Thanks for that, it is all the endorsement needed. You have a chance to argue intelligently, but you wish to do the same as you were doing prior to this sticky. A quick look at the posts and views ratio, the flippant posts from a CTWD rep (which pretty much set the scene for what followed), then the usual ****e, really does indicate that the name-change is a futile argument. I believe that there are some significant points of discussion that have come out of our exchanges, but instead of using the sticky for it's correct purpose, it is preferable to be sarky or worse. How much external investment would it take for you to change the club name for 3yrs and then change it back again? Do you believe that the £80m+ investment of AA should not be considered as worthwhile as part of his importance in future planning? Do you only want to discuss name-change as a means of disrupting other threads and being a general dick? Answers on . . .
until we can get rid of AA, we are helpless. As far as I understand it, AA saved the club with a loan of 80m. With being a business man he wanted the stadium so he could develop the ground into another money making venture. which is fine by me - but back in late 90's the council bought the KC stadium, Kingston Communications was floated on the stock exchange in order to raise money for the council. The stadium was named The KC because of that. I can understand why the council don't want to give/sell the stadium to AA. if I am wrong on any of that, please tell me, I see the name change as inevitable. I could bang AA's and Gerachty's heads together.
You asked what would be an acceptable name change scenario. I said one that safeguarded the future of the club. How would I know it would clear the debt etc? I'd be going back to the previous point of wanting contracts in place guaranteeing the income and documentation being signed saying that it would be used for that purpose before I was in favour of the change. I'm not seeing the relevance of the precedent setting, are you asking me what it would take for ME to be in favour of any individual name change, or asking me what I think the footballing authorities views should be? I've been answering on the former, but it's a bit like if I think we should have the death penalty for those guys that killed the soldier (Rigby?), it doesn't mean I think the authorities should make the death penalty available to the courts when there's the possibility of innocent people being sentenced to it. Transparency. When he's publicly said he won't be able to provide further money, if he then wants to say he'll provide further money if the name changes it's reasonable for him to explain why the publicly stated position of his finances has changed. When you say I'll complain if he changes his mind against us, what do you mean? Other than being a recall of the loan over time (as it's impossible to do it in one go) I don't know what he could do. I've stated even from before the takeover went through that I wanted them to loan us the money rather than gift it to us so that we could have the target of repaying the money to them. When the first set of published accounts confirmed this was the case I was one of the fans saying I was glad whilst others were getting wound up about the gift not being a gift. The money is already in the club regardless of the name change. As there is nothing in the club to reclaim it against, Allamhouse has from this point on to take decisions that will generate the money to repay it. If the name doesn't change then Allamhouse can't recall it in protest, there's nothing to pay it with, so it is effectively irreversible. From Allamhouse's perspective it should be viewed as a sunk cost when considering future/current investment decisions in relation to the club. If it were an asset rich club where we could sell everything off and get them their money back then there'd be a point, but even just replacing all the players with minimum wagers and letting the club rot they'd be lucky if there was enough money left to pay more than about half the money they've put in.
The 10,000 postcards to be sent to the FA have now arrived. They will be handed out ahead of tomorrow's game, please only take one if you intend to send it to the FA, they are not flyers and it's important that they have as much impact as possible, thanks. please log in to view this image
Although most people are against the name change I think this postcard blitz could backfire like the petition. If the FA don't receive 10,000 cards the tiny minority in favour of the namechange will use that to say not many care. Some might even be kept as 'souvenirs'.
Or, the cheeky scamps might send them off with messages of support for the change. There's an element of trust involved when their handed out.
the only problem with that as I see it; is that you will find a lot littering the pavement, discarded... just like those fliers were. Who ever refuses one, will probably get a barrage of abuse about being 'apathetic and not caring'.
You're expecting people to fork out for a stamp AND make an effort to put them in a postbox? 10k sounds quite optimistic.
Unless I have missed something, this whole issue is about the name-change and that many think it both destructive to the club's heritage and unnecessary in terms of financial improvement - the strong belief from both the sports and marketing world is that any marketing edge could be equally or better achieved by leaving the name as it is and maximising the nickname; The Tigers. The relevance of precedence is in its very definition; once a so-called single, one-off name-change has been sanctioned (more or less what you are saying), it would then make it far easier for some other owner to argue that another is needed - there seems to be a general assumption that it would return to the original and I don't know why. I find it a strange argument to consider that someone would make a name-change a condition of investing £100m+, when Tigers is already a part of who we are. For that reason alone I think all focus should be on the name-change that faces us and no hypothetical ones. Finances can change for all manner of reasons - massive floods, etc. in his geographical market sector could have created an unexpected demand for off-the-shelf generators; but I hold with my main point, in that his finances are his business and if he wishes to use them to effect a vote that is relevant to his business plan that why not? It is transparent enough and if folk are swayed then it shows a great deal about where there allegiance really lies. I just think the point is redundant. When you say I'll complain if he changes his mind against us, what do you mean? - what I mean is that he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't; either variation, without intricate explanation (no businessman with a dynamic situation is going to give you that) however he finds money, will find fault. It's his money, his business plan, his decision. The money is active, it earns interest, it can be increased, should he wish and it could be decreased by the sale of players or the withdrawal of TV and league monies against it; as such it will always be a consideration in his business plans - it is not written off and it can be called back - even though it would damage our prospects.
One thing that hasn’t changed is the loyalty and passion of Hull’s supporters. As the controversial plans of owner Assem Allam to change the name of the club from ‘City’ to ‘Tigers’ continue to generate tension with the fans, Brown is in no doubt that tradition should prevail. “The name ‘Hull City’ has been around for a long time so you can understand why people don’t want that to change. “If you looked at any other club and the board or chairman wanted to change the name, they’d be sceptical about it. Hull City have been Hull City for many years, I don’t think you should change things like that.” Brown’s words will resonate with those fans who were there to witness the ‘Great Escape’ of the 1998/99 season, for those who paid for the players’ petrol to get to training. Despite a series of takeovers and a remarkable ascent up the football pyramid, some debts just don’t go away. http://sport.bt.com/sportfootball/football/david-brown-the-man-who-saved-hull-city-S11363865430592
Almost a shame so many fans seem to despise him and enjoy mocking him, yet he's really the only "high profile" ex Tiger to come out in support of CTWD.
Richard Garcia has come out in support. Ash thinks it's a load of bollocks too. As do several other players who still work for the club so can't come out publicly. The one who has come out in support of AA, is one who's trying to get a job at the club.
I admit i was very disappointed to hear Dean Windass beliefs that Allam should be free to do what he wants. Actually i don't think many city fans do "despise" Phil Brown, some of us mock, but i'm think we're laughing with him, not at him.
I sure dont despise him mr happy. To busy enjoying the season and our greatest times ever to worry about a name change. Looking forward to Saturday. There's no negatives in my world . Right or wrong it's just how it is. Right I'm off home now Have a great day every day everyone. Name change or not . Ps...Huge hugs to all who give Blood as well ok Those who do are Stars x
