Hull City to be renamed

Hardly a massive overhaul. Hull are already widely referred to as the Tigers so Hull City Tigers or Hull Tigers wouldnt be too bad imo. Cardiff's rebrand seen them change colour and badge which is far worse.

Zebra3

Oranage2 wrote: »

Am I the only one who likes it - FC, City etc are so boring, football needs to be more jazzy!

No, you're not the only one.

The bloke who owns Hull agrees with you.

Richard Hillman

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

And of course ssn wouldnt want to spin it any other way would they?:rolleyes:

Are you seriously judging the hull city fans opinion on this on a ssn piece?? At times i give up

PARANOIA. Its a big mad conspiracy theory.

~Rebel~

I think we can just remove the "n" from the thread title.

GavRedKing

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/25341248

Hull City have confirmed they have applied to the FA to change their name to Hull Tigers from next season.

Xenophile

Hull Tigers sounds great to me.

I think it will be a roaring success.

Tigers are a big selfish cat, well all cats are selfish, no loyalty, well that's their nature and I don't condemn them.

With their new name, will they be just as successful as the Kilkenny?

Go on the cats!The term Kilkenny cat refers to anyone who is a tenacious fighter. The origin of the term is now lost so there are many stories purporting to give the true meaning.

To "fight like a Kilkenny cat" refers to an old story about two cats who fought to the death and ate each other up such that only their tails were left.[1] There is also a limerick (with optional added couplet) about the two cats:

There once were two cats of Kilkenny
Each thought there was one cat too many
So they fought and they fit
And they scratched and they bit
Till (excepting their nails
And the tips of their tails)
Instead of two cats there weren't any!

Now don't get personal leave Tiger Woods out of this please.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.........Miaou, Miaou, Miaou.

kryogen

ollaetta wrote: »

http://www.itv.com/sport/football/article/2013-08-09/assem-allam-rebrands-premier-league-club-as-hull-city-tigers/

"My dislike for the word 'City' is because it is common. City is also associated with Leicester, Bristol, Manchester and many other clubs.
"I don't like being like everyone else. I want the club to be special. It is about identity. City is a lousy identity. Hull City Association Football Club is so long."

No, just no. Sick to death of these foreign owners and their crazy ideas.

A huge part of me agrees with the fan outrage about this, but I cant shake a little part of me that feels, its his money, he bought the club, he can kind of do what he chooses really. If he wants to ignore the fans then that's his choice.

I can imagine I wouldn't see his point of view if it were my own team of course

JPA

kryogen wrote: »

A huge part of me agrees with the fan outrage about this, but I cant shake a little part of me that feels, its his money, he bought the club, he can kind of do what he chooses really. If he wants to ignore the fans then that's his choice.

I can imagine I wouldn't see his point of view if it were my own team of course

He owns the club but the club is nothing without fans, they can't be ignored.

kryogen

JPA wrote: »

He owns the club but the club is nothing without fans, they can't be ignored.

He can though, it is a risk but he can. If he makes the club successful they will pack the stadium regardless of what they are called.

dreamers75

FC Manchester vs FC Hull City


Any takers on when it will happen?


Nocalciomodernosomfin lads would love that.

thebaz

Deleted User wrote: »

Hardly a massive overhaul. Hull are already widely referred to as the Tigers so Hull City Tigers or Hull Tigers wouldnt be too bad imo.

agree, I think supporters are sometimes too precious about tradition - if it meant Hull becoming a mid table consistent premiership team , with substantial investment , a tweak of the name would be ok with me - what Tan is doing at Cardiff is way worse

Pique

Americanisation?

Blackburn Rovers.
Tottenham Hotspurs.
Glasgow Rangers.

Hhmmm...

Xenophile

Pique wrote: »

Americanisation?

Blackburn Rovers.
Tottenham Hotspurs.
Glasgow Rangers.

Hhmmm...

Anything as simple and as inoffensive as this that helps promote the game in the USA is welcome!

Reekwind

Pique wrote: »

Americanisation?

Blackburn Rovers.
Tottenham Hotspurs.
Glasgow Rangers.

Hhmmm...

What on earth is American about any of those names?

