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
