|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 8, 2014 10:35:40 GMT
I don't think that the questions are rigged merely identifying those that will suck up the name change to keep him at the club...which is basically his ultimatum. For my money, that is the right question to be asking. yeah i see what you're saying and as owner if he wants to put that ultimatum up for a vote then he has the right to do so...i suppose the main issue is that he has made clear what will happen if they DO change their name (i.e. continue to be run by Allam) but not specfied what the consequences are of the vote is a No so basically, they don't really know in black and white what they are voting for in the first place. I thought he had....if he doesn't get his way he has said he will go. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 10:35:45 GMT
correct merk, there aren't any rules governing this. the FA rejected it originally because there was nothing to suggest that the majority of fans wanted it to happen in the first place and evidence presented by the FSF to indicate that the vast majority actually opposed it...no question of anyone trying to break any rules at all.....and, as already pointed out, the MK Dons situation was completely different LP, the only other choice they had was to go into liquidation at the time as they had no ground and no way to afford one of their own and were already in administration. the 2 matters should not be confused, compared or likened to each other as they are 2 entirely different situations with entirely different contexts surrounding them. I haven't seen the FA's rule book or constitution (maybe Malcolm Clarke has?_ but I bet there is some catch all clause that gives the FA the right to arbitrate on matters like name changes to a club. Otherwise, why has Allam not just gone ahead and changed the name without reference to the FA and why, when the committee ruled against a name change, did he bother to organise a (flawed) ballot? Why not just go ahead and change the name? I'm sure he realises that it is within the FA's remit to exclude clubs from competition if the owners don't abide by their rulings on things like names. If he went against the FA then his only redress if they did not admit him to competition would, presumably, be to go to court? yes, they arbitrate but you seemed to indicate on your post that him applying for it was breaking some rules and that they bent rules to allow the MK dons situation to happen. from what i gather, there aren't any rules about wanting to change the name at all, it's simply a case of the FA looking into the reasons and how accepted it would be amongst supporters and whether the club would suffer if the name wasn't changed etc. and they base their ruling on that. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 8, 2014 10:45:32 GMT
correct merk, there aren't any rules governing this. the FA rejected it originally because there was nothing to suggest that the majority of fans wanted it to happen in the first place and evidence presented by the FSF to indicate that the vast majority actually opposed it...no question of anyone trying to break any rules at all.....and, as already pointed out, the MK Dons situation was completely different LP, the only other choice they had was to go into liquidation at the time as they had no ground and no way to afford one of their own and were already in administration. the 2 matters should not be confused, compared or likened to each other as they are 2 entirely different situations with entirely different contexts surrounding them. Cheers, so Lakeland is talking wank then. I guess there will be no objection when the FA decide to dictate on matters that he doesn't agree with with in the interest of consistency. Lakeland was basically right. There is an FA rule which requires FA Council approval before a playing name can be changed. That decision will be taken tomorrow when the FA Council considers a recommendation from its Membership Committee to not approve the application to change the playing name from Hull City to Hull Tigers. Mickm - I don't agree with your analysis of the Wimbledon/MKD situation, but that's another story. The role of the FA in that case was that an FA Regulatory Commission was acting as the Appeal body to hear an appeal against a decision of the Football League not to approve the move to Milton Keynes. It allowed that appeal by 2 votes to 1. That's a crucial difference - 3 people (or rather effectively 2) took that very significant decision. The Hull decision, which is the application of an FA rule, will be taken by 80 +. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 8, 2014 10:57:27 GMT
If you are really serious about canvassing people's opinion then you HAVE to ask separate questions.
You should not ask a compound question such as "Do you want to change the name of the club and do you want the owner to sell the club?"
