Hull FC and Hull KR to merge...

[The Parksider]

Speculation and scaremongering of the highest order.

 

You're better than that.

 

You've taken two days to find a reply, because you can't admit that in the very first instance no new merged club can retain SL status without the structure of the game going back to licensing.

 

Without instant SL status no merger can survive because of the very reasons I list which are a natural consequence of starting again in CC1.

 

If you cannot get your head around these realities, then it only shows your merger idea isn't grounded in reality with respect.

[zorquif]

You've taken two days to find a reply, because you can't admit that in the very first instance no new merged club can retain SL status without the structure of the game going back to licensing.

 

Without instant SL status no merger can survive because of the very reasons I list which are a natural consequence of starting again in CC1.

 

If you cannot get your head around these realities, then it only shows your merger idea isn't grounded in reality with respect.

 

What if... one club 'took over' the other, retaining their identity, and then the club which took over rebranded?

[Krytensmate]

A bunch of disgruntled Man Utd fans formed FC United. It doesn't seem to have derailed the Man Utd juggernaut much, does it?

 

The new team would be in a franchised elite league so the new/old team you hint at would not be a genuine competitor. But I have said time and time again that I would welcome the retention of the existing clubs at a lower level. The new team would then effectively be pitching at fans with the option to follow 2 teams in different strata, which is essentially very healthy. We could even keep the derbies, just with the new recognition that they are no longer elite. Which they haven't been for over 30 years and never will be again anyway. Which brings us to this weekend....

Eventually you'll tell us all your ' master plan ' for the future of RL , including who'd be in it , and who'd be left out

[scotchy]

It's copyright and what copyright would the club own that would prevent another club starting up?

Also the trademark has to be identical or there be a likelihood of confusion for the average consumer. Provided they don't exactly replicate the names and that I think that'd be a low hurdle given the average consumer would be an Rl fan and so well versed in what's happened at hull

badge, colours and name.

 

As I say, there would be far more practical considerations before it gets to that point.

[scotchy]

As in Kingston Rovers of Hull as opposed to Hull Kingston Rovers ?

I applaud your stamina and diligence on this thread Zorquif

They would probably be able to protect 'Kingston rovers'. 

 

I mean the reason copyright law exists is to protect 1 company/brand pretending to be another.

 

But still, where are these Kingston rovers going to play? who is paying for them?

[scotchy]

Which is why I asked you if the RFL would have to take the stand of refusing to accept applications from a new entity to play in the Championship ?

A simple question , that for some strange reason you didn't want to answer , if the answer is yes then so far within the Hull and Wakefield area's you've lost 3 clubs , so which others merge and who else gets consigned to history , we could end up with 20 clubs

So which others ?

It has been answered numerous time. No the RFL wouldn't need to refuse applications from these new clubs because they exist solely in your head.

[scotchy]

So your assumption is that the clubs owners/management are complicit with the club they own and run being shut down , given that generally the owners are fans as well do you think that is likely ?

well yes, they would need to be complicit because you can't just go shut down someone elses business and I have no idea who you think suggested such a thing.

[scotchy]

3. What was my use of literal that didn't agree with anything? And I gave two different dictionary definitions.

4. Exactly. That's why it works.

5. You named two things as fallacy, but the things you named aren't fallacies but analogies. As to your example, they are different cases. With the present discussion the fundamental similarities would be in the same characteristics as the fundamental similarities. Which you still can't point to.

3. What?

 

4. No, it would work if you were able to list the fundamental differences between Hull and Sydney that means what was possible in Sydney is impossible in Hull, you know, like we can list the fundamental differences between you and a bird which means what is possible for a bird, isn't possible for you.

 

5. No, they were names. Names used for logical fallacies, described using analogies (hence the name) that is why we name things, as a shorthand for stopping us having to describe everything. And it isn't 'different' nothing is. I could list an infinite number of fundamental similarities, it would not under any circumstances prove there weren't also fundamental differences. It is your assertion that there are fundamental differences. If there are you can list them.

