The Fa Is Set To Reject Plans To Rebrand As Hull City Tigers

[Rudolf Hucker]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26618670

[Daniro]

What would the fans reaction be if SL decided we were going to be known as Bristol Robins or something else?   I think it's outrageous that these oligarchs think they can do whatever they fancy.   Like Cardiff having to play in different colours.

[Major Isewater]

[RodViler]

What would the fans reaction be if SL decided we were going to be known as Bristol Robins or something else? I think it's outrageous that these oligarchs think they can do whatever the

y fancy. Like Cardiff having to play in different

colours.[/quote

A bit like that oligarch and the Crimean annexation. As for football club owners, surely they CAN do what they like, as they OWN the club. Not condoning the behaviour and stance of HCFC, but how much of OUR club is OUR club?

Surely, the likes of Exeter City and Ebbsfleet are the future, if the alternative is submitting to the money investors who dangle the carrot of premier league / champions league utopia.

[Welcome To The Jungle]

The FA, being strong and doing something I agree with...I think I'm going to faint 

[Super]

Great news hopefully that Moron will stick to his word and resign.

[RodViler]

The FA, being strong and doing something I agree with...I think I'm going to faint

It certainly is a curveball from the FA and sends a strong message to those buying football clubs, though I don't think this is the end of it, as those with money have many ways to achieve their desired outcome.

[1960maaan]

I thought the re-naming was wrong from the start and the FA finding their long lost backbone at the back of a cupboard somewhere is overdue.

That said I'm surprised at the decision as they set a president when they allowed Franchise FC to move and change names, I wonder how this would stand up if the owners Ego takes them to court ?

[Stoke_Gifford_Red]

I thought the re-naming was wrong from the start and the FA finding their long lost backbone at the back of a cupboard somewhere is overdue.

That said I'm surprised at the decision as they set a president when they allowed Franchise FC to move and change names, I wonder how this would stand up if the owners Ego takes them to court ?

Agreed a bit weird. They allowed Wimbledon to move towns and change names, Coventry to play in Northampton (against fans wishes) and cardiff to go through a rebranding. Still hopefully this indicates a change of heart from the FA!

[Taylor10]

Agreed a bit weird. They allowed Wimbledon to move towns and change names, Coventry to play in Northampton (against fans wishes) and cardiff to go through a rebranding. Still hopefully this indicates a change of heart from the FA!

Hopefully a change of heart. Something needs to be done to stop this kind of thing happening.

[gater2]

This is really great news - finally the FA is standing up and starting to be the governing body it is supposed to be. Hopefully it will continue!

[Monkeh]

Great news hopefully that Moron will stick to his word and resign.

Problem with that is Hull would ether go into administration (which he saved them from) or fold

[Monkeh]

Agreed a bit weird. They allowed Wimbledon to move towns and change names, Coventry to play in Northampton (against fans wishes) and cardiff to go through a rebranding. Still hopefully this indicates a change of heart from the FA!

Coventry we effectivly evicted from the Rioch thanks to their council who owned it and would let the current owners buy at least a stake in it so they could get some gate income

[Aizoon]

It certainly is a curveball from the FA and sends a strong message to those buying football clubs, though I don't think this is the end of it, as those with money have many ways to achieve their desired outcome.

Watch this end up in court, where the biggest wodge always gets the desired result.

[Guest]

I think Greg Dyke has probably had a strong influence. For once we have someone in charge of the FA who understands the game.

[Monkeh]

I think Greg Dyke has probably had a strong influence. For once we have someone in charge of the FA who understands the game.

I like Greg Dyke, he's got the fans in his thought instead of the money like the prem do,

[steveybadger]

Just to be clear, although the owner was born in Egypt he has lived in Hull since 1968 apparently. So I don't think you can class him as an Oligarch or even foreign owner really. Regardless, what he has tried to do stinks, just as the situation at the franchise, Cov, Cardiff etc does.

 

One other point, I think he said he'd sell up if the name change wasn't approved, but that he wouldn't pull all his cash out immediately. So I don't think administration is an immediate issue for Hull.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

I don't get this.  Why shouldn't Hull City change their name?  Clubs have changed their names before (Hartlepool, Leyton Orient, Bournemouth being recent examples).  Almost every club in the country has had a previous name - Woolwich Arsenal, Newton Heath, Thames Ironworks, The Wednesday and Bristol South End come to mind...

 

I accept that the fans don't like it, but then presumably Hull City football club is not in common ownership?  What is the precise objection of the FA to the name change?  Do they not like the word 'Tigers'?

 

Of course I understand why fans wouldn't want this to happen, and can imagine what it would feel like if it was our own club, but are we really saying that a club can't decide what it calls itself?

[Red-Robbo]

I don't get this.  Why shouldn't Hull City change their name?  Clubs have changed their names before (Hartlepool, Leyton Orient, Bournemouth being recent examples).  Almost every club in the country has had a previous name - Woolwich Arsenal, Newton Heath, Thames Ironworks, The Wednesday and Bristol South End come to mind...