To find out what people really think you have to ask separate questions such as:
# Do you want the name of the club to be changed to Hull Tigers? yes/no
# Do you prefer that the name of the club stays as Hull City? yes/no
# Would you be happy with the name of the club changing to Hull City Tigers? yes/no
# Do you want the current owners to stay in control of the club ? yes/no
It isn't that difficult to word questions so that everyone understands what they are voting for.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 8, 2014 11:13:20 GMT
If you are really serious about canvassing people's opinion then you HAVE to ask separate questions. You should not ask a compound question such as "Do you want to change the name of the club and do you want the owner to sell the club?" To find out what people really think you have to ask separate questions such as: # Do you want the name of the club to be changed to Hull Tigers? yes/no # Do you prefer that the name of the club stays as Hull City? yes/no # Would you be happy with the name of the club changing to Hull City Tigers? yes/no # Do you want the current owners to stay in control of the club ? yes/no It isn't that difficult to word questions so that everyone understands what they are voting for. you might as well ask them questions about fucking bunny rabbits and pink ribbons if you are basically asking questions that do not matter. Polls that show that most people want to keep the name and the owners on a mutually exclusive basis is not an option according to the owner. |
|
|
|
Post by MrMagic on Apr 8, 2014 11:26:46 GMT
If you are really serious about canvassing people's opinion then you HAVE to ask separate questions. You should not ask a compound question such as "Do you want to change the name of the club and do you want the owner to sell the club?" To find out what people really think you have to ask separate questions such as: # Do you want the name of the club to be changed to Hull Tigers? yes/no # Do you prefer that the name of the club stays as Hull City? yes/no # Would you be happy with the name of the club changing to Hull City Tigers? yes/no # Do you want the current owners to stay in control of the club ? yes/no It isn't that difficult to word questions so that everyone understands what they are voting for. you might as well ask them questions about fucking bunny rabbits and pink ribbons if you are basically asking questions that do not matter. Polls that show that most people want to keep the name and the owners on a mutually exclusive basis is not an option according to the owner. Its fairly basic stuff. Survey questions should always only measure one thing. If you want to measure more than one thing then you have to ask multiple questions and then run corelation exercises to understand how the responses relate to each other. Asking two questions in one survey question is the kind of thing that would produce a fail mark in any academic research model as it produces massive measurement errors. In short the results of this survey are meaningless and show bugger all of any statisical value. |
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 8, 2014 11:39:33 GMT
I think we had better frame the results of the Allam 'vote' more appropriately.
When given the opportunity to do so, the vast majority of supporters refused to back the name change.
Of those who voted, the majority chose not to support the name change.
If we use only the yes and no votes, the majority for Allam is less than a third of a percent.
They have rigged an election and still lost.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 8, 2014 11:44:17 GMT
I think we had better frame the results of the Allam 'vote' more appropriately. When given the opportunity to do so, the vast majority of supporters refused to back the name change. Of those who voted, the majority chose not to support the name change. If we use only the yes and no votes, the majority for Allam is less than a third of a percent. They have rigged an election and still lost. maybe...so he fucks off and everyone suffers as a result then the fans will have no one to blame but themselves. if in the future that they head for trouble and ever start bringing save Hull City buckets to the Britannia I'll be telling them to fuck off as they should have backed the man with the money. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 11:55:15 GMT
This all proves the big club bias. Not aware of any objection when Manchester United changed their name to 'The Shit'!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 11:57:16 GMT
Cheers, so Lakeland is talking wank then. I guess there will be no objection when the FA decide to dictate on matters that he doesn't agree with with in the interest of consistency. Lakeland was basically right. There is an FA rule which requires FA Council approval before a playing name can be changed. That decision will be taken tomorrow when the FA Council considers a recommendation from its Membership Committee to not approve the application to change the playing name from Hull City to Hull Tigers. Mickm - I don't agree with your analysis of the Wimbledon/MKD situation, but that's another story. The role of the FA in that case was that an FA Regulatory Commission was acting as the Appeal body to hear an appeal against a decision of the Football League not to approve the move to Milton Keynes. It allowed that appeal by 2 votes to 1. That's a crucial difference - 3 people (or rather effectively 2) took that very significant decision. The Hull decision, which is the application of an FA rule, will be taken by 80 +. re: the MK Dons situation, i meant that the circumstances as to why any name change was going ahead was completely different.they changed their name as they were due to go into liquidation, had no ground and had been offered one in Milton Keynes, they changed their name due to where they were moving to rather than just on the whim of an owner as in the case of Hull. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 8, 2014 15:08:22 GMT
