Gothamite

Hull City vice-chairman promises 'fan-led' rebranding process

Recommended Posts

After the Leeds United debacle, this is awesome.

 

Quote

Ehab Allam: Hull City vice-chairman promises 'fan-led' rebranding process

Hull City vice-chairman Ehab Allam says he will do "whatever the fans want" in the club's rebranding, but that they will have to meet two conditions.

 

In 2014, the FA rejected owner Assem Allam's proposal to change the club's name from Hull City AFC to Hull Tigers.

 

The Allams have been subject to a series of protests by City fans since taking charge in 2010.

 

On Wednesday, the club will hold another meeting with fans with the hope of improving their relationship.

 

"In the first two meetings I think we made some really positive steps in that we agreed to redesign the crest and involve the fans in that process so it'll be fan-led on the redesign," Ehab told BBC Radio Humberside.

 

Interested to see what they come up with.

 

Here's the current crest:

 

8cbf5-umbro-hull-city-14-15-home-kit4.jp

 

It's a modified version of their older badge.  The name was taken off as part of the attempted renaming mentioned in the piece.   The old one looked like this:

 

eng_pl_2010-11-HULL-CITY-A-FC-SHIRT-XL-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two conditions:

 

Quote

The vice-chairman said he is willing to use fan ideas for the club's rebrand, so long as the new design does not include "AFC", and so long as it is easy to use.

 

Fair enough, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty daring, but as long as the Tigers don't go the way of Leeds Utd...

 

Again, because this cracks me up (obviously not a Leeds supporter):

 

leeds-united-graphic-design-dezeen-list-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, officeglenn said:

The two conditions:

 

Quote

The vice-chairman said he is willing to use fan ideas for the club's rebrand, so long as the new design does not include "AFC", and so long as it is easy to use.

 

Fair enough, I think.

 

Absolutely.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier this evening, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman arrived at a long-planned Supporters' Committee meeting - and immediately called said meeting off, and walked out in a huff.

 

Their behaviour over the last few years has demonstrated that they have no interest in consultation with supporters - in their own words we're 'irrelevant'. The last crest redesign process - the one that removed the club's moniker after they were twice denied their 'Hull Tigers' name change by the FA - promised consultation with supporters but none occurred due to 'time constraints'. Needless to say, I'm highly cynical about their motives for promising it'll happen this time around.

 

They've placed the club - which by and large refuses to use its own name - into a state of managed decline. Their departure is long overdue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Absolutely.  

“The vice-chairman said he is willing to use fan ideas for the club's rebrand, so long as the new design does not include the club’s actual name” sure doesn’t sound particularly reasonable, and is just as true of a phrase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Jaffa said:

The last crest redesign process - the one that removed the club's moniker after they were twice denied their 'Hull Tigers' name change by the FA - promised consultation with supporters but none occurred due to 'time constraints'.

 

Here's something I'd like someone to explain to me... having read the governing documents of the FA, the EPL and the rest of the league system (I don't follow the sport all the way down to League Two, but I know generally how it's governed), I wonder how it is that the FA wields power to the extent that they can halt a team's rebranding in its proverbial tracks.

 

The North American sports leagues are far more rigid in terms of their overall regimentation, but nothing but tradition, good taste and a waiting period long enough to unload otherwise outdated merchandise precludes the Philadelphia Eagles from becoming the Philadelphia Cyborg, the New York Yankees from becoming B.C. New York, the Boston Bruins from becoming the Bay State Bear Cubs or the Los Angeles Dodgers from becoming the California Fault Lines.  How is it that the FA in this case has a power that North American leagues lack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mac the Knife said:

 

Here's something I'd like someone to explain to me... having read the governing documents of the FA, the EPL and the rest of the league system (I don't follow the sport all the way down to League Two, but I know generally how it's governed), I wonder how it is that the FA wields power to the extent that they can halt a team's rebranding in its proverbial tracks.

 

The North American sports leagues are far more rigid in terms of their overall regimentation, but nothing but tradition, good taste and a waiting period long enough to unload otherwise outdated merchandise precludes the Philadelphia Eagles from becoming the Philadelphia Cyborg, the New York Yankees from becoming B.C. New York, the Boston Bruins from becoming the Bay State Bear Cubs or the Los Angeles Dodgers from becoming the California Fault Lines.  How is it that the FA in this case has a power that North American leagues lack?

 

Clubs who are members of the FA have to abide with their various rules and regulations if they want to feature in their competitions - this includes registering their 'playing name' with the governing body. This is the name under which a team competes in FA sanctioned competitions, and which appears on league tables and the like. If a club wants to change its playing name, it has to apply to the FA for express permission to do so - the FA Council then vote on the matter.

 

This rule applies to clubs all the way down to non-League level - I think right down to the eighth tier. The intention, I believe, is to help preserve the integrity and traditions of club identities over time - the FA don't want teams regularly changing names, especially if said changes are deemed to be frivolous. In some instances, proposed changes have been blocked where a new name would be too close to an already existing club's moniker, or where there's an attempt to incorporate a company's name into that of the club. On the other hand, some changes are approved where good reason is given and there's clear support from the fanbase - an example would be when Swansea was granted city status in the 1960s and Swansea Town was rechristened Swansea City.