Pique

Reekwind wrote: »

What on earth is American about any of those names?

My point is that people shouldn't be calling it (changing Hull City to Hull City Tigers) an Americanisation of the name when the others have existed in the UK for decades.

Reekwind

Pique wrote: »

My point is that people shouldn't be calling it (changing Hull City to Hull City Tigers) an Americanisation of the name when the others have existed in the UK for decades.

But that doesn't follow. Calling a club 'Tigers' is clearly a departure from football nomenclature in the UK. I can't think of any other league teams that are named after animals. That is much more of an American, or Asian, thing

Which is completely different from calling a club 'Rovers' or 'Hotspur' or 'Wanderers'. Those aren't "others" in that the only thing that they'd seem to have in common with 'Tigers' is that the names aren't 'FC' or 'Town'. There's a world of difference between, say, 'Hull Tigers' and 'Hull Hotspurs'

OwaynOTT

I actually don't get the big deal about this, or st James park or Cardiff changing colour.

6781

You can say its only a name but its far deeper then that in my opinion. I think it's easy for people who have no real connection with a football club other then watching them on pay per view tv or a highlights show not to understand the strong bond clubs have with their community. As football becomes more and more commercialised this bond weakens as the local working class fans are driven out by increasing ticket prices, stricter security, and newer stadiums built out of town. These fans who's support has been carried on from generation to generation are been replaced by "football tourists" or richer fans who don't have the same community bond. Sadly I think we will see more clubs in England getting rebranded or colours changed, particular with smaller clubs who don't have a large hardcore support to resist it. 
 Unless fans get organised and take control of their clubs similar to Germany where supporters own a minimum of 51% of the club, the money men will continue to rip the soul out of football. I think Hull and Cardiff are just another chapter in this growing franchise story, we've seen what happened to Wimbledon. I guess only time will tell if this the way forward for English football  but makes me glad my club is owned 100% by the fans meaning that one man can't come in and do what he wants. Also that community bond we have is still as strong as it was 26 years ago when supporters took control of the club. I wish Hull fans the best in their protests. But they are up against it when you see stewards ploughing in and causing a ruck just because supporters have a banner saying city till we die.

mikeym

If it meant financial stability id change the name to Hull Tigers.

Hulls closest rivals Grimsby Town are in the conference and their fans would love the investment. And over the years Grimsby were in the higher division.

6781

Just because they are called Tigers they won't be immune to relegation, a few signings don't work out and a poor manager they might find themselves in bother and then when their new found fans get bored or loose interest in a Championship or League One club they might find themselves with financia problemsl. I think having a financially sound community based club in the lower divisions is far more important selling everything you stand for just so someone from the millionaire boys club can make more money out of your club. The Sky sports dream of playing in the "best league in the world" is more attractive to most football fans so I don't think to many would agree with me on that one.

Reekwind

It's his football and he's threatening to take it home if he doesn't get his way.

The Hull City owner, Assem Allam, has threatened to walk away from the club if the Football Association refuses to grant his application to change the club's name to Hull Tigers.

Speaking to Sky Sports News, Allam, who made his money building up a generator business, Allam Marine, said of the opposition: "No one on earth is allowed to question my business decisions. I won't allow it. I can give you my CV to give you comfort, for what I do in business, what I have achieved, but for someone to come and question me is not allowed.

2smiggy

it's his club, he has invested alot into the club to bring them back to the premier league. it's only a name. he has also given alot to rugby league in the area and hull in general. Can't see the problem really.

Rhys Essien

2smiggy wrote: »

it's his club, he has invested alot into the club to bring them back to the premier league. it's only a name. he has also given alot to rugby league in the area and hull in general. Can't see the problem really.

I dont agree.The FA should tell him to get stuffed.He bought into the franchise that is Hull City FC.If he gets the go ahead,whats to stop another billionaire naming a club after his name or something.Where do you draw the line?

Abramovich could go ahead with Chelsea Romans FC.

