City' is a lousy identity

[Houston Canary 0]

You lead sheltered lives or maybe you just don''t recall.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]Ok point taken although it does, from my perspective, border on hair splitting.

If someone mentions the Norwich City Canaries, we know what they''re talking about. I guess we''ll chalk it up to cultural differences.[/quote]

then why make the change if it is so negligible ?

[Houston Canary 0]

I''m not making the change. I''m saying it''s not worth fussing over.

[kingsway 94]

Absolutely hidious move made by someone who doesn''t understand football!

 

Heritage and history down the toilet!

 

I still cringe when I think of when some fans wanted us to sell out to foriegners!

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]I''m not making the change. I''m saying it''s not worth fussing over.[/quote]

quite a few times in fact

hmmm

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

I think it is worth pointing out that the Hull owner Assem Allam has lived in Hull since 1968. He isn''t like the Cardiff owners who have recently turned up in the last few years with one eye on rebranding the team.

He perfectly understands the ''history'' and ''heritage'' of the club, but he also understands that sport is a business. Changing the name of the club, which in reality won''t make any difference to those who live in England where everyone will continue to call them Hull City, may or may not create fans abroad, but it will certainly make Hull, a club who otherwise be fairly anonymous, stand out in Premier League listings. Hull aren''t trying to create lifelong fans, but a little more interest in the club for just one season can generate thousands of pounds.

All history has to start at some point,  I guess when ''Hotspurs'' was added to Tottenham''s name someone was probably upset - no one really thinks about it now of course.

Norwich City went on a tour of America, Man City, Tottenham and Sunderland played football on a bog in Hong Kong, Man U went to Australia, Bangkok and Japan on an arduous tour and Hull City have changed their name. These are all attempts to get a little extra cash and exposure from overseas customers. 

Personally I''d rather Norwich stay as they are, but I really can''t understand why anyone who isn''t a Hull fan is getting worked up over this. I suppose it is partly down to the tribalism of football and many people''s desire to look down their nose at other teams - the desperation many have to call another team ''tinpot''. Some of it is I suspect a desire to blame ''foreigners'' and how they are all stupid and ''don''t get football'' (as if that is something so difficult and unique British).

[Bill 1,788]

Of course there is always going to be an element of mickey taking in any story about another club. However you are missing the main point here BYG, what is the motivation behind this absurd change. A motivation I would suggest is directed towards repacking the game to a customer base who are more interested in the hype than the game itself. No great problem there if that is all it amounts to.I would suggest many on here believe that it will not end there.Tthe game will be ''tampered with so as to allow these folk to get some form of enjoyment from their interest. An enjoyment that is not met by actually watching the game itself.You only have to read the witless drivel that has slowly started to creep in on this forum to see the thin end of the wedge. One low witted simpleton was recently bleating on about who was City''s most offensive player, and there is now an odd assortment of saddos wittering on about meaningless statistics as they try to get some grasp on the game. "Oh look, trevor Norwich gained 29 yards in five throws on the left side of the pitch compared to Chelseas 23 yards gained in six throws in the first quarter of the game by left sided players ................ "As said elsewhere, this nonsense failed dismally with rugby league - which went further and not only moved to the summer but added all manner of idiotic features to pander to it''s new found audience of happy clappies. Fu ck up football and it won''t go back to what we know.

ps  I doubt anyone was upset about Hotspur being added either, as it was already their name. It was the word Tottenham that was added to the Hotspur Football Club, and that was obligatory to avoid confusion with Hotspur FC.

[Houston Canary 0]

Quite a few times, yes.

And yet the reactions keep coming in so I explain another way until all better t the paranoid understand my point of view, too.

Hmmmmmm

[Rock The Boat 1,329]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="BGGYPOS"]But isn''t "Hull City" shorter than "Hull City Tigers", or is it just me?[/quote]

 

The point is this is plainly the first step in changing the official name, after a suitable interval, to Hull Tigers.

[/quote]

I suspect he really wants to call them the "Bengal Tigers"

[Nuff Said 5,121]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Norfolk Mustard"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="BGGYPOS"]But isn''t "Hull City" shorter than "Hull City Tigers", or is it just me?[/quote]

 

The point is this is plainly the first step in changing the official name, after a suitable interval, to Hull Tigers.

[/quote]

Why not cut out that step too?...........and simply opt for ''Hull''.  #BrevityRules

[/quote]

 

Because it is not just brevity the owner is after but a name that - to him - sounds sexy and exciting. He is copying  American Football, where the teams have all these exotic animals or groups of people in their names - Dolphins, Seahawks, Falcons, Raiders, Redskins, Cowboys etc etc etc.

 

[/quote]I know you said sexy and exciting "to him" PC, but ... Dolphins?

