NB: Some posts from this afternoon moved from another thread so the quotes might be to posts on that thread. I'm not questioning that view here, but I would be interested to know what proportion of CTWD members agree with it. My reasoning being that the death of the club if the change happens is a big part of the emotional/historical argument against a change. Now if the change were to be approved by the FA, CTWD if they wanted to see Hull City AFC playing again would have to make a decision over whether to fight for Hull Tigers to be renamed, or whether to start a new club like AFC Wimbledon or FC United of Manchester. Now if the majority of CTWD were of the view that the club died with the name change, it wouldn't matter whether it was HT being re-renamed, or a startup club, there'd be no existing connection to either of those clubs. From the perspective of the long term aims of having fan involvement in the running of the club, it would surely be a speedier way to achieve those aims to set up the new starter. The alternative is to go to a club that there's no connection with and start protesting to get the owner of it to change the name, which seems a bit off. Imagine Orient going bust and their fans going down to the Olympic Stadium the next season campaigning for West Ham's name to be changed to Leyton Orient because they felt they were responsible for their club's demise over the whole stadium thing. The key part is obviously the view of the club as dieing with a name change. People who are strongly against the change emotionally/historically and would view it the same way as Hull Sharks in FC's history (ignore the whole Gateshead issue for this point) would of course be fine to campaign for the change to be reversed without it being contradictory to their views now. It's just a thought that occurred to me earlier when I saw a post about how nothing had been decided but it was a possibility that CTWD would consider campaigning for a reversal.
So you're suggesting that if people claim the club dies if the name changes, so there's no point in campaigning to get the name change reversed in another season because Hull Tigers wouldn't be the same as Hull City AFC? Hull City AFC Mk2 would be another totally new club? I get what you're trying to say there, but if anything that proves the point that the name change is just a chapter in the football club representing Hull, and future chapters can be written to say it was changed back doesn't it? I'd be interested to know how the people who don't see History like this feel about your points. Interesting point of view tbh.
Which is why I think it is too early to say one way or another. There will be a huge emotional fall out if the FA agree to the change and we would have a number of important decisions to make. I for one think they should be done by all supporters opposed to the name change after the decision is known, a full debate and a vote. We are not there yet, the FA could vote no.
Yes, I'm saying that if people feel the club will have died then they personally shouldn't then be prepared to go to HT games to protest to change it back as by their own standards it wouldn't be the same club anyway. I don't think it proves anything though, the alternative view amongst CTWD (emotional connection but no death) would be akin to the fostering of children. If you for what ever reason were unable to look after your kids and they were given to a foster family, if they changed your kids names as their legal guardians then you'd be entitled to try to get it changed back if you believed they shouldn't have the right to do that. Agreed to a point. I think my last post was a touch unbalanced in that I hadn't worked out a suitable way of putting across the other side (until I thought of the fostering thing). Just to be clear as well, I'm not pushing for any response from CTWD on it. I only related it specifically to the membership of CTWD because they're more likely to be the fans that have the emotional/historical reasons as immovable objections so it's something for people in that position to think about. (Might help with generating responses for the FA to hear as well if people do think about it for a bit)
I would also be interested in where people would draw the line in the sand. I think it was Boothferry who said he would only stop if the club moved outside Hull boundary, and Filey said if its Hull, playing in black and amber that's good enough for him. If the club is identified by name Hull City, colours black and amber, nickname The Tigers, location within Hull, at what point is it no longer your team? For those who don't understand my current stance, think of your line in the sand and that's where I'm at with change of name.
Okay, I guess I come into the category you are trying to explore and rationalise. For the sake of clarity I shall make my position clear: Whilst still Hull City AFC I am attending convenient away games and sitting with friends in the home enclosures. My reason for doing this is that I object to the manner in which we have been treated, the lies, etc. There is no other entertainment where I would accept lies and deceit and continue to give it patronage. This will remain so until either there is an apology of some sorts, or Assem Allam retires from power. Should the name change to Hull Tigers, then I will find my football entertainment wherever the mood takes me, but never again at the KC until Allam leaves and then not as a supporter in the same sense I am now. It will not be my club; that for me will be dead. I consider the clubs name to be the DNA of the club, it is the one thing unlike ground, supporters, owners, songs, players, manager (hair, teeth, skin, etc. to use someone's earlier analogy), that, once set in creation or early formation, is fundamentally unalterable, as it the core means of saying that is who you are - your unique identity. In this case, Hull City AFC. The lifeblood of the club is the support, which can hemorrhage to a critical level and let the club collapse, or grow with the club and make it vigorous; from time to time this might mean there is a a transfusion of the lifeblood for which the club and the incumbent supporters/lifeblood should be grateful (plastiks). So what of the owner, manager, players, administration and the rest? These are the vital and not so vital organs that can sometimes be dispensed with or if they play a critical role then a transplant may be possible. But the DNA, the clubs name, remains the same throughout. Then we come to the soul of the club, which I believe is the ethos of the club. The ethos of Hull City AFC is currently being spoiled by the attitude of the owner toward the supporters. A change to Hull Tigers will irrevocably change the DNA of our football club and it's new identity will more reflect that of the owner who instigated it; that makes it unpalatable in my opinion. I am sure some will offer reasoned views to challenge mine; that's fine, it's all about our different character. I am equally sure the usual arseholes will vent their endless **** as well; but both clubs and bodies have them, but it is usually considered that they should be as quiet and discreet as possible.