[Krytensmate]

well yes, they would need to be complicit because you can't just go shut down someone elses business and I have no idea who you think suggested such a thing.

Fine , just confirming what you actually mean , your posts are that ambiguous nobody understands them half the time

So a Hull club playing at the KC I assume , probably in Black and white and called Hull but with no ' Rovers ' in the name ? You think the HKR management would go for that ?

[zorquif]

3. What?

4. No, it would work if you were able to list the fundamental differences between Hull and Sydney that means what was possible in Sydney is impossible in Hull, you know, like we can list the fundamental differences between you and a bird which means what is possible for a bird, isn't possible for you.

5. No, they were names. Names used for logical fallacies, described using analogies (hence the name) that is why we name things, as a shorthand for stopping us having to describe everything. And it isn't 'different' nothing is. I could list an infinite number of fundamental similarities, it would not under any circumstances prove there weren't also fundamental differences. It is your assertion that there are fundamental differences. If there are you can list them.

3. You don't understand. That's ok.

4. Reversal of burden. Nice.

5. You named analogies, not fallacies. Logical fallacies have names. Name the ones I indulged in or admit you were using fancy words you don't understand. List some fundamental similarities. And I'd like to see you try infinite similarities.

[zorquif]

Oh and the fundamental difference is that the fans affected by StG-I and Wests mergers were people in Sydney in 1997. The ones affected by the proposed hull merger are in hull in 2015

[zorquif]

And I doubt there's copyright remaining on the badge or that it ever existed In the name or colours

[scotchy]

Fine , just confirming what you actually mean , your posts are that ambiguous nobody understands them half the time

So a Hull club playing at the KC I assume , probably in Black and white and called Hull but with no ' Rovers ' in the name ? You think the HKR management would go for that ?

why probably in black and white?

[scotchy]

3. You don't understand. That's ok.

4. Reversal of burden. Nice.

5. You named analogies, not fallacies. Logical fallacies have names. Name the ones I indulged in or admit you were using fancy words you don't understand. List some fundamental similarities. And I'd like to see you try infinite similarities.

3. Because it doesn't make sense.

4. It was always your assertion. Always your burden. At least we have now clarified that you can't list any of these fundamental differences that you insisted existed.

5. No. They were names. Names used to SL describe the same logical fallacies. Named after the analogies uses to describe them. That being the burden of proof lies with those making scientifically unfalsifiable claims. The fallacy being those shifting that burden to others and claiming the lack of definitive proof against them, is proof in their favour. Which is exactly what you are doing here. Claiming that because I cannot definitively prove that there isn't some fundamental difference between hull 2015 and Sydney 1997 that makes what was possible in Sydney impossible in hull(because proving such a thing is an impossibility) you pretend this is an argument in your favour. It isn't. It is incumbent on you to evidence your claim that there is a difference by listing them.

(Though we all know you cannot do this and have been dancing around admitting that fact for 2 pages, asking for ridiculous things like an infinite list of similarities between those two places like it would prove anything at all, admitting you were wrong would have been much quicker and none of your rhetoric has covered that)

[scotchy]

And I doubt there's copyright remaining on the badge or that it ever existed In the name or colours

Brilliant. Some pretty easy money to be made. Might well start selling RL jerseys and memorabilia and merchandise. Ready market, no licensing fees to pay. Easy money

[scotchy]

Oh and the fundamental difference is that the fans affected by StG-I and Wests mergers were people in Sydney in 1997. The ones affected by the proposed hull merger are in hull in 2015

and why does that make what was possible in Sydney impossible in Hull.

[zorquif]

3. It's ok not to understand everything

4. I don't think I asserted anything if the sort. I asked what the fundamental similarities are. I did list two fundamental differences. And it was you that first mentioned infinite fundamental similarities. Of which you have listed none.

