On the surface, it feels as if it should be a definitive decision. Yesterday afternoon, the FA Membership Committee met, deliberated, and eventually agreed that Hull City AFC should not have its name changed to Hull Tigers on the whims of its owner, Dr Assem Allam, and that, we might presume, should be that. After all, this isn’t the first time that Allam has put his case before the governing body and failed to successfully make his case. However, while the decision reached by the Membership Committee yesterday can only be interpreted as another victory for those that have campaigned so vigorously to prevent this act of cultural vandalism, there are grounds for concern over the minutiae of what came to pass at St George’s Park, and what this tells us about those running the professional game in England at the moment.
The decision to block the name change was blocked by a significant margin, and the 69.5% of those who voted against it represented an increase from the 63.5% who voted against it when it first came before them fifteen months ago. The club’s avenue of appeals under the FA’s process has now been exhausted, but the possibility of further applications being made by the club at some indeterminate point in the future cannot be completely ruled out, especially when we consider the completely intransigent stance that Allam has taken over this entire matter from the very outset. Since first announcing that he was making this decision unilaterally, there has been no sign of any policy from within the club itself that it cared in the slightest about the wishes of supporters. What, realistically, is the likelihood that Allam will drop this particular bone of contention now? The club’s immediate response to the matter was to write a response as predictably terse as we might have expected from such an autocratic regime:
The Club acknowledges the FA Council’s decision with regards to our name change application.
We always knew that following a change to the FA’s policy, the chances of changing the name were slim but we also feel it is important to fight for what you believe in and we believe that being called Hull Tigers would be the best strategy for the future.
We will be taking some time away from the Club to consider our options and we will make no further comment until we have come to a conclusion.
Throughout this entire saga, it has frequently felt as if the Allams simply have no understanding of the emotional bond that football supporters hold for their clubs. Even now, their official statement following yet another rejection by the FA’s Membership Committee can offer no cogent, well thought out rationale as to why anybody looking in from the outside, whether members of the game’s governing body, supporters themselves or whoever, should believe for a second that such a big decision should have been agreed. “We believe that being called Hull Tigers would be the best strategy for the future” simply doesn’t cut it, and the fact that they were unable to convince the Membership Committee to any significant extent that there was a case for allowing it for a second time can only lead us to the possibility than there may never have been one, above and beyond “because we say so.” Certainly, his previous public comment on the matter (in a televised interview with the BBC) that, “In marketing theory, the shorter the name, the more powerful the impact,” made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Meanwhile, in amongst the Allams’ bluff and bluster, the Hull City Supporters Trust produced a twenty-four page long document explaining patiently and cogently why the name change should not be allowed.
More troubling, however, are suggestions that have been made over the last twenty-four hours or so concerning what the patterns were within this vote. BBC Humberside’s David Burns tweeted yesterday that, “I hear it was amateur game/County FA’s the defeated Hull City name change. Pro game reps were largely pro,” while the Chair of the Football Supporters Federation, Malcolm Clarke (who was present at the meeting), has suggested that even Greg Dyke, the chairman of the Football Association itself, voted in favour of the allowing the name change. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at Dyke’s actions when we consider his pivotal role in the formation of the Premier League in the first place, but it is worth recalling patterns such as these when he is publicly claiming to be something approximating the living, breathing conscience of professional football, as he was following the recent announcement of Sepp Blatter that he would be stepping down as the Secretary of FIFA.
What the Allams next move might be is open to conjecture. They’ve put £75m in investment into to the club – although let’s not forget that none of this was gifts granted from the goodness of their hearts; it’s all in loans and is understood to be accumulating interest – but they haven’t got the name change they wanted, haven’t been gifted the KC Stadium by the local council, and as of the end of last season, there isn’t even the bottomless pit of money that a place in the Premier League any more to cushion the blow. As things stand, Hull City AFC will be playing next season in the Football League Championship at the council-owned KC Stadium. Premier League parachute payments will continue to give the club a significant competitive advantage over the other clubs vying for a place back at the gilded trough for the start of the season after next, but precisely none of the position described as above is likely to be what Allam wanted, and on top of this his legacy as the owner of the football club is already spoiled, perhaps beyond salvation.
