Very sad of course, but her argument to maintain the name is void of any real substantial reason.
Its a name yes, but its a business, Football has gone down this route for years now the moment sky got involved and the Premier League was born. This is not simply a tradition any more like it may have done. If you don't like this route then paying for away tickets to Man City for over 60 euros is hypocrisy. We drive the direction of football with our wallets, if you want the best you need to have the dollar. If you don't then its the doldrums. I've supported City since 1990 and I went to watch them on my own with another 2,500 people. If someone asked me then would i want the team to be in the top tier in the top half of the old division one by just changing the name, I would have taken it hands down instead of the crap we had to watch.
Teams of our size need something different to stand out from all the other teams, no one where I live in Spain have heard of Hull, but guess what, they know the tigers. Cardiff, Palace, swansea (even though they played here against Valencia) No clue, and before you say it wasn't through negative press. There is ONE city here and thats Manchester. They are referred to as nicknames. We have to stop being so traditional and attempt to embrace this.
I for one would love Hull to remain Hull City AFC, however, to maintain this status and for growth who am I to argue against one of the most successful business men in England.