – as insincere as it may be). Experience tells me that to brush it under the carpet will do nothing more than to encourage another, possibly more damning instance in the future, and we deserve better than that. Personally I believe there are far more folk out there who would be righteously indignant about his behaviour (if publicised correctly) than will ever become fussed about the name-change. Folk tend to not like liars. My view has always been that the campaign does not touch on this element anywhere near enough, if at all; it has a part to play and they pussyfoot around it (as you appear to do), whereas Allam pussyfoots around nothing. My few posts on this single board can hardly be considered widespread view changing posts, regardless of their content, but I would be happy to get a few more angry at not just the name-change, but the offensive manner in which we have been treated by someone who claims to want to do good things for us. U]As a general, but simple question: What is it that you do not like about the current name-change proposal that makes you against it, when you would be prepared to consider another one (or more) sometime in the future? [/U] If it is simply investment, do the monies that Allam has in the club count for nothing? Finance plays no part for me as I believe the finance can be achieved using our existing name, nickname and traditions; I am against the name-change purely on the basis that it is a spiteful and unnecessary meddling with the clubs heritage. If, as you seem to think, my viewpoint is in the minority (I agree that may be the case as far as calling him a liar, etc.), then I would be interested to see the majority and minority sharing their views on this dedicated thread; this is an opportunity for constructive discussion rather than sniping – I have written this in a way that you can pick and choose what should be responded to, if anything.
As there is a lack of humour indicated in your post, I can only assume that the CTWD rep has just made the first snipe.
No, because if a deal was in line with my specification then there could only be one deal. If the first name change cleared the debt and made the club self sufficient then I would have been against all the subsequent ones. If it didn't do that then I'd have been against the first one. You're confusing his willingness to do something and his ability to do something which is making it a different discussion. He said he'd no longer have the ability to fund the club. Without explaining how that situation has changed it doesn't matter what he says he wants to do. I object to it on the basis that there's no benefit being shown (so sharing the unnecessary part of your reasoning). The money that has already been loaned to the club doesn't count for anything. The loan is still a debt, and even if it weren't, money already spent is a sunk cost. It's spent either way, so you don't include it in the decision making process regarding the name change. As AA is an accountant himself he should be familiar with that principle. Folk may not tend to like liars, but folk tend to dislike what they see as people attacking people they do like even more. AA isn't a stranger to people, he's the person who saved the club and then got us to the PL, so they're inclined to like him. If someone new joined your group of friends and started accusing one of your friends who was popular of lieing and manipulating you all and did it in an emotive way, even if they were right you'd dismiss them pretty quickly and rally round your friend because they'd have no credibility. If someone new to your group came up and was making reasonable requests of the group and one of your friends was being an arse about it then you'd be more likely to side with the new person, because you'd be forming your opinion yourself rather than being told o think it by someone who a few weeks/months earlier you didn't even know existed.
Edit: Decided to have a look at Wiki and this more or less sums it up - my emphasis on irreversibly (Googled - Sunk Costs): 'Sunk costs should not affect the rational decision-maker's best choice. However, until a decision-maker irreversibly commits resources, the prospective cost is an avoidable future cost and is properly included in any decision-making processes.' Allam's investment is far from irreversible!
Read another thread - have you read the exclusive title of this one? It does amuse me that when folk want to be disruptive they bring up the name-change endlessly, but when they have a dedicated thread to discuss it properly they have **** all to say for themselves.
I'm delighted that this is a sticky, as it keeps the rest of the board focused on football and enables all of us to check in when we like on what should be an important discussion. Sadly, it's not been an important discussion lately - it's just been you repeatedly vomiting on your keyboard. How arrogant do you have to be to think ANYONE else wants to read your argument with Ricardo? Why on earth have you two not moved on to PMs to continue it yet? I have "f**k all" to say about the name change because I've said my piece ages ago and there's limited scope as to how much you can say on the subject without repeating yourself... as you have proved.
I'm pretty much skimming over Ric and Fez's debate because I don't have the time to read it in detail at the moment, but I definitely defend their right to debate it on this thread publicly. It's an important topic and if either of them have a point to make they should be allowed to make it. This is the perfect place for it.
OMG reading you 2 is a cure for insomnia. The name change debacle is going ahead no matter what you whinging ****s say about it. Fighting amongst ourselves is rather petty.
Nice one. You have taken the trouble to come on a 'sticky' to complain that two posters are discussing the subject the sticky is dedicated to. Why doesn't everyone just swop emails and cut out this forum business? But that would be pointless as it would deny knobs, such as you, the forum to be a pointless whinging bastard. In all seriousness, did you not simply log on and think, that doesn't interest me, and log off again; or are you so anal you have a compulsion to read all and then complain about it? Pretty pointless complaint, Tuckin; it's not a general thread.
Whereas your real-time reactions to Burnsy's commentary in every match thread is thrilling! I think if yo had your way no one else would post on here.