This state of affairs is somewhat ironic, when we consider that Allam might actually have been remembered as the saviour of the club had he not behaved in the way that he has over this name change, but this behaviour is now most likely what he will be remembered for more than anything else when he does come to leave the club. He had the opportunity to build himself a legacy that would long outlive him at Hull City AFC. As things stand, he will leave a legacy, but it’s far from likely that this will be anything like the sort of legacy that anybody would want to leave behind anywhere. Now, this whole dismal story may just boil down to becoming a question of economics. Will the Allams choose to cut their losses and run, or will they stay at the club and continue to dig their reputations still further into a grave that is entirely of their own making? It would be nice to think that they might show a little dignity and put this all to rest once and for all. Unfortunately, all indications from their previous behaviour can only lead us to believe that this may not be the case. For now, though, yesterday’s ruling was another victory for supporters in defiance of those who would continue to trash the heritage of our game in the pursuit of another buck.
You can follow Twohundredpercent on Twitter by clicking here.
You can needlessly rebrand yourself with Twohundredpercent on Facebook by clicking here.
What Rubish it’s people like you who have destroyed the club. Living in the past.
You would rather seem the club in the conference with 3400 fans than except the Allams have been the best owners we have had.
If you feel so strongly buy the clubs as a supporters continuum and see what you can do .
We at http://www.tigerlink.co.uk been close to this issue since the outset and played a big part in the formation of the CTWD Group and also helped the development of the Hull City Supporters Trust.
So to the name change. Again, the FA have said No. This should of course be the end. But we’ve always thought the whole saga would end in tears and with a sting in the tail. The Allams vowed to walk away if the FA said NO. But they didn’t jump ship in April 2014 so will they now?
Supporters are desperately seeking stability. It’s a massively important couple of years for the Club and we need to keep the momentum from our recent glorious era. We need to quickly bounce back to the top tier. Any more off the pitch shenanigans might jeopardise not only this, but also our medium term future. We need to avoid the spiral of decline and trapdoor danger experienced by the likes of Wigan, Blackpool, Leeds and Forest in recent years.
Hull is 2017 City of Culture and Hull City AFC needs to kick off the 2016/17 season in the Premier League.
In reply to poor old Keith
Oh dear. It’s another one of the ‘would you rather see us in the lower leagues’ Brigade.
Your comments demonstrate that you simply don’t grasp the issues. Allam as owner doesn’t mean Premier League football (as we have seen). A replacement for him doesn’t either. The name change is an issue that sits independently from performance on the pitch.
A similar argument in the early days was “It’s his Club so he can do what he wants”. But he can’t do what he wants. The FA has told him he can’t and he can’t handle that. His failure to deal with the ruling bodies has seen his credibility plummet I’m afraid.,
‘it’s people like you who have destroyed the Club’
Erm, when were we destroyed sunshine?
The Allams saved the Club financially. Fact. But via loans not gifts. Their disasterous PR and defiance of the FA over a sustained period have ruined the Club and made it a laughing stock. Eventually it saw supporters booing fellow supporters at games in an embarrassing and unprecedented incident. Players now can’t wait to leave and nobody will come here. That’s down to one man who won’t take no for an answer. One huge misjudgement by our stubborn and obstinate owner has ruined a fantastic two years. He could have redeemed himself in April 2014 when the FA first said NO. But ever since he chose to defy the FA ruling for a second time he’s been on a downward spiral. He says he never goes back on his word, but he said he would quit if the FA said no and yet he’s still here. Time for him to move on. He arrived confessing he knew nothing about football and he will leave knowing even less.
Sorry to crush your arguments so comprehensively but you need to understand the issues here.
What’s in a name? Perhaps we can ask companies like dove, fairy, arco, kfc, Lynx, windows, Apple etc. they are household names now, Even some musiciansand/or bands and actors had to change their names to become more marketable westlife been a good example.
As a company, revenue is required from sponsors to make up the shortfall in ticket sales to help maintain the stadium. (Not talking about on pitch performances here either) so owning a company, and identifying a finial increase with a name change, a name change should be within his right to do so, however he has been told no.
Don’t call me an on the fence person but… Keeping the city afc in the title can still be the official club banner as it always has been, but have the operation/ financial side of it called the new name. So player contracts, sponsorships etc will be under the new operating name whilst under the banner of afc. That would have suited both supporters to keep cultural history and the new generation to help bring in new revenue.
In terms of supporters booing each other in the stadium, well it takes both sides of the argument to do that, the supports who felt stongly against the change should have remained inline headed by the supporters trust and the various other official club groups, not in the stadium..BUT on the other hand the ones that where strongly for the change didn’t do a lot to stand out either.
My personal opinion, I would like to have seen it changed, they fought for what they thought was right..as so many of us do day in and day out for our jobs, for our family…. So now the answear is “no”, both sides need to drop what ever their grievances are and start again to support the sportsmen, the staff, the young players, that help to put our city on the map! That’s what I’ll be doing.! I hope that what ever side you were on, you’ll join me in doing so.