Archived

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

l'angelo mysterioso

Newcastle United- to be renamed

61 posts in this topic

Allam has certainly saved Hull Tigers, of that there is no doubt.

 

However, his absolute arrogance of, whatever decision I make is the right one and if you lot don't like it then you're obviously wrong, is quite breathtaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Madness.

 

I know "Tigers" isn't exactly unknown in English sports, just think Castleford or Leicester but it just sounds daft next to all the City, United, Town, Rangers, Rovers etc monikers. It's like turning up in jeans and a leather jacket to a function where everyone else is wearing a suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with having a name that goes against the grain anyway? Not every football club has a regular nickname. Hotspur, Albion and Academicals are some that come to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the danger here is, that once name changes are pushed through and become 'de rigeur', some owners will soon be incorporating sponsors into the clubs official title. Its been happening with ground names for some time now, and that would be the next logical step for owners who perhaps aren't quite in synch with the importance of tradition to a lot of fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is already the case: PSV Eindhoven, Vauxhall Motors FC, Bayer Leverkusen, Red Bull Salzburg.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the Wednesday bit in Sheffield refers to the fact that the team was comprised of shop workers

who had Wednesday afternoons free. Hardly a sensible name if you want to argue about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the Wednesday bit in Sheffield refers to the fact that the team was comprised of shop workers

who had Wednesday afternoons free. Hardly a sensible name if you want to argue about it.

It was even less sensible back in the day when they were called simply "Wednesday".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with having a name that goes against the grain anyway? Not every football club has a regular nickname. Hotspur, Albion and Academicals are some that come to mind.

Those are all the historical names of the team. AFAIK they were always called that.

 

With Allam, he is arguing that the decision is a business one and no-one has the right to question him (he even said that). He said that it makes the club more marketable; this would appear not to be the case in Hull but more than likely he means more marketable in Malaysia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are all the historical names of the team. AFAIK they were always called that.

With Allam, he is arguing that the decision is a business one and no-one has the right to question him (he even said that). He said that it makes the club more marketable; this would appear not to be the case in Hull but more than likely he means more marketable in Malaysia.

What was it that certain people used to say to RL....you have sold your soul and must live with the consequences. If he is putting the money in (and I haven't a clue if he is or others are too) then he calls the shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Madness.

 

I know "Tigers" isn't exactly unknown in English sports, just think Castleford or Leicester but it just sounds daft next to all the City, United, Town, Rangers, Rovers etc monikers. It's like turning up in jeans and a leather jacket to a function where everyone else is wearing a suit.

they are already known as the tigers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are already known as the tigers

Exactly, they have also always marketed themselves as such. It's difficult to see how incorporating the name into their official title could help them shift a few more Tiger onesies or silly hats or indeed herald a stampede of Far Eastern billionaires wanting to invest in the club. A lot of people just don't buy Allam's line that the name change is purely about generating extra revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was it that certain people used to say to RL....you have sold your soul and must live with the consequences. If he is putting the money in (and I haven't a clue if he is or others are too) then he calls the shots.

Well, this is true but I don't think it means that fans of the club shouldn't have an opinion on it.

 

There is a huge contrast between Allam and Hull City and Koukash and Salford City Reds (as was). Both have adopted nicknames as part of their official name.

 

The first put his cash in and has made a huge difference to the playing standard of the team but has a huge ego and seems to go out of his way to annoy the fans. It's all about him.

 

With Salford, the cash has gone in and we expect a much improved Salford side but the name change has broadly been welcomed as Koukash does seem to have the best interests of the club at heart even if he is a little "intense" at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, they have also always marketed themselves as such. It's difficult to see how incorporating the name into their official title could help them shift a few more Tiger onesies or silly hats or indeed herald a stampede of Far Eastern billionaires wanting to invest in the club. A lot of people just don't buy Allam's line that the name change is purely about generating extra revenue.

