On a point of principle?????
That ignores the main point I was making as well, given that choice, which would you take???
Name change discussion
- Thread starter RicardoHCAFC
- Start date
-
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
-
On a point of principle?????
That ignores the main point I was making as well, given that choice, which would you take???
The fight to retain our name will continue, whatever threats are thrown our way.
He's full of **** anyway.
Talksport poll - currently 91% against a name change...
http://talksport.com/poll/poll-should-hull-fans-let-chairman-allam-change-clubs-name-14011475624
http://talksport.com/poll/poll-should-hull-fans-let-chairman-allam-change-clubs-name-14011475624
Its fully about giving Steve Bruce their full backing and giving him the best chance at both warding off relegation and finishing as high as possible.
So are you saying that you're going to plough on irrespective & therefore call his bluff?
Or are you prepared to take whatever comes if he does walk away, even if that ends up with administration?
Oliver Kay - The Times
A few thoughts on Assem Allam's absurd bid to turn Hull City into "Hull Tigers":
* I despise this increasingly popular notion of "It's his club, so he can do what he wants". Many clubs across Britain have fallen into unsuitable hands because the rules aren't tight enough. Allam actually appears to be one of the better ones -- long association with Hull, long history of philanthropy in the area, invested money to stabilise and taken the club forward -- but but no amount of money should entitle him, after three years, to decide on a whim that he wants to change the club's name. Venky's Rovers? Gazprom Chelsea? Abu Dhabi City? Sports Direct United, No, no, no, no.
* A lot of clubs, including Arsenal, Everton, Manchester City, West Ham etc started out with other names. Yes, but those changes were in the early years of their existence when they were trying to work out who/what they were and what they represented -- just like bands change names when they're setting out. Hull fans wouldn't pretend that their club has the most evocative name in English football -- or even the worst nickname (it's not like becoming the Fulham Cottagers ...), but a club's name shouldn't be changed 109 years later on the whim of the latest owner, especially when ....
* people need to look beyond Allam's spiel about how "City is a lousy identity" and how "Tigers" will turn Hull into a huge commercial force in Asia. Allam feels that "City is a lousy identity" because he's in dispute with Hull CITY Council over the freehold to the KC Stadium. It's not a coincidence. Perhaps some potential fans and sponsors would be seduced by the "Tigers" thing, but it's an insult to the intelligence of Asian fans to suggest that something as superficial as that -- or the colour red in Cardiff's case -- would have them changing allegiance to Hull/Cardiff rather than one of the big Champions League clubs. And it's an insult to local fans in Hull to pretend that this is all about global marketing.
* Allam has threatened to walk away if the FA don't agree to the name change. What an appalling message to send out: it's my ball and I'm taking it home. He "owns" the club, but English football needs to discourage this extremely unhealthy idea that an owner has the right to do whatever the hell he likes. Look at Coventry (victim of another rent dispute between owners and local council) playing in Northampton in front of meagre crowds. Look at what became of Wimbledon. Where does all this end? It should never reach the stage where owners have the power to act unilaterally like this. A name change (or a change to the kit) might seem trivial in the grand of scheme things, but it's a wider battle and one that all fans should be on board with. See The Football Supporters' Federation and Supporters Direct.
* It comes down to the FA Council to decide whether or not to ratify this name change. That shouldn't fill anyone with confidence, but if there's one thing the FA Council should be capable of, it's standing in the way of what they're being told is progress. "Hull Tigers" isn't progress. It's a total nonsense. A lot of this current crop of owners need to be reined in -- yes, even some of those who help dreams come true. This is one opportunity for the FA Council to justify its existence and say no.
Here's a piece I wrote on the matter last month.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/columnists/kay/article3948735.ece
A few thoughts on Assem Allam's absurd bid to turn Hull City into "Hull Tigers":
* I despise this increasingly popular notion of "It's his club, so he can do what he wants". Many clubs across Britain have fallen into unsuitable hands because the rules aren't tight enough. Allam actually appears to be one of the better ones -- long association with Hull, long history of philanthropy in the area, invested money to stabilise and taken the club forward -- but but no amount of money should entitle him, after three years, to decide on a whim that he wants to change the club's name. Venky's Rovers? Gazprom Chelsea? Abu Dhabi City? Sports Direct United, No, no, no, no.
