I didn't say we agreed on Ben.
I'm happy to have a sensible chat, but you really should drop the faux, smug, patronising act, you're not up to it.
The positions are quite simple...do you agree with the name change to Hull Tigers. The answer is either yes, or no as that is all that's on offer.
Only an idiot would think he spoke for me.
Anyway, rather than this sillyness, what about using the thread for its purpose and giving your view on why you think the name change is a good thing?

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.
No, and I'm sure they will be delighted if you are not. Besides, I suppose the £2 membership would represent a large proportion of your pocket money.
Trust me, you're far from up to it.
Why are you in favour?
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.
No, any more then you can produce evidence that it won't. Or can you? In which case, lets see it.

Not only is this aqn old item, but it is full of observation and short on solution, It seems to me that he says that the result of the owners actions is unacceptable, but he would hope that a solution can be found to deflect the inevitable. One thing I know about sports journos is that if such a solution was both obvious and acceptable, it would form a part of his headline. He knows the fans have been backed into a corner and he regrets that; just as I regret that some like having their bellies tickled.![]()
No, any more then you can produce evidence that it won't. Or can you? In which case, lets see it.
I think it loses its path when numerous different debates are ongoing under the same banner.
)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.
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.
Already done so, see post 1162.
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.![]()
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!)
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'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.