 

In the case of Hull City, the club's full name is 'Hull City Association Football Club' and has been since its foundation in 1904 - the registered playing name is simply 'Hull City', despite the two recent applications to change this to 'Hull Tigers'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe something like this would work.  The picture gives it sort of an old school Columbus Crew vibe.

 

R-393610-1174327620.jpeg.jpg

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be Happy Hour indeed. :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not Sitting On a Fence about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tigers said:

Why buy a club to only change it from what it is?

 

The Allams bought the club in the autumn of 2010 - following our relegation from the Premier League the club was financially crippled and administration was a real possibility. Their long term aim was to acquire the stadium and its surrounding land, and develop the area at a profit - the KCOM Stadium is actually owned by Hull City Council, the football club is one of the tenants. The Allams' view was that the Council would willingly part with the stadium and land at a reasonable cost, in part out of gratitude for helping resolve the club's money woes.

 

The Council weren't open to such a sale however, resulting in an at times bitter dispute between themselves and the Allams that rumbles on to this day. A key reason for pursuing the name change was the similarity between 'Hull City AFC' and 'Hull City Council' - Allam Snr has stated in interviews that he believes (bizarrely) people get the two entities confused, and think that the Council owns the club rather than his family. In addition, the proposal naturally upset supporters - Allam Snr feels that we should have backed him without question in his dispute over the stadium, and in effect changing the name would be both a punishment and a demonstration of his power.

 

And that's just the abridged version... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as they include a better tiger than the hot mess currently involved, everyone should win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2018 at 6:59 PM, Mac the Knife said:

 

Here's something I'd like someone to explain to me... having read the governing documents of the FA, the EPL and the rest of the league system (I don't follow the sport all the way down to League Two, but I know generally how it's governed), I wonder how it is that the FA wields power to the extent that they can halt a team's rebranding in its proverbial tracks.

 

The North American sports leagues are far more rigid in terms of their overall regimentation, but nothing but tradition, good taste and a waiting period long enough to unload otherwise outdated merchandise precludes the Philadelphia Eagles from becoming the Philadelphia Cyborg, the New York Yankees from becoming B.C. New York, the Boston Bruins from becoming the Bay State Bear Cubs or the Los Angeles Dodgers from becoming the California Fault Lines.  How is it that the FA in this case has a power that North American leagues lack?

 

Your presumption is incorrect - North American leagues absolutely do have veto power over names and logos.  Just ask anyone who has ever worked with MLB Properties or NFL Properties. 

 

In many cases, the logos themselves are created by the leagues.  At the very least, the leagues work in conjunction with the teams. And the league can suggest color schemes - the Florida Marlins were teal because somebody at MLB Properties saw teal was going to be the new hot color and MLB wanted in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, tigers said:

Why buy a club to only change it from what it is?

 

Why wouldn’t you?

 

If you’re the brand-new owner of a struggling club, wouldn’t you think you could change things to make the club perform better? A new manager can improve results on the field. A new badge can improve merchandise sales.

 

Now, sometimes these changes are more about flexing the new owner’s ego. And any changes must be weighed in light of what is lost in turn; the old manager might be popular, an old badge has sentimental attachment for the fans. And I’m certainly not suggesting this owner is right in what he’s trying to do.

 

But the general concept is not unsound. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Your presumption is incorrect - North American leagues absolutely do have veto power over names and logos.  Just ask anyone who has ever worked with MLB Properties or NFL Properties. 

 

In many cases, the logos themselves are created by the leagues.  At the very least, the leagues work in conjunction with the teams. And the league can suggest color schemes - the Florida Marlins were teal because somebody at MLB Properties saw teal was going to be the new hot color and MLB wanted in.

 

I'm speaking in a legal sense, Goth.  There is nothing - not one word - in the Major League Constitution, or the Constitution and Bylaws of the NBA, NFL or NHL, nor the LLC Agreement of Major League Soccer, that legislates them such authority.  I realize it exists in practice and that the properties divisions of the various leagues hold big sway.  But if Mark Davis were to go off his nut and decide that the Oakland Raiders are gonna be rebranded as the Las Vegas Blackjacks once they move?  The league can (and should) dissuade, but not lawfully prevent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mockba said:

As long as they include a better tiger than the hot mess currently involved, everyone should win.

 

I think most Hull City fans would agree it's not the most professionally designed tiger logo in history but it's "theirs" and they are quite sentimentally attached to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mac the Knife said:

 

I'm speaking in a legal sense, Goth.  There is nothing - not one word - in the Major League Constitution, or the Constitution and Bylaws of the NBA, NFL or NHL, nor the LLC Agreement of Major League Soccer, that legislates them such authority.  I realize it exists in practice and that the properties divisions of the various leagues hold big sway.  But if Mark Davis were to go off his nut and decide that the Oakland Raiders are gonna be rebranded as the Las Vegas Blackjacks once they move?  The league can (and should) dissuade, but not lawfully prevent.

 

I’ll have to take a look, because that runs counter to what I’ve been told in regards to both MLB and the NFL, from people who would know.  The Commissioner himself told me that MLB has veto power over team names. 

 

MLS is a special case. The nature of single-entity means that trademarks are owned by the league, not the clubs, and owners are not free to do what they please.  That has caused consternation in the past, where teams entering the league were not allowed to bring their old logos in, since MLS wants new logos that they control 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only NFL rule I know 100% exists is that a team nickname must end in s and be plural. At least I remember a NFL memo stating such during the 1994 expansion process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now