* A lot of clubs, including Arsenal, Everton, Manchester City, West Ham etc started out with other names. Yes, but those changes were in the early years of their existence when they were trying to work out who/what they were and what they represented -- just like bands change names when they're setting out. Hull fans wouldn't pretend that their club has the most evocative name in English football -- or even the worst nickname (it's not like becoming the Fulham Cottagers ...), but a club's name shouldn't be changed 109 years later on the whim of the latest owner, especially when ....
* people need to look beyond Allam's spiel about how "City is a lousy identity" and how "Tigers" will turn Hull into a huge commercial force in Asia. Allam feels that "City is a lousy identity" because he's in dispute with Hull CITY Council over the freehold to the KC Stadium. It's not a coincidence. Perhaps some potential fans and sponsors would be seduced by the "Tigers" thing, but it's an insult to the intelligence of Asian fans to suggest that something as superficial as that -- or the colour red in Cardiff's case -- would have them changing allegiance to Hull/Cardiff rather than one of the big Champions League clubs. And it's an insult to local fans in Hull to pretend that this is all about global marketing.
* Allam has threatened to walk away if the FA don't agree to the name change. What an appalling message to send out: it's my ball and I'm taking it home. He "owns" the club, but English football needs to discourage this extremely unhealthy idea that an owner has the right to do whatever the hell he likes. Look at Coventry (victim of another rent dispute between owners and local council) playing in Northampton in front of meagre crowds. Look at what became of Wimbledon. Where does all this end? It should never reach the stage where owners have the power to act unilaterally like this. A name change (or a change to the kit) might seem trivial in the grand of scheme things, but it's a wider battle and one that all fans should be on board with. See The Football Supporters' Federation and Supporters Direct.
* It comes down to the FA Council to decide whether or not to ratify this name change. That shouldn't fill anyone with confidence, but if there's one thing the FA Council should be capable of, it's standing in the way of what they're being told is progress. "Hull Tigers" isn't progress. It's a total nonsense. A lot of this current crop of owners need to be reined in -- yes, even some of those who help dreams come true. This is one opportunity for the FA Council to justify its existence and say no.
Here's a piece I wrote on the matter last month.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/columnists/kay/article3948735.ece
As I won't support any team other than Hull City, and its a choice of Allam Or Hull City, then I will wave him goodbye. People said similar things about Lloyd, how he was a successful businessman and we should do what he said. Hull City is the entity that has endured for 109 years, chairman and owners come and go.
When the council refused to sell/give him the stadium, he'd said he'd move the club out of Hull to Melton. He didn't.
He just comes out with whatever is in his head at the time. He plans nothing.
We have no bank debt, we have no tax debts, we will shortly owe £100m and it will all be owed to Allamhouse Ltd, which is solely owned by the Allam's, with all debts guaranteed against his main business. He has no chance of recouping his investment unless we stay in the Premier League club and he can't do that without a decent squad, which is why he's committed to a £39m ongoing wage bill.
It's easy to say you're going to walk if you don't get what you want, but it's nowhere near that easy.
Fair enough mate, you're obviously passionate about it.
Do you think that if he'd have tackled this issue in a more consultative way, that you'd have maybe been more accepting of the name change?
I suppose what I'm getting at, is that it's been viewed as an attack on the heritage of the club, as opposed to a possible new chapter in the proud history of it & as an outsider that's been down to the way it's been handled as much as the name change proposal itself.
I suppose the ultimate test of whether that's the case or not, would be to answer honestly, that if he'd have turned up back when you were in deep trouble & said he'd chuck in £80m, get you into the PL, but he wanted to change the name to the Hull Tigers, would you have taken it?
Without the context it's impossible for me to say mate.
It wouldn't be right for me to say what I'd do if it was my club, as it isn't & I honestly don't know what I'd do in a similar scenario.
It's a bit of a 'sell your soul to the devil' question I suppose, but in your case you've already signed the docs & the devil wants paying!