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

Bethnal, the problem with making desperate grabs for hypothetical income from foreign markets, is that by doing this rebranding against the wishes of the local fans, they are essentially saying that the tiny fraction of foreign fans who aren''t massive gloryhunters, and for whatever reason will now choose to support Hull, are more important than the local fans who''ve supported the club through thick and thin for decades.Getting a season or two''s worth of merchandise sales from plastics is not worth alienating proper fans for imo.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Nuff Said"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Norfolk Mustard"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="BGGYPOS"]But isn''t "Hull City" shorter than "Hull City Tigers", or is it just me?[/quote]

 

The point is this is plainly the first step in changing the official name, after a suitable interval, to Hull Tigers.

[/quote]

Why not cut out that step too?...........and simply opt for ''Hull''.  #BrevityRules

[/quote]

 

Because it is not just brevity the owner is after but a name that - to him - sounds sexy and exciting. He is copying  American Football, where the teams have all these exotic animals or groups of people in their names - Dolphins, Seahawks, Falcons, Raiders, Redskins, Cowboys etc etc etc.

 

[/quote]I know you said sexy and exciting "to him" PC, but ... Dolphins?[/quote]

 

Who knows? These are deep waters...

[Captain Obvious 1]

It''s horrid because it sounds American and tacky.It''s reminiscent of NFL and has no place in English football.I can almost hear it now,"It''s The Nor-Wich Carnaries VS  The Manchester Devils for the Premier-Bowl XXII!!"With the copious use of phrases like "overtime" and "field goal" [+o(]

[Houston Canary 0]

Did you forget to take your Ritalin today, CO?

[YankeeCanary 0]

 

There is occasionally the reference made to "those dumb Americans" however, here is a little food for thought. On this side of the water there are over 120 teams in the four major sports of football, baseball, basketball and hockey. I would bet dollars to donuts ( no slight intended ) that a random survey across this country would find more people on the street over here able to identify the "nickname" with the city than would be the case in England if people were asked to identify the nickname with city just as it relates to the 92 clubs in the four football divisions. So perhaps there is something about jazzing it up that helps brand recognition. To further support that view, there are many posters on this forum who are quite familiar with American sports teams than would likely be less the case if the nickname was not present.

[Shack Attack 0]

The Premier League is so far removed from the ''heritage and tradition'' of English football that I can only imagine that the fans who get so worked up about this kind of thing walk round with their eyes shut.

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]The Premier League is so far removed from the ''heritage and tradition'' of English football that I can only imagine that the fans who get so worked up about this kind of thing walk round with their eyes shut. [/quote]Just because football is dead doesn''t mean people get sodomise the corpse

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

 

There is occasionally the reference made to "those dumb Americans" however, here is a little food for thought. On this side of the water there are over 120 teams in the four major sports of football, baseball, basketball and hockey. I would bet dollars to donuts ( no slight intended ) that a random survey across this country would find more people on the street over here able to identify the "nickname" with the city than would be the case in England if people were asked to identify the nickname with city just as it relates to the 92 clubs in the four football divisions. So perhaps there is something about jazzing it up that helps brand recognition. To further support that view, there are many posters on this forum who are quite familiar with American sports teams than would likely be less the case if the nickname was not present.

[/quote]to what end ?I''m sure most folk will also know of Albert de Slavo simply because he was nicknamed the Boston Strangler. That knowledge serves no real purpose though.Whereas Manchester United, Barcelona. Bayern Munich, Inter Milan are known world wide. Their being known has nothing to do with replacing part of the name with an idiotic ''nickname - it is about being successful in the world''s most popular sport. The latter being something the US versions of rugby league and rounders have never achieved - despite calling themselves these silly names.Rather like DLT who refered to himself as the Hairy Cornflake (no one else did) - yet didn''t stop him being seen as a tosser, irrespective of how much publicity it''s usage gave to ''brand'' Travis.

[Thorny 0]

How ever people try to jazz it up - it''s still Hull City trying to be something more than they really are. Relegation candidates the beloved Asian market love.

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

Rounders ? ! Rounders !!! [:)]

[Houston Canary 0]

City 1st, that tired comment about resenting American sports league winners being called world champs is misplaced. The very best football (American), basketball, baseball and hockey players come to the US and Canada to play in what they and everyone else knows is rthe top league in each sport.

There is no basketball team in Brazil or Greece that could compete on a regular basis in the NBA. Top foreign talent does not go to Mexico or Japan for baseball, they come from those places to play here. Likewise NFL.

The difference is we''re not embarrassed to recognize our champs as best in the world.

[Bill 1,788]

"City 1st, that tired comment...................."

what comment ?a direct quote will do

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="City1st"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

 

There is occasionally the reference made to "those dumb Americans" however, here is a little food for thought. On this side of the water there are over 120 teams in the four major sports of football, baseball, basketball and hockey. I would bet dollars to donuts ( no slight intended ) that a random survey across this country would find more people on the street over here able to identify the "nickname" with the city than would be the case in England if people were asked to identify the nickname with city just as it relates to the 92 clubs in the four football divisions. So perhaps there is something about jazzing it up that helps brand recognition. To further support that view, there are many posters on this forum who are quite familiar with American sports teams than would likely be less the case if the nickname was not present.

