Another
open letter from the Allams,
Jaffa - and it looks to be the same BS dressed up in a slightly more conciliatory tone. What's the timeline on the FA's consideration of the application to change the name? Are they dithering?
Hull City Vice Chairman (and the owner's son) has penned an open letter to supporters about the name change:
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/images/localworld/ugc-images/276270/binaries/EhabAllamLetter.pdf
Nothing particularly new and different except that it claims they were going to wait till the end of the season to change the name but were forced to act early because "an application from another club for the name Hull Tigers was submitted to the FA, which ultimately forced our hand."
The FA Council are meeting on 9th April, one of the matters they'll be voting on is their decision on whether to accept the Allams' proposed name change.
As for another club trying to register the name, this appears to be true. If you're playing in an organised FA competition your team name can't duplicate an existing side's moniker - last autumn a local group tried registering the name 'Hull Tigers' for a Sunday League side or similar. I think their hope was that Hull City could then be blocked from taking that name, but it seems the club got wind of this plan.
Basically, the 'open letter' tells us nothing new - it just manages to stay away from the inflammatory rhetoric associated with Allam Snr. But let's see what it says...
...we decided to invest £24 million of our own money to save the club from liquidation, and probable extinction, in 2010. Since this point we have invested a further £50m to get the club into the Premier League, a competition in which we will hopefully remain. We have nothing left to give...
It's worth remembering that this money isn't a 'gift' from their personal pockets, it's a loan from one of the Allams' other companies. They receive 5% interest on this, charge rather large 'management fees' and also enjoy a number of tax breaks on this sum.
Currently there are six teams in the Premier League with City in their name, and with the exception of Manchester City, all of those clubs are in a similar league position to us, and playing to similar-sized crowds. We need something that makes us stand out...
Yet none of these teams feel the need to prostitute their integrity or identity for the purpose of sponsorship. Perhaps we could look at another one of these 'City' clubs as an example - Swansea, who it's fair to say have enjoyed success on and off the pitch over the last few seasons. A Premier League club, League Cup winners, Europa League competitors, lauded for their style of football and who are in a good position financially, helped by the signing of a record sponsorship deal with a far east company last summer. All of this achieved without selling their name to the highest bidder.
There are currently around a dozen or so teams in our division who will be competing for the same level of sponsorship, and we feel the Hull Tigers brand would give us an edge in any negotiations.
Hmm. Previously we've been told that major sponsorship deals depend solely on us changing our name, and that this move would guarantee untold riches for the club. However, now they merely 'feel' that it might give us a bit of an edge against the likes of Stoke and Norwich? Where's the research or evidence to back up this 'feeling'?
We play in black and amber, and that will not change; the Tiger will continue to be at the heart of our crest, and that will also not change. We have been the Tigers for more than 100 years and it is this rich heritage that will drive the club forward.
Our 'rich heritage' is important to them? On the contrary, Allam Snr described it as 'lousy'. To try and claim that they respect our club's history is rather offensive when they've spent the last year very publicly doing the exact opposite.
Equally, when one of their directors was interviewed on the name change last summer - before the Allams came clean with their plans - he stated that our name was 'sacrosanct'. What price then on our colours or crest if the right 'partner' comes along with the right amount of cash?
If we were denied the chance to operate the business in a way we feel fit... then we would have no alternative but to offer the club for sale.
Hmm. Two weeks ago we were told that if they didn't get their way they would hike season pass prices up by 50%. Two weeks before that they claimed that they would simply walk away within 24 hours if the FA denied them. So, which is it actually to be then?
These are exciting times for the club, and we need your continued support on and off the pitch.
These are exciting times, and our support for the players and Bruce hasn't faltered or wavered one bit throughout this. But we cannot and will not support something that we feel is fundamentally wrong, and this name change - along with the lies, insults and threats that have come out of the club for nearly a year now - is just that.