Rhys Essien

City Sheikh'ers FC
Alisher's Arsenal FC
Randy Villians FC

Liam O

Manchester Glaziers LTD.

simonw

Rhys Essien wrote: »

I dont agree.The FA should tell him to get stuffed.He bought into the franchise that is Hull City FC.If he gets the go ahead,whats to stop another billionaire naming a club after his name or something.Where do you draw the line?

Abramovich could go ahead with Chelsea Romans FC.

Why would you draw a line at all? Say if a club was fan owned and unanimously wanted to change the name for some reason - should that be stopped?

Rhys Essien

simonw wrote: »

Why would you draw a line at all? Say if a club was fan owned and unanimously wanted to change the name for some reason - should that be stopped?

That would never happen.The name is part of the history and heritage of the club.If you want to go messing with names,why not just start up a new club.

Sideshow Mark

Rhys Essien wrote: »

I dont agree.The FA should tell him to get stuffed.He bought into the franchise that is Hull City FC.If he gets the go ahead,whats to stop another billionaire naming a club after his name or something.Where do you draw the line?

Abramovich could go ahead with Chelsea Romans FC.

FA should be there to make sure that no team changes it's name to something ridiculous. Tigers is not a ridiculous name for Hull, their club creast is a tiger, their shirt says Tigers, they are known as The Tigers.

What is ridiculous is the guy from the "City til we die" group on Sky News talking about how precious names are whilst standing outside the "KC Stadium" wearing a Hull cap with a tiger on it. The owner should take his money, invest it in something more profitable and let these guys sink to League 1 where they belong.

Dolph Starbeam

I really don't see the big deal, the name has stayed pretty much the same as it was. I'd love to see what would happen if Red Bull tried to rename a club and change the crest like they did with New York/New Jersey or Salzburg plus others.

taytothief

I can't wait for a league table like this:
The Gunners
The Citizens
The Reds
The Blues
The Toffees
The Eagles
The Saints
The Bluebirds
The Tigers
The Red Devils
etc.

Sure aren't they already known as this?

You can bet your house that if this farce turns out to be a commercial success in ****ing Thailand or some ****, they'll all be at it tomorrow.

LiamoSail

taytothief wrote: »

You can bet your house that if this farce turns out to be a commercial success in ****ing Thailand or some ****, they'll all be at it tomorrow.

I doubt a country as poor as Thailand would be considered an important commercial market for any premier league club

taytothief

LiamoSail wrote: »

I doubt a country as poor as Thailand would be considered an important commercial market for any premier league club

Maybe you can explain why Man Utd, Chelsea, Barca, Liverpool (gave up looking here) have all gone on tour there for me so.

Do tell me more about Thailand though.

Cienciano

taytothief wrote: »

Do tell me more about Thailand though.

Some of the women have mickies

LiamoSail

taytothief wrote: »

Maybe you can explain why Man Utd, Chelsea, Barca, Liverpool (gave up looking here) have all gone on tour there for me so.

Do tell me more about Thailand though.

I'd imagine its to do with developing a presence in the Asian market.

Thailand I itself is quiet a poor country. I've been there plenty of times with work, and the poverty is widespread, as is the availability of fake shirts etc, which obviously has an adverse affect on shirt sales.

While I don't doubt that the big clubs derive some level of revenue from Thailand, I'd imagine its primarily though commercial deals and relative to their overall revenue, of minimal value

ctrl-alt-delete

Doesn't look like it will get the go ahead,

The Football Association is advised by its membership committee to reject Hull City's plan to change their name to Tigers.

eagle eye

If it was the club I support I'd hate it but how can the FA stop it? Its a business and re-branding is a common business practice. Is it not up to the owner to make this decision?

Soups123

I'm delighted the FA blocked it otherwise there would be more of this Sh*te. It's is a business but it's also a sport which cities and people have lifetimes of support and connection to. A clubs history and it's name should never be for changing unless there is a sporting reason (merger etc)

Darkglasses

eagle eye wrote: »

If it was the club I support I'd hate it but how can the FA stop it? Its a business and re-branding is a common business practice. Is it not up to the owner to make this decision?

Apparently not, good thing too.

