ENOUGH. NAME CHANGE DISCUSSION PLEASE. If it's just going to be playground drivel, I'll start deleting posts.
Oh, I think I am. And I've been asked yes/no to Hull Tigers before. I answered it then, and I'll answer it now. Yes. I'm open to being persuaded, but not by simply calling me names.
Desperate, very desperate indeed. Is there any documented evidence that shows changing our name will guarantee significant increased income & also that this income would not have been generated if we'd maintained our current name, Hull City AFC, The Tigers? If so can you produce it?
No, at this point I don't trust you. But if we can have a sensible discussion I could learn too. As I said earlier I have posted a full breakdown of my position on here and I will find it and re-post it. You can either look for it yourself or wait until tomorrow.
I'll leave you to go and find your opinion and let you post it up for us all to read. Can you keep your reply simply to the name change.
The current name has netted us £100 million from a local business man in the last few years, plus TV and Prem money so there's the starter for the new name.
This article was in today's paper, so it's fresh to me. It is not the only source asking to see if there is a chance of compromise.
There's no need to produce evidence that it won't. We're currently in the best season of our history. There is talk of a sustained period of success in the PL. The time to consider a rebrand is when the current brand, Hull City AFC fails. Until we have experienced success over a sustained period & had good cup runs we will not know if the current brand is failing. Yet we all know the name change is SFA to do with generating additional income, it's solely to do with AA's petulant spat with HCC. Simple as that, he'd sell the club's name down the river because he can't get his own way.
Only when discussion descends to vitriol and insults; you moved there very quickly for no more apparent reason than you could. I disagree with a friend and we openly debate it, but there has to be a sense of respect and perspective. This board is about seeking debate, conversation, humour and even insight (sic), but enemies, no, not me anyways - even though I'm clearly light in the hugs department! (for you Scarbs! )
Given Mr Allam won't compromise and there doesn't seem to be that consideration from the FA, I can't see it going far even if I didn't think Hull City Tigers was a daft name that fell outside all of the reasons offered by Mr Allam in support of a name change
But any name would have done the same, so as you say, that would simply be the starting point for whichever name the FA ratify.
There are many different topics being debated on here at any one time, each worthy of their own threads. I stopped listening to Mel in early December when he misled people regarding AA's interview with the Independent.
It wouldn't, but it answered your question. What you need to show is how the new name would bring in over and above that.
There is every need. The owner wants to change it. You have to demonstrate why he shouldn't. Or it will happen.