Thanks mate

That clarifies things 

 

I can see the thinking now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Exactly, they have also always marketed themselves as such. It's difficult to see how incorporating the name into their official title could help them shift a few more Tiger onesies or silly hats or indeed herald a stampede of Far Eastern billionaires wanting to invest in the club. A lot of people just don't buy Allam's line that the name change is purely about generating extra revenue.

Well you say that, but it isn't any more ridiculous than the Cardiff City owner changing the club colours from blue to red because it would "have more appeal to international markets". Perhaps "Tigers" has more resonance in the far east, perhaps red is a lucky colour over there ? We can only assume that there is a financial motive for these kind of changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well you say that, but it isn't any more ridiculous than the Cardiff City owner changing the club colours from blue to red because it would "have more appeal to international markets". Perhaps "Tigers" has more resonance in the far east, perhaps red is a lucky colour over there ? We can only assume that there is a financial motive for these kind of changes.

 

I was quite surpised by how few Cardiff fans seemed to care about that.  I would have thought that was more fundamental than whether Tigers was the real name or the common nickname.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with having a name that goes against the grain anyway? Not every football club has a regular nickname. Hotspur, Albion and Academicals are some that come to mind.

A quick look at league one confirms that, MK Dons, Alexandra, North End,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was quite surpised by how few Cardiff fans seemed to care about that.  I would have thought that was more fundamental than whether Tigers was the real name or the common nickname.

Don't care about it? Not sure about that.

 

Football clubs have rarely changed names. Leeds United have been called Leeds United for their entire existence for instance, and that's very much the norm. You can find some counter examples but they were mostly in the very early stages of the clubs history e.g. Yorkshire and Lancashire railway => Newton Heath => Manchester United.

 

However colour changes aren't unknown. Leeds wore blue and yellow until Revie managed them. Jimmy Hill made Coventry adopt sky blue. I don't think Liverpool wore red until Shankly came along. You probably have to be as successful as they were to pull it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick look at league one confirms that, MK Dons, Alexandra, North End,

MK Dons certainly attracted a lot of heat.

 

Wrt to Crewe and Preston - they were always called this - it's not a gimmick "big animal" name adopted to try to flog T-shirts to kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't care about it? Not sure about that.

 

Football clubs have rarely changed names. Leeds United have been called Leeds United for their entire existence for instance, and that's very much the norm. You can find some counter examples but they were mostly in the very early stages of the clubs history e.g. Yorkshire and Lancashire railway => Newton Heath => Manchester United.

 

However colour changes aren't unknown. Leeds wore blue and yellow until Revie managed them. Jimmy Hill made Coventry adopt sky blue. I don't think Liverpool wore red until Shankly came along. You probably have to be as successful as they were to pull it off.

 

Liverpool have worn red since 1896.  Leeds United began wearing white as a first team kit over half a century ago; about as long ago as Coventry returned to wearing sky blue.

 

So, anyone other than Cardiff in the last fifty years?  Because in that time I can think of several football clubs that have changed their name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well you say that, but it isn't any more ridiculous than the Cardiff City owner changing the club colours from blue to red because it would "have more appeal to international markets". Perhaps "Tigers" has more resonance in the far east, perhaps red is a lucky colour over there ? We can only assume that there is a financial motive for these kind of changes.

I think Old Frightful's comment in the Football thread isn't too far off the mark when it comes to Allam's real motive. Hull City already market themselves as The Tigers; their merchandising side is already known as Tigerleisure. There's very little more they can squeeze out of that marketing angle. Cardiff was very differnent. That was more or less a 'rebrand'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liverpool have worn red since 1896.  Leeds United began wearing white as a first team kit over half a century ago; about as long ago as Coventry returned to wearing sky blue.

 

So, anyone other than Cardiff in the last fifty years?  Because in that time I can think of several football clubs that have changed their name.

You say that only a few fans got upset about the change from blue to red. I'm not sure how you can say that but nevertheless you will remember the past attempt to rename the "Cardiff Celts" and how that ended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't Leeds known as Leeds City originally?

No, Leeds City were kicked out of the league for making irregular payments to players and five years later United came along. Different team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 21st Aug 2017

Rugby League World - Sept 2017