I think we had better frame the results of the Allam 'vote' more appropriately. When given the opportunity to do so, the vast majority of supporters refused to back the name change. Of those who voted, the majority chose not to support the name change. If we use only the yes and no votes, the majority for Allam is less than a third of a percent. They have rigged an election and still lost. maybe...so he fucks off and everyone suffers as a result then the fans will have no one to blame but themselves. if in the future that they head for trouble and ever start bringing save Hull City buckets to the Britannia I'll be telling them to fuck off as they should have backed the man with the money. He can only "f**k off" (as you so charmingly put it) in one of two ways. He could call in his (very large) debts and possibly create a financial crisis for the Club, which would cast severe doubt on his proclaimed commitment to the club and the area, and would almost certainly mean he would get only a tiny fraction of his loans back, or he could find a buyer. If he found a buyer who was prepared to pay the asking price (which he might well not if he wants a new owner to take on all his loans)the future of the club would entirely depend on how the new owner managed it. |
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 8, 2014 15:20:35 GMT
maybe...so he fucks off and everyone suffers as a result then the fans will have no one to blame but themselves. if in the future that they head for trouble and ever start bringing save Hull City buckets to the Britannia I'll be telling them to fuck off as they should have backed the man with the money. He can only "f**k off" (as you so charmingly put it) in one of two ways. He could call in his (very large) debts and possibly create a financial crisis for the Club, which would cast severe doubt on his proclaimed commitment to the club and the area, and would almost certainly mean he would get only a tiny fraction of his loans back, or he could find a buyer. If he found a buyer who was prepared to pay the asking price (which he might well not if he wants a new owner to take on all his loans)the future of the club would entirely depend on how the new owner managed it. Well, if he's a man of his word then he will be off in 24 hours if he deems that he's 'not wanted' It isn't going to be pleasant. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 8, 2014 15:26:25 GMT
He can only "f**k off" (as you so charmingly put it) in one of two ways. He could call in his (very large) debts and possibly create a financial crisis for the Club, which would cast severe doubt on his proclaimed commitment to the club and the area, and would almost certainly mean he would get only a tiny fraction of his loans back, or he could find a buyer. If he found a buyer who was prepared to pay the asking price (which he might well not if he wants a new owner to take on all his loans)the future of the club would entirely depend on how the new owner managed it. Well, if he's a man of his word then he will be off in 24 hours if he deems that he's 'not wanted' It isn't going to be pleasant. He's already clarified (weeks ago) that when he said he would be off if he didn't get the name change, he actually meant he would put the club up for sale. Do keep up Merkin!  |
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 8, 2014 15:35:59 GMT
Well, if he's a man of his word then he will be off in 24 hours if he deems that he's 'not wanted' It isn't going to be pleasant. He's already clarified (weeks ago) that when he said he would be off if he didn't get the name change, he actually meant he would put the club up for sale. Do keep up Merkin! Indeed, that is what it's so fucking amazing that a number of the fans are willing to play Russian Roulette with the bloke. Saved them from liquidation and this is the way they treat him. Sometimes, football fans deserve all they get. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 8, 2014 16:32:10 GMT
He can only "f**k off" (as you so charmingly put it) in one of two ways. He could call in his (very large) debts and possibly create a financial crisis for the Club, which would cast severe doubt on his proclaimed commitment to the club and the area, and would almost certainly mean he would get only a tiny fraction of his loans back, or he could find a buyer. If he found a buyer who was prepared to pay the asking price (which he might well not if he wants a new owner to take on all his loans)the future of the club would entirely depend on how the new owner managed it. Well, if he's a man of his word then he will be off in 24 hours if he deems that he's 'not wanted' It isn't going to be pleasant. If you own something with big debts, as he does, you can't just be "off" in 24 hours, unless you can find a buyer prepared to pay your asking price in that period. But in any case his ballot has given him the result he wanted (just) so one assumes that he will regard himself as "wanted". If the application is turned down, that will be the FA's decision. |
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 8, 2014 16:39:29 GMT
Well, if he's a man of his word then he will be off in 24 hours if he deems that he's 'not wanted' It isn't going to be pleasant. If you own something with big debts, as he does, you can't just be "off" in 24 hours, unless you can find a buyer prepared to pay your asking price in that period. But in any case his ballot has given him the result he wanted (just) so one assumes that he will regard himself as "wanted". If the application is turned down, that will be the FA's decision. Indeed...but I bet he will be pissed and I can see it ending badly. I think it is an incredible state of affairs if the FA vote against this. To go against an owner wanting to change the name for what he believes to be the financial benefit of the club (when he's already came to save the day in the past) would be a real kick in the teeth. Wouldn't this guy have passed the 'fit and proper' criteria...for his decisions to be then classed as 'unfit and improper' a couple of years later? |
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Apr 8, 2014 17:23:22 GMT
Having given it a bit of thought.. Tigers ain't such a bad second nomenclature in the context of Albion, Hotspur, Argyle, Forest, Alexandra or even Rovers.
