Spudulike Posted 26 July 2019 Posted 26 July 2019 It might prevent the media (especially Sky) from using (and abusing) it when solely referring to the Manchester club. If it's alright for the Merseyside Reds....
Fox92 Posted 26 July 2019 Posted 26 July 2019 Who cares how other people use City, you can carry on using it. Manchester City are the biggest "City" in the Country. They also play in a City which contains a "United" so naturally they are known as "City". People on here refer to Manchester United as "United". So what about Sheffield United? Torquay United?
Trav Le Bleu Posted 26 July 2019 Posted 26 July 2019 I hate it because as recent as 10 years ago Man City were a mid-table team who had not accomplished anything of note in 20 years. Of course, I won't mention where we were at that time, but then again, they'd been there too not long before.
NewEnglandFox Posted 26 July 2019 Posted 26 July 2019 Forget City. If we simply changed our name to Albion of Leicester Athletic City United Rovers and abbreviated it to A La Cur and translated that to Hearts we would be Hearts instead.
Poznan34 Posted 26 July 2019 Posted 26 July 2019 It's a gripe of mine, too. Before they became successful, I'm sure they were known as Man City rather than just City.
HighPeakFox Posted 26 July 2019 Posted 26 July 2019 I think that life is too short to get offended by this.
norwichfox Posted 26 July 2019 Posted 26 July 2019 37 minutes ago, Fox92 said: Who cares how other people use City, you can carry on using it. Manchester City are the biggest "City" in the Country. They also play in a City which contains a "United" so naturally they are known as "City". People on here refer to Manchester United as "United". So what about Sheffield United? Torquay United? Depends what you are measuring ....Birmingham lay claims to being the "second" city behind London, although Manchester has a larger population.
Fox92 Posted 26 July 2019 Posted 26 July 2019 10 minutes ago, Poznan34 said: It's a gripe of mine, too. Before they became successful, I'm sure they were known as Man City rather than just City. Yeah but now they’re the biggest “City” in the Country so it doesn’t matter what happened in the past. Once upon a time Man Utd wouldn’t have been know as just “United”. It’s how it goes.
Fox92 Posted 26 July 2019 Posted 26 July 2019 Just now, norwichfox said: Depends what you are measuring ....Birmingham lay claims to being the "second" city behind London, although Manchester has a larger population. I don’t mean that. Birmingham is the second biggest City in the country. Im talking about football clubs. They’ve got a “City” but not a “United”.
Spudulike Posted 26 July 2019 Author Posted 26 July 2019 I think that it's reasonable (and to be expected) that fans talk about City and United amongst themselves in Manchester. I also refer to City (our club) whilst taking to other likeminded fans whilst in Leicester and other places. However, I talk about Leicester City when I'm in mixed company especially if it includes fans of other clubs named City. I find it rude when others fail to show equal respect. I also find it baffling why some refer to the Manchester club simply as 'City' on an LCFC forum.
David Guiza Posted 26 July 2019 Posted 26 July 2019 I doubt it. You can trademark the name of a place, companies have it done it before, but City would never get by because of the definition. You'd have a better chance with United, but even then it wouldn't pass.
davieG Posted 26 July 2019 Posted 26 July 2019 I remember when Neville Foulger in his match commentaries would often refer to City for the likes of Cov and Bristol used to drive me mad.
TeamRocket Posted 26 July 2019 Posted 26 July 2019 To be honest the only thing that annoys me is when we play them or any other teams with city at the end they call man city "city". I get it when they play a United, Rovers etc. But when when we or any other team with city. Why cant they just say Man city. Would make it easier to keep track of when we listening to the radio.
Captain... Posted 26 July 2019 Posted 26 July 2019 It does piss me off, from 1997-2002 we were the highest finishing City in the country, even when we finished bottom of the premier league. We were never "City". Man United deserve the tag "United" for their decades of dominance. If I meet someone who says they support United I know who they mean, if they say City I ask which one. You would have thought Man City would want to capitalise on the Manchester part of their name. United = Man Utd, Manchester = Man City, like Inter and Milan. Hammer home the fact they are the club of people from Manchester not a generic name of any large habitable area with a Cathedral. I don't want us to be City, we're Leicester. I don't want them to be City and neither should they, they should want to be Manchester.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 26 July 2019 Posted 26 July 2019 4 hours ago, Spudulike said: It might prevent the media (especially Sky) from using (and abusing) it when solely referring to the Manchester club. If it's alright for the Merseyside Reds.... No. https://www.gov.uk/how-to-register-a-trade-mark/what-you-can-and-cant-register
filbertway Posted 26 July 2019 Posted 26 July 2019 I've known Man City as City for 20+ years. Never once referred to us as City
urban.spaceman Posted 27 July 2019 Posted 27 July 2019 We probably couldn’t and neither should we. It seriously irks me that Man City get referred as City so regularly (Even by some people on here). But having ourselves legally trademarked as City would be just as bad, if not worse. When we voted to change our name against Wimbledon I actually voted for Fosse, as I had been planning in the days before. I wanted a unique name like the likes of Villa, Forest and Spurs had. But the stadium rejected it and we stayed as City. I had a somewhat unique experience of us winning the league. As I’ve said on here a few times, I spent most of that season living in Cape Town, and the last month of the season and the title win and celebrations, in Botswana. Then Namibia for the aftermath. I had my Leicester City Euro Tour 1997 flag in the back of my car for the whole trip. So many times I had Motswanas, Namibians and South Africans engaging me in conversation purely because of Leicester ****ing City. My point is, we already ****ing are unique. We’re LEICESTER.
Stadt Posted 27 July 2019 Posted 27 July 2019 It annoys me when Man City are referred to as Citywhen we’re involved. I’d rather they weren’t just “City” but it’s especially bad if when you see “Maguire linked to City” as if he isn’t already at one.
Dan Posted 27 July 2019 Posted 27 July 2019 Would be embarrassing if we did that but at the same time I outright refuse to call Man City 'City' too.
Foxxed Posted 27 July 2019 Posted 27 July 2019 A man called Tom who sued to stop his name being used with other Toms would be less a Tom and more a highly offendable ****.
yorkie1999 Posted 27 July 2019 Posted 27 July 2019 No is the simple answer, much in the same way that Ali gee can’t trademark boshakala
Spudulike Posted 27 July 2019 Author Posted 27 July 2019 I thought that Leicester was a rugby club. I think that's what it says in stone set in the Welford Road stadium walls. Leicester City is an Association football club, or just City amongst ourselves. I'll call out anyone who refers to the Manchester club as City. You don't ….ing own it
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.