|
|
Post by tijuanabrass on Mar 19, 2015 9:40:20 GMT
If we ever did go down this particular garden path of shame I'd prefer us to be the Stoke Spitfires and retain the Potters as our nickname.
|
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Mar 19, 2015 10:01:00 GMT
Stoke Orcs. That has a nice ring to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stokesaint1 on Mar 19, 2015 12:14:44 GMT
It seems to work OK in Rugby League. Warrington Wolves, Castleford Tigers, Wigan Warriors, Catalan Dragons, etc. Don't think it matters one iota, fans support the team, not the name. The times they are a changing. Nothing stays the same for ever. Stoke Potters sounds OK, even better if it generated shed loads of money for new players. Exactly how would changing our name generate shed loads of money? In Hull's case, their owner is an idiot who wants to change their name. I doubt if the Coates family feel that a change of name to Stoke Potters would make it worth their while to invest more if the name was changed and I doubt even more if it would persuade even one potential buyer to step forward or one new sponsor to decide to sponsor the club. Fornside, you're just demonstrating how stubborn and set in our ways we become with age and I'm probably about the same age as you. Bet you went berserk when the Icelanders changed our badge. And what negative effect did it have on the club, attendances, supporters, etc.? I understood the name change at Hull was to do with increasing appeal in the eastern world, hence opening revenue opportunities. Speculate to accumulate. Like I said they could change the second part of our name to anything, anyone wanted, if it generated extra money and interest and I'd still be there every week. Perhaps we could change our name to Stoke Vale and we could then attract a few extra from up the road. Or perhaps that's taking it a bit too far. If I owned the club, i.e. paid all the bills, I might even change the name to my family name. Stoke Coates sounds OK to me. Chill man, it's just football. ps I took great exception when you changed your username but you still went ahead with it  |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 19, 2015 12:30:53 GMT
Exactly how would changing our name generate shed loads of money? In Hull's case, their owner is an idiot who wants to change their name. I doubt if the Coates family feel that a change of name to Stoke Potters would make it worth their while to invest more if the name was changed and I doubt even more if it would persuade even one potential buyer to step forward or one new sponsor to decide to sponsor the club. Fornside, you're just demonstrating how stubborn and set in our ways we become with age and I'm probably about the same age as you. Bet you went berserk when the Icelanders changed our badge. And what negative effect did it have on the club, attendances, supporters, etc.? I understood the name change at Hull was to do with increasing appeal in the eastern world, hence opening revenue opportunities. Speculate to accumulate. Like I said they could change the second part of our name to anything, anyone wanted, if it generated extra money and interest and I'd still be there every week. Perhaps we could change our name to Stoke Vale and we could then attract a few extra from up the road. Or perhaps that's taking it a bit too far. If I owned the club, i.e. paid all the bills, I might even change the name to my family name. Stoke Coates sounds OK to me. Chill man, it's just football. ps I took great exception when you changed your username but you still went ahead with it No I wasn't concerned when the Icelanders changed our badge. I fully understand why the one(s) based on the City coat of arms had to go because they could not be copyrighted and would leave the club wide open to rip off imports from the Far East. I loved those coat of arms badges but the lack of copyright was a deal breaker for me. The next badge (the shield with some black on it) I liked the design but didn't/don't like the black. Blue is a much better (more sympathetic) trim colour than black with red and white. I'd much prefer the current badge to have a kiln and a Staffordshire knot as part of the design and if I were on the supporters' council I'd be pressing for a fans vote on a new badge including those motifs. On the Stoke Loud and Proud site there is a lozenge shaped badge wich has those motifs and looks great - although I'd prefer a shield design incorporating red and white stripes, the kiln and knot with blue trim. My main beef with the name change is that, like Malcolm Clarke, I happen to believe that fans (the ones who go to games) are the soul of the club and should have a say in its name. Or at least they should have a say in any change of name. I doubt if as many as 10% of Hull City fans want the name change proposed by the owner and so I think they should keep the name. Cardiff was a similar situation with the colour change. No locally based fans wanted a change. The owner wanted it because "red is lucky and blue is not" - Chelsea fans will be interested in that - as will Real Madrid, Barcelona (partly) and Bayern Munich. Changing to red really proved lucky for Cardiff didn't it - so much so that they have now changed back. Finally, if the FA allow name and colour changes at the whim of the owner clubs could end up changing their name and colours every time the ownership of the club changed and, in the case of some clubs, that could be every few years - absolute madness. |
|
|
|
Post by Not_Nick_H on Mar 19, 2015 13:11:51 GMT
Hull Tigers. A bit Lads n' Dads though innt.  Oh yes. Especially in the era of PC-ness. Out go "A" and "B" teams etc. My lad plays for "Eagle Sports St Germain". The other team is Eagle Sports "Rovers". You'll also find various permutations of Hawks, Harriers, Dragons and the like, in his Legaue. |
|
Oh yes. Especially in the era of PC-ness. Out go "A" and "B" teams etc. My lad plays for "Eagle Sports St Germain". The other team is Eagle Sports "Rovers". You'll also find various permutations of Hawks, Harriers, Dragons and the like, in his Legaue.