Don't know what all the fuss is about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Apr 8, 2014 19:07:08 GMT
Try this one then:
Do you want the Coates family to sell their controlling interests in Stoke City FC to Assem Allam and in doing so allow the club to change it's name to Stoke Potters? yes/no.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 9, 2014 6:15:23 GMT
I would want the club to be sold to someone with money and a name change rather than risk tumbling down the leagues or being liquidated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Apr 9, 2014 19:05:42 GMT
FA Council rejects proposed name change to Tigers
"If it had been the other way round, if the FA had approved it but the fans had said no, I would have severed my ties with the club immediately," Allam, who took charge of the club in in December 2010, told BBC Sport. Face saver the poll then.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Apr 10, 2014 6:44:30 GMT
FA Council rejects proposed name change to Tigers
"If it had been the other way round, if the FA had approved it but the fans had said no, I would have severed my ties with the club immediately," Allam, who took charge of the club in in December 2010, told BBC Sport. Face saver the poll then. No face saving for the 'City Till We Die' group though is there. The 'leader' was on Talksport last night bascially claiming victory but making it clear that they want the owner to stay after the money he has pumped in. So they want his money and are happy to take his personal fortune but will not back him simply because they don't agree. I don't know how they have the face. How on earth can you be happy when you've basically crossed your owner and failed to back the guy that has poured millions. Embarrassing. The FA have shown what utter morons they are too over the last few weeks. Weeks ago they block a bloke who is pouring millions in just to kepe the club (Leeds) afloat and now this. Decisions made that may well hurt clubs financially while all around there are clubs suffering as a result of their total and utter incomptence of running a few leagues. ...and the FSF back this shit don't they. What poll did the FA Council go off? I hope this bloke can somehow magic his money back from a sale and then watch Hull tumble down the leagues. Since someone has to go down then it might as well be a club that has a set of fans that are as morally corrupt as the muppets that govern the sport. |
|
|
|
Post by StokeAz on Mar 16, 2015 22:34:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Jul 11, 2015 17:06:36 GMT
FA reject Hull City application to change club’s name to Hull TigersFootball Association council rejected the name change application for a second time.
The decision was supported by 69.9% of the council, an increase on the 63.5% who rejected Hull’s application 15 months ago. FA chairman Greg Dyke supported the name change, according to the Football Supporters Federation (FSF) whose chair, Malcolm Clarke, attended the meeting.
|
|
sting
Youth Player
Posts: 354
|
Post by sting on Jul 11, 2015 19:44:11 GMT
This is a very dangerous decision and may well threaten the future of the club. Mr Allam is not "some foreign owner". He has lived in Hull since his Hull University days, has a very well established local business and brought his family up in Hull. In short he loves the place. Before we all jump on the bandwagon here we need to fully understand the issues. His gripe is with Hull City Council and their reluctance to sell him the stadium so that he can develop the area around it. Why? Because of Hull fair! Yes, a once a year 4 day event is the problem. The council won't relocate it to a far better park on the East side of town. He is threatening now to build a new stadium on the East side next to Hull KR. He has been a brilliant owner for them. He just wants no link to the city and the people who run it. Sounds like Stoke on Teent to me! What would Peter Coates have done if the council had refused to sell?
|
|
