Nah. HullTigers means nothing at all. It would need to be explained and expanded before it meant anything, and the ONLY way of explaining it would be to tell them it refers to Hull City, the English Football Club that are nicknamed the Tigers. Why confuse an existing brand with an extra tacky appendage? (I'm not convinced the Asian Market's as gullible as some seem to think anyway)
New York Yankees caps are popular because they're called New York, idiot, and morons across the world lap **** like that up. Even the logo is just an 'n' and a 'y'. Y'know, for New York. at the Harlem Globetrotters. They're an exhibition side, you clown. Hardly the same as an English association football club formed in 1904.
Possibly. I read you as saying the punchy name is what gives the impetus to marketing, but you mention a sport where franchise is the norm. My response was to point out that Hull Tigers is longer than The Tigers, and also needs more explanation, so is actually less punchy. Am I close? EDIT. I reckon most people won't know what sport the New York Yankees play, what they've won, where they are in the league or even if they're still in New York.
Why don't you point me to these rules as Google seems pretty vague about such consultation processes. They can't even agree what the process should have been for the rainbow laces campaign.
It depends what the Allams are planning to do with the rebrand. I'm talking about the scenario where they use the football club to make a brand that doesn't really have anything to do with football other than its the same company/name/logo etc. If its purely a ploy to get Asians to support Hull City and buy shirts etc. it's different, as its a name different to any other English football club, more like a name that you would find in Asia. Probably still worth a try, as Asia is a huge market that loves English football and is still relatively untapped. It's still more than most other clubs have done over there, I think most of them tend to support Man U and Chelsea as they're just the teams they get to see most of and win a lot, but I think give them a reason to support a club and half of them will probably jump ship. Another positive i just thought of is Hull Tigers also has potential to pull other local sports into it aswell making us a sporting club as opposed to a football club. As far as the Yankees are concerned I haven't a ****ing clue about any of that other than they're a baseball team. I think they've won the rounders tournament once or twice...
You own a house, doesn't mean you can build what you want on the side of it. You own a listed building, doesn't mean that you can rip its heart out. You own a dog, doesn't mean you can ill treat it. It's not enough to say 'how dare someone that owns something do whatever they want with it', stick an unnecessary exclamation mark after it, and think that somehow you've made a serious argument. If you own a football club, it comes with responsibilities. It's about stewardship as well as ownership. By coincidence, I've just come across an article by respected football journalist Martin Samuels today, who puts this very point, challenging 'those who believe that buying a football club gives an owner sole control of its destiny'. It's mainly about Pompey, but mentions City too. As for your riposte that if I don't like it, I should stop going. I'm not about to stop watching City after 30 years regular attendance just because some here today, gone tomorrow chairman decides he's got the right to change the name we've had for over a century. Especially now that I'm watching the best team we've had in all those years. I'm loving it.
I trust the business acumen of AA over that of OLM. I regard this as a good reason. I suppose this will be regarded as a non reason.FFS The way the protests have gone should be taken into account. Apathy even in your own ranks. I will now watch with interest to see how OLM topples AA and see how this benefits the Tigers
I might have done if he'd have asked me. Instead he insulted me, my deceased mother and the rest of my community by telling us our identity as City fans was lousy and irrelevant. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt about common. Unlike Canadatiger my mother and myself and thousands of other people referred to us as City. He then made it worse by saying we could make fools of ourselves on the world stage by referring to Hull Tigers as Hull City. So for me there will be no benefit of the doubt. For me marketing us in Asia as The Tigers is far better than calling us Hull Tigers. In reality until we are successful on the pitch it will make very little difference.
Type in premier league rules in google and you'll find them as a pdf file. Then read them. You'll find what you're looking for. Sorry not to be any more helpful.
Its tough not to clutch at straws trying to find any positives in such an abomination Although I do think the Asian market is there for who dares move, and for a club such as ours it will take something more than just being a premier league football club to be an attractive option as there are at least 17 others that probably have more about them for now. It's well worth a go trying to tap and will be a handsome reward for whoever manages to make a proper score over there. Has Allam ever actually stated his intentions and reasoning behind the rebrand other than its a shorter, better business name? It would be sad to mutilate our original name just because he thinks it sounds better.
Yes Assem Allam has explained his reasons. He thinks the word City is common (I think in the sense that there's lots of them), irrelevant and a lousy identity. He think Man City should be renamed Manchester Hunter, but he didn't have time to tell us what every other team with City in their title should be called. On Saturday as Martin Atkinson spent the 15 minutes after the 90 not looking at his watch the Tiger faithful joined in a rousing rendition of Hull City, Hull City FC by far the, etc. It certainly sounded irrelevant and lousy not. I'll give Assem Allam his due, it was certainly common, at least amongst the City fans.