 

I accept that the fans don't like it, but then presumably Hull City football club is not in common ownership?  What is the precise objection of the FA to the name change?  Do they not like the word 'Tigers'?

 

Of course I understand why fans wouldn't want this to happen, and can imagine what it would feel like if it was our own club, but are we really saying that a club can't decide what it calls itself?

 

 

I suppose it's about respects for the fans.

 

When teams changed names and amalgamated, it was in the infancy of the English game. Strong traditions had not developed and the number of supporters was far fewer. 

 

If Hull City fans didn't mind becoming Hull Tigers, then that would be fair enough. The fact that the vast majority DO object is why the FA is being asked to disallow the change - to protect the interests of the fanbase.

 

I'd not be keen on going back to Bristol South End, but I think I could live with it if the Gas had to revert to being the Black Arabs.

[zyderiup]

I don't get this.  Why shouldn't Hull City change their name?  Clubs have changed their names before (Hartlepool, Leyton Orient, Bournemouth being recent examples).  Almost every club in the country has had a previous name - Woolwich Arsenal, Newton Heath, Thames Ironworks, The Wednesday and Bristol South End come to mind...

 

I accept that the fans don't like it, but then presumably Hull City football club is not in common ownership?  What is the precise objection of the FA to the name change?  Do they not like the word 'Tigers'?

 

Of course I understand why fans wouldn't want this to happen, and can imagine what it would feel like if it was our own club, but are we really saying that a club can't decide what it calls itself?

 

I think that it was a decision based on the fact that the fans do not want it and they consulted with them. Credit to those Hull fans who have made a lot of noise to let it be known that the absolutely do not want their name changed by a wealthy Egyptian. I can't comment on the very very old examples you have given but the more recent ones (Wimbledon aside, bless 'em) didn't have nearly as much of an opposition, especially by that lot over the bridge who even lubed it up for the Tan-man

[Aizoon]

I don't get this.  Why shouldn't Hull City change their name?  Clubs have changed their names before (Hartlepool, Leyton Orient, Bournemouth being recent examples).  Almost every club in the country has had a previous name - Woolwich Arsenal, Newton Heath, Thames Ironworks, The Wednesday and Bristol South End come to mind...

 

I accept that the fans don't like it, but then presumably Hull City football club is not in common ownership?  What is the precise objection of the FA to the name change?  Do they not like the word 'Tigers'?

 

Of course I understand why fans wouldn't want this to happen, and can imagine what it would feel like if it was our own club, but are we really saying that a club can't decide what it calls itself?

 

A club can decide what it calls itself, if by 'club' you include the supporters. A rich ar$ehole who wants to market the name abroad is not the 'club'.

[Monkeh]

Clubs can change names but they need to consult fans and go with the majority, for example if Lansdown wanted to change the name of ashton gate to the stadium of shite and the majority of fans were against it he should then drop the idea,

 

The one thing I don't mind fans not being consulted on is stadium sponsership as it brings added revenue in and fans will just call it by name anyway,

Do people really say they are traveling to the sports direct stadium or do they say they are going to St James Park?

[Red-Robbo]

Clubs can change names but they need to consult fans and go with the majority, for example if Lansdown wanted to change the name of ashton gate to the stadium of shite and the majority of fans were against it he should then drop the idea,

 

The one thing I don't mind fans not being consulted on is stadium sponsership as it brings added revenue in and fans will just call it by name anyway,

Do people really say they are traveling to the sports direct stadium or do they say they are going to St James Park?

 

 

The latter, as they dropped the Sports Direct name when they ceased to be the sponsor. 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

Clubs can change names but they need to consult fans and go with the majority, for example if Lansdown wanted to change the name of ashton gate to the stadium of shite and the majority of fans were against it he should then drop the idea,

 

The one thing I don't mind fans not being consulted on is stadium sponsership as it brings added revenue in and fans will just call it by name anyway,

Do people really say they are traveling to the sports direct stadium or do they say they are going to St James Park?

 

Well yes, in an ideal world this is what would happen.  Not consulting fans would be very bad PR.  But I wonder about the legality of the FA not accepting a change of name, so I agree with whoever predicted it would end up in the courts.

[Aizoon]

Well yes, in an ideal world this is what would happen. Not consulting fans would be very bad PR. But I wonder about the legality of the FA not accepting a change of name, so I agree with whoever predicted it would end up in the courts.

It was I. It'll end up in the courts because the owner has an apparently infinite amount of money, so he can play the legal game to his heart's content. Doesn't mean he has a valid case, though...

[Monkeh]

Well yes, in an ideal world this is what would happen.  Not consulting fans would be very bad PR.  But I wonder about the legality of the FA not accepting a change of name, so I agree with whoever predicted it would end up in the courts.

thats a fair comment