[/quote]

to what end ?

I''m sure most folk will also know of Albert de Slavo simply because he was nicknamed the Boston Strangler. That knowledge serves no real purpose though.

Whereas Manchester United, Barcelona. Bayern Munich, Inter Milan are known world wide. Their being known has nothing to do with replacing part of the name with an idiotic ''nickname - it is about being successful in the world''s most popular sport. The latter being something the US versions of rugby league and rounders have never achieved - despite calling themselves these silly names.

Rather like DLT who refered to himself as the Hairy Cornflake (no one else did) - yet didn''t stop him being seen as a tosser, irrespective of how much publicity it''s usage gave to ''brand'' Travis.



[/quote]

 

I have highlighted in my post where the answer exists to your question. If you think brand recognition does not have a value then perhaps you could share your views why that is the case with every global consumer product company who are wasting trillions in pursuit of the same. I''m sure they would be very grateful to you for pointing out where they are flawed in their thinking. With respect to your examples of the obvious clubs you have highlighted that, quite frankly, is fine for them but does very little for the many hundreds of other wannabee clubs who would value seeing their brand improved. Again, perhaps you have the answer for them also.

 

[Bill 1,788]

maybe you are both the same person, the drivel is the samehouston bleats on about something I never said, then next up you pop doing the much same I am perfectly aware of brand identity, I was merely asking what relevance these names had to the uk market

ps try replying to what I actually posted next time

[Thorny 0]

Houston wrote: "There is no basketball team in Brazil or Greece that could compete on a regular basis in the NBA. Top foreign talent does not go to Mexico or Japan for baseball, they come from those places to play here. Likewise NFL. "

Because most of the sports that take place in the States are only competed in the States. It''s a sport not on such a global scale as Football, Cricket, Golf, Rugby. Do you hear about the American Football World Cup outside of America? Ditto Baseball, Basketball and so on? You don''t. I''m not anti-american, far from it but sport outside of the US is far far different.

Football shouldn''t be prone to this over commercialisation where Johnny come lately who wants to own a football club suddenly decides to alter the clubs appearance for the sake of hitting the global market without considering how it came about/where it is based. Thankfully the likes of Chelsea have refrained from this, it''s still Chelsea. Ditto Man U. Why? Because they play football (I hate to say it, will wipe myself down with TPC later) not because of stupid name change.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="City1st"]maybe you are both the same person, the drivel is the same

houston bleats on about something I never said,

then next up you pop doing the much same

I am perfectly aware of brand identity,

I was merely asking what relevance these names had to the uk market





ps try replying to what I actually posted next time
[/quote]

 

Come on, City1st, wise up. Your question was, "To what end?" I answered your question before you asked it. If you had read what I posted you would not need to ask dumb questions. The relevance of branding is important all over the world. You did not mention the UK market in your first response to my post which is why I did not address it. You only brought it up to me in your last post. Does that explain it for you or do you need more help?  In any event, the UK market is a narrow perspective. The global market is where the opportunity is for building significant increase in revenue as far as football is concerned, which is why some of the ways to seek greater attention is being employed by clubs of lesser stature than the four obvious ones you mention. Whether you agree with it or not is, quite frankly, irrelevant. You are not the owner of any club that chooses to pursue innovation.

[Houston Canary 0]

Thorny, i don''t dispute football''s worldwide appeal but cricket and rugby are no more widespread than baseball, hockey and basketball.

But it doesn''t matter. The winner of the NBA and baseball World Series are the world champions. Whether they compete in international tournaments is irrelevant until other leagues have teams that could compete with the North American based ones.

There is a world baseball tournament with national teams. I don''t think the US does exceedingly well at this because we don''t have many (or any) of our top players going, and because many of the top players in the Major Leagues are foreign.

Each spring there''s a similar world hockey championship in which most of the best US and especially Canadian players are absent until their team gets mnocked out of the NHLplayoffs. These days, because of so many foreign players in the league, other top hockey countries are also handicapped by the NHL playoffs. Their domestic leagues lose their top talent to the NHL so the NHL Stanley Cup champion is the best club in the world.

I don''t know why so many people have trouble understanding this. Soccer has several top level leagues around the world, so it''s wrong for any particular league to claim a world championship, but other sports don''t have so many top leagues; just 1.

[Davo 0]

Houston and Yankee I think there is a big cultural difference here. In North America you are used to changes to your Franchises you have a history of Franchises moving or being re-branded. In the UK we don''t, history and tradition do matter to us English fans. 

They do also matter to US fans too. Look at the Winnipeg Jets in 1996 they could no longer afford to support their NHL Franchise due to the difference between the Canadian and the US dollar and rising salary costs so it moved to Phoenix. Fast forward to 2011 and the Atlanta Thrashers are struggling on and off the ice until a new group of business men come together and buy up the Franchise and move it from Atlanta to Winnipeg. Names are of course completely irrelevant but those silly sