Xen Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 Good. Owners shouldn't meddle in the history of clubs, especially not history that has stood for over a century. If an owner wants to make small changes that fit with their vision for the club/purpose for buying/etc (such as introducing gold to our home kit to match King Power branding) are fine - that's to be expected. But name changes? That's (in my opinion) too far..
AKCJ Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 They were never likely to say it. Assem Allam just had a "hunch" that they would be able to promote the name better abroad. He never had any real evidence.
Raj Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 We were nearly called Leicester Fosse...(think it was that)...we had to vote at half time with different coloured cards...remember!? Good this though...Power to the fans!
Jace Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 Now Hull will have to move to Milton Keynes before a name change becomes acceptable with the FA
Raj Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 We were called Leicester Fosse ... Yes yes..but in the last decade the owners at the time wanted to change from Leicester City to (im sure it was) Leicester Fosse...
Dan Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 Leicester Fosse wasn't done for marketing purposes to people who'd otherwise have zero interest in the club. It's not so much the names (although it's a dire MLS-style name either way), it's the motives that do it for me.
Kitchandro Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 We were called Leicester Fosse ... Yes but went out of business under that name. We reformed as City. After a massive 30ish years of pointless history.
Hugo Sanchez Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 Pointless ???? Hmmm don't forget your roots and all that. If it wasn't for the Fosse there wouldn't be a city.
Mack Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 The FA need to come out and make it completely plain to all these egotistic owners / potential owners that they will not tolerate whimsical changes of name / shirt colours and the disrespect of clubs fans / history / heritage. Let the **** walk out of Hull with the hump and a huge dent in his wallet.
Strokes Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 Yes but went out of business under that name. We reformed as City. After a massive 30ish years of pointless history.Rediculous.
Langston Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 I thought the club switched from Fosse to City after Leicester itself attained "city" status? I'm probably completely off, though.
Harry - LCFC Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 I have a stonk on. The fat lady hasn't sung yet, but she's clearing her throat. I imagine the various protests and petitions you set up will have been heard by the FA who may well have been influenced by them. Really pleased that they seem to be doing their bit to serve the people who really matter in football. Good luck in the next few days!
Jimothy Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 I thought the club switched from Fosse to City after Leicester itself attained "city" status? I'm probably completely off, though. City status and Fosse going busy both occurred in 1919. So it was that year but we didn't change because we got the status.
Alexikokopops Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 I have a stonk on. The fat lady hasn't sung yet, but she's clearing her throat. Sent from my GT-I9295 using Tapatalk The thing I haven't understood throughout is that Allam wants to change the bane to make it more marketable, yet one of the things that draws people into English football is the history and tradition of the clubs, of which the name is part. Surely, by changing the name, he's make it more like a sports franchise, thus removing that factor? By changing the name to make it more marketable is he not, in fact, making it less marketable?Either way, well done FA (if this is confirmed).
ruisliptiger Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 I have a stonk on. The fat lady hasn't sung yet, but she's clearing her throat. Sent from my GT-I9295 using Tapatalk
Langston Posted 17 March 2014 Posted 17 March 2014 City status and Fosse going busy both occurred in 1919. So it was that year but we didn't change because we got the status. Aha! Cheers!
Kitchandro Posted 18 March 2014 Posted 18 March 2014 Pointless ???? Hmmm don't forget your roots and all that. If it wasn't for the Fosse there wouldn't be a city. So you agree City is good? Or shall we go back too Fosse because us changing to City is so obviously the same thing as Hull changing to Tigers. Damn that owner, whoever he was, for changing our name nearly 100 years ago. He's as bad as Allam. The bastard. Rediculous. Don't you mean bluediculous?
ozleicester Posted 18 March 2014 Posted 18 March 2014 Love to be Leicester Fosse, it was an opportuntiy lost. The owners took our history away, changed our name, our colours, where we played.. everything thats bad about football! all this plastic new fangled "City" bvllshit, Id never go to the football again if my club had its name, colours and ground changed!
Harry - LCFC Posted 18 March 2014 Posted 18 March 2014 I would've liked to be Leicester Fosse. Great uniqueness about it - something we don't have enough of in my opinion.
Zingari Posted 18 March 2014 Posted 18 March 2014 Surely they can be promoted as "Hull Tigers" elsewhere in the world without changing the name officially . There's nothing stopping the owners from putting it on merchandise etc is there ?
Fox92 Posted 18 March 2014 Posted 18 March 2014 Yeah, good to hear. Never a fan of someone walking in then deciding to change the name of the club. Sounds like some shite MLS name anyway.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.