No To Hull Tigers - LATEST ALLAM INTERVIEW
In an interview with Sky Sports, Dr Allam today reiterated his promise to “walk out” on the club if he does not get his way over a name change to “Hull Tigers”. He made similar remarks to The Independent On Sunday on 1 December. The difference this time is that he is now treating the views of the FA just as dismissively as the views of Hull City supporters.
You can watch a video of his key remarks to Sky Sports here: http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/9115932/allam-to-go-if-new-name-is-rejected
This news piece contains further quotes: http://www1.skysports.com/football/...ll-go-if-fa-dont-back-hull-tigers-name-change
City Till We Die is disappointed that at a time when Dr Allam should be making the positive case for change and showing respect for the consultation process which is underway, instead he is issuing threats.
We are confident that supporters of Hull City will see through these remarks, and believe that the Football Association will be unimpressed by Dr Allam’s lack of respect for their authority as the regulators of the national game.
Further coverage of Dr Allam’s remarks can be found below.
City Till We Die spokesperson Ian Waterson gave his reaction on sportsTALK: http://talksport.com/football/hull-city-name-sacrosanct-says-supporters-group-chief-14011475637
City Till We Die spokesperson Andy Dalton was one of the contributors to the discussion on Radio Humberside’s Sports Talk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01np51v
Sports Journalist Of The Year David Conn wrote a story for The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jan/14/hull-city-owner-allam-quit-tigers
And the news was also reported by the Daily Mail http://bit.ly/dmallam, The Daily Express, http://bit.ly/deallam, The Mirror http://bit.ly/mirallam and The Telegraph http://bit.ly/telallam.
Mark Saggers and Alvin Martin discussed Dr Allam’s remarks on talkSPORT’s Kick Off. http://talksport.com/radio/listen-again/1389726000 (26.06 in)
Finally, a poll on the talkSPORT website is currently 91% against Dr Allam's comments. http://bit.ly/Talkspoll
In an interview with Sky Sports, Dr Allam today reiterated his promise to “walk out” on the club if he does not get his way over a name change to “Hull Tigers”. He made similar remarks to The Independent On Sunday on 1 December. The difference this time is that he is now treating the views of the FA just as dismissively as the views of Hull City supporters.
You can watch a video of his key remarks to Sky Sports here: http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/9115932/allam-to-go-if-new-name-is-rejected
This news piece contains further quotes: http://www1.skysports.com/football/...ll-go-if-fa-dont-back-hull-tigers-name-change
City Till We Die is disappointed that at a time when Dr Allam should be making the positive case for change and showing respect for the consultation process which is underway, instead he is issuing threats.
We are confident that supporters of Hull City will see through these remarks, and believe that the Football Association will be unimpressed by Dr Allam’s lack of respect for their authority as the regulators of the national game.
Further coverage of Dr Allam’s remarks can be found below.
City Till We Die spokesperson Ian Waterson gave his reaction on sportsTALK: http://talksport.com/football/hull-city-name-sacrosanct-says-supporters-group-chief-14011475637
City Till We Die spokesperson Andy Dalton was one of the contributors to the discussion on Radio Humberside’s Sports Talk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01np51v
Sports Journalist Of The Year David Conn wrote a story for The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jan/14/hull-city-owner-allam-quit-tigers
And the news was also reported by the Daily Mail http://bit.ly/dmallam, The Daily Express, http://bit.ly/deallam, The Mirror http://bit.ly/mirallam and The Telegraph http://bit.ly/telallam.
Mark Saggers and Alvin Martin discussed Dr Allam’s remarks on talkSPORT’s Kick Off. http://talksport.com/radio/listen-again/1389726000 (26.06 in)
Finally, a poll on the talkSPORT website is currently 91% against Dr Allam's comments. http://bit.ly/Talkspoll
So he's leveraged the debt against the assets of his core business then? or is he using cash reserves to prop up City?
You're right, it's not easy to unravel, but it depends just how bloody minded he is. I would imagine that his son might be more pragmatic, here's hoping that he makes him see sense & stops him from doing something regrettable.