Jump to content
IGNORED

Untitled


cityloyal473

Recommended Posts

Just reading their forum and the associated news report, i don't think they're that opposed to Hull City Tigers, but globally the owners want the club to be known as Hull Tigers and as they all rightly point out, it's the thin end of the wedge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'Ull fans in my office are actually quite indifferent to the whole thing. Some of them think it's quite a good thing. They don't have to change their strip; they're commonly referred to as "Tigers" anyway; plus they think it might pull investment and fans from other countries where Tigers are seen as lucky.

The owner's comments are a little odd about "city" being common, but on the whole they seem to be quite happy. Like us, Hull fans round here get called "City Fans" and they mostly refer to the club as "City" to avoid confusion with the two Rugby sides "FC" and "Hull KR" (who are also known as The Robins!). They still get to keep the City part of their name. It would only be when marketing the club abroad where the "City" part wouldn't be mentioned.

Personally, I wouldn't want Steve Lansdown to start mucking about with our name, but I guess in Hull's case it isn't going to do them any harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't we be a bit revolutionary and get rid of the club name altogether? We could replace it with an unpronounceable symbol like Prince (the musician not Harry or William). Then we would be know as "the football club previously known as Bristol City"

On second thoughts, it's not the sort of snappy names the marketing bods like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...