5. So you agree that you named analogies not fallacies? As it is I changed my position. Even though in this case I maintain my position that the areas which the fundimental similarities would be the same as where the fundimental differences relevant to this discussion are. This is important - I'm not saying there can be no differences. The differences need only be relevant to whether or not the people of hull would support a merged team. As such it might be that the fundimental similarities either show that the possible differences don't exist, or are so fundimental that the differences between the folk are no longer fundimental to the point in question. But as I say, I changed my position to ask what the fundimental similarities are. You said you could list infinite fundimental similarities but haven't named one.

Just to hammer this home, because you clearly don't read everything - I listed two differences fundimental to the current discussion and you mentioned the ridiculous infinite list of fundimental similarities first. I agree that it is ridiculous and only tried to highlight that.

[zorquif]

and why does that make what was possible in Sydney impossible in Hull.

I don't think I have said that

[zorquif]

Brilliant. Some pretty easy money to be made. Might well start selling RL jerseys and memorabilia and merchandise. Ready market, no licensing fees to pay. Easy money

You might get in bother under other ip rights. but probably not copyright for the name, badge and colours.

[Krytensmate]

why probably in black and white?

If you're going to ' challenge ' a post , challenge it all

Fine , we'll go with pink and blue

Playing at the KC ?

No reference to ' Rovers ' ?

[Krytensmate]

Brilliant. Some pretty easy money to be made. Might well start selling RL jerseys and memorabilia and merchandise. Ready market, no licensing fees to pay. Easy money

Happy for you to explain how a sports club can copyright a colour ?

[zorquif]

Happy for you to explain how a sports club can copyright a colour ?

Or their name. I must admit, I'm guessing that both clubs use their original badges and that the guys that designed them died 70+ years ago. Otherwise there will be copyright in the badges

[scotchy]

3. It's ok not to understand everything

4. I don't think I asserted anything if the sort. I asked what the fundamental similarities are. I did list two fundamental differences. And it was you that first mentioned infinite fundamental similarities. Of which you have listed none.

5. So you agree that you named analogies not fallacies? As it is I changed my position. Even though in this case I maintain my position that the areas which the fundimental similarities would be the same as where the fundimental differences relevant to this discussion are. This is important - I'm not saying there can be no differences. The differences need only be relevant to whether or not the people of hull would support a merged team. As such it might be that the fundimental similarities either show that the possible differences don't exist, or are so fundimental that the differences between the folk are no longer fundimental to the point in question. But as I say, I changed my position to ask what the fundimental similarities are. You said you could list infinite fundimental similarities but haven't named one.

Just to hammer this home, because you clearly don't read everything - I listed two differences fundimental to the current discussion and you mentioned the ridiculous infinite list of fundimental similarities first. I agree that it is ridiculous and only tried to highlight that.

3. Thanks.

 

4. Then you are forgetful. But if you aren't asserting there is a fundamental difference between Hull 2015 and Sydney 1997 then we are in agreement that what happened in Sydney is applicable to hull. After all, neither of us believe there is a fundamental difference between them do we?

 

5. I said I could list an infinite number of similarities but that wouldn't prove there wasn't also differences. You would have to be pretty silly, or being deliberately obtuse to think that was an offer to actually list an infinite number.

 

But once again, we don't need to list any similarities, either you are asserting there is fundamental differences between them, or we are in agreement that there aren't. If you think there are fundamental differences, please list them. If there aren't, you have gone a very long way around agreeing with me, but glad you got to the right side.

[scotchy]

I don't think I have said that

Good, we are in agreement that there aren't fundamental differences between Sydney 1997 and Hull 2015, and what happened in Sydney can be 'read on' Hull in 2015. Took a long time, but you finally got there.

[scotchy]

Happy for you to explain how a sports club can copyright a colour ?

The same way Cadbury's copyrighted their colour used on Chocolate.

 

You do realise that copyright law exists, pretty much solely to stop one company pretending to be another, and that is exactly what you are proposing right?