Skid X

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26921004

Hull City season card holders have narrowly voted in favour of owner Assem Allam's plan to change the Premier League club's name to Hull Tigers.
The Football Association will decide on the proposals when its council meets on Wednesday, though its membership committee has already made a recommendation to reject the plans.
Allam, 74, said he will walk away from the club if the name change is blocked.
A total of 2,565 of those eligible voted for the change, to 2,517 against.

The silent majority have spoken. The FA should let them change their name, Hull City Tigers has a ring to it.

hjkl

Skid X wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26921004



The silent majority have spoken. The FA should let them change their name, Hull City Tigers has a ring to it.

It's a majority of 48 under threat of the owner pulling all investment if he diesn't get his way.

Jelle1880

From a Hull City fan on reddit:

I take a big issue with the way this ballot was conducted, and I think many share these concerns.

The yes option on the ballot was in fact 'Yes to Hull Tigers with the Allam family continuing to lead the club.' A very leading question that has an implicit threat with his statement that he would sell the club if he didn't get the name change.

Fans had to pro-actively download a pdf from the club website to vote, which quite a few people will not have been aware of. Additionally, text written on the pdf couldn't be saved for whatever reason, and it was reported the club received back a number of blank forms.

The turnout of eligible season ticket holders was just over a third*. I think that tells you all you need to know about its legitimacy.

Edit: A couple of sources and corrected the turnout figure:

http://www.hullcitytigers.com/news/article/201314-season-card-holders-ballot-1435293.aspx

http://www.hullcitytigers.com/news/article/201314-season-card-holders-ballot-results-1474110.aspx#qw2U1mUF3XIvUvT2.99

Rikand

Skid X wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26921004



The silent majority have spoken. The FA should let them change their name, Hull City Tigers has a ring to it.

it does!

But they're changing it to " Hull Tigers " - Which doesn't have the same ring.

Richard Hillman

So it turned out that fans either liked the name change or were not bothered enough to vote to keep the name to Hull City.

Egg on the face for the fascist behaving football traditionalists

MagicMarker

Hull City Tigers, theeeeeeeeeyyyyy'reeeee shít.

Jelle1880

Richard Hillman wrote: »

So it turned out that fans were either liked the name change or were not bothered enough to vote to keep the name to Hull City.

Egg on the face for the fascist behaving football traditionalists

Maybe you should read what actually happened ?

Fans were not simply given the choice to vote yes or no.

The options were: "Yes to Hull Tigers with the Allam family continuing to lead the club", "No to Hull Tigers" and "I am not too concerned and will continue to support the club either way"

That's dubious phrasing.

Son Of A Vidic

So with a name like Hull City Tigers, does this mean they've also changed disciplines and joined Rugby League?

gimli2112

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

So with a name like Hull City Tigers, does this mean they've also changed disciplines and joined Rugby League?

That's the owner's next proposal or he's off!

Richard Hillman

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Maybe you should read what actually happened ?

Fans were not simply given the choice to vote yes or no.

The options were: "Yes to Hull Tigers with the Allam family continuing to lead the club", "No to Hull Tigers" and "I am not too concerned and will continue to support the club either way"

That's dubious phrasing.

It seems like a simple yes, no, not really bothered question to me. The No side are just trying to use this to garner support. If the season ticket holders felt that "The Allam Family continuing...." part was a bit of a loaded question then they should have vote "I am not too concerned".

It seems that the only people that care about the name change are the small minority of the match going fans (Who will continue to go anyway) and the minority of vocal traditionalists that dont even support Hull Tigers.

MagicIRL

It's been rejected.
http://www.thefa.com/news/governance/2014/apr/fa-council-decision-on-hull-city-application

Jelle1880

Richard Hillman wrote: »

It seems like a simple yes, no, not really bothered question to me. The No side are just trying to use this to garner support. If the season ticket holders felt that "The Allam Family continuing...." part was a bit of a loaded question then they should have vote "I am not too concerned".

It seems that the only people that care about the name change are the small minority of the match going fans (Who will continue to go anyway) and the minority of vocal traditionalists that dont even support Hull Tigers.

Erm, no.

The 'yes' answer clearly implies that if they do not vote yes the owners will leave the club, which all most likely lead to financial problems.

Thanks to the FA it won't go through, common sense really.