Name change discussion

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
PattyNchips2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 . . .
 
PLT said:
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.
Click to expand...

just you son......... at least till your balls drop.
 
Fez said:
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 . . .
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fez said:
But your specification is flawed; its fine if you have control over it but you will not, in no way, shape or form. Someone else (the owners) will be pulling the strings and anyone who makes a decision (in your image) will get left behind. If the first name-change cleared the debt (which you would support) a precedent would be set that name-changes are an acceptable way to raise finance; if, as we would have to assume, the FA are agreeing to this, then the floodgates would be open to any owner who wants to throw up any half-cocked business plan that he claims will benefit the club. Come to think of it, pretty much as Assem Allam does now, which you don’t support (do you?) – can you not see the conflict in this reasoning? As far as subsequent ones (name-changes); just how long have you been around football or sport per se? Have you ever seen a time when the appetite for more finance is sated in the sporting world; especially football. You say: “. If it didn't do that then I'd have been against the first one.” – How would you know, do you have a crystal ball? So much of your argument only comes good with hindsight which you don’t have up front.
Click to expand...

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.

Fez said:
Why should he explain the intricacies of his personal finance? You are picking at his semantics when the principle of what he is saying is sound; it is up to him to gift his money to the business, not up to you to tell him to, or when and how. If he changes his mind, so what; that can work both ways, for us and against us – I’ll bet you’ll only complain if it’s against us (a bit of honesty needed here!). It’s a point not worth getting caught up on as it does touch on his honesty and we know . . .
Click to expand...

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.

Fez said:
I am aware that you are an accountant or in some stage of becoming one, but I am a little unsure of your understanding of how the accountancy principle of sunk cost can impact on operational issues. If Allam had put £80m into a rather glorious football strip, that next year would be useless and superseded by another, then I would agree it would be lost and quite rightly marginalised as a ‘sunk cost’. But he has not, has he? He has invested, via loans, £80m into a football club whose assets (such as they are) are a moving feast, mainly dependent on success in various ways. The loans are constantly receiving interest and not stagnant or depreciating, they also have a decent chance of being repaid – sunk they are not. The money is not spent (as you say), it is invested and must be included in the decision making process. I think you will find that AA, as an accountant is very familiar with that and would not risk £80m in sunk cost investment. Is there really anything you have come to know about him that leads you to believe otherwise?
Click to expand...

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.

You must log in or register to see images
 
originallambrettaman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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'.
 
ElTigre-HCAFC said:
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'.
Click to expand...

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.
 
originallambrettaman said:
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.

You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.


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.
Click to expand...

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 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Happy Tiger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Happy Tiger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back