Well said, Fez I won't be there next season whatever happens, and if the name-change goes ahead I'll never set foot in the KC again. Not whilst 'we' are Hull Tigers, and not even if the name were changed back the day after by a different owner. As soon as it changes, HCAFC are dead. I too will get my football fix elsewhere. I won't get it as often as I'd like, but I'll find a way to enjoy the sport.
======== I can **** off ?? Lol. You think different....fine. I have been going since my dad took me v Mansfiield Town in the 65/66 season. No way will I stop going. Like it of not it is just a little name change to me. Far more important things in life.
My son in law is a season pass holder at St Mary's. He is also a fan of (note not supporter) New England Patriots. He has seen them play live twice I think. This season he spend twice as much on Partriots merchandise than Southampton. Last night I was told that there is a movement within elements of the lower and middle tiers of the PL to become more global. The NFL marketing model is sited as the way to go. What Assem Allam said about Man City becoming Manchester Hunters is actually (not that name) something that has been talked about amongst clubs outside of the top six. I was told by a sports lawyer that in the not too distant future we could be following down the path of cricket and RL. His question to me was, when the press is full of Tigers this and Red Devils that, when Sky push the dragons vs swans down our necks, will I not get caught up in it all or will I sit there moaning that the game had gone to pot. There are many clubs watching how this all pans out. Assem Allam. May lack support for the change in the stands, but in the boardrooms of other clubs and in the membership of the FA there is a keen eye on developments. It hasn't changed my mind but it has given me something to think about.
This thought just occurred to me, what if Sky and Bt offered to increase the TV rights money if clubs adopted the yank names? Wouldn't nearly every club take them up on it? ****!
But Sky and BT are not competing with the US just yet they are competing with the Bundesliga and DFL. Helping to turn the Premier league into a pale pink version of the NFL may result in a fall in revenue for Sky and BT. The axis of European club football is shifting.
I don't go to look at a name on a shirt, I go to watch football, and I prefer good football, but any football will do. It's only a bloody game, it's only a name, it's not as if someone's asking you to get twat tattood on your forehead or donate your limbs to amputees. It means nothing, it's not going to harm anyone. I don't like tacky American style names but that's all it is at the end of the day, just a name. Don't judge a book by its cover, there's some real shallow over reacting pant wetting types on here. Cut your nose off to spite your face if you like, I'll keep my integrity and carry my life on just the way it is
There was a professor from Sheffield Uni on Radio Humberside this morning, initially talking about Man U being third in the revenue clubs generate. He was then asked about the name change debate, and in short he felt changing the name will make no difference in what revenue Hull City AFC can generate. Dr Allam I hope was listening, but even if he was, I guess he only listens to himself, so it would make no difference.
I hope this doesn't happen. I want Bruce to stay neutral in all this. Don't compromise the manager, Dyke. Football Association chairman Greg Dyke has hinted that Hull manager Steve Bruce could hold the key to the club's controversial rebranding proposal. Owner Assem Allam wants to change the team's official name from Hull City AFC to Hull Tigers, incorporating their nickname in a bid to attract greater commercial interest from overseas. The idea has been greeted with opposition by many fans, with protest groups formed and frequent chants of 'City Til I Die' at home games. But Allam has forged ahead and has lodged an official request with the FA to complete the name change in time for next season. The governing body must sign off on the plan for it to go ahead and are currently accepting submissions from interested parties ahead of a decision - possibly as early as next month. Dyke insists all sides will be heard but believes the experienced Bruce is a voice that carries considerable weight. http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2014-01-23/dyke-wants-bruce-say-over-hull-city-name-change/
Why is Greg Dyke on Sky News quoted as saying he wants to ask Bruce what he feels about the name change? It's the fans he needs to consult, not a manager who is clearly being influenced by Assem.
I've been told by an individual who has been approached by the FA to give his views that those views cannot be given confidentiality. I assume Steve Bruce will be asked his opinions in the same manner, but doubt they will be publicly released after the decision is made. Either way, I doubt they can be seen as impartial.
It is starting to show the Dyke is not up to this job, to say such a thing is stupid and not thought through. To put SB in this position, when it is likely he will side with AA, as he is his employer, does not give a fair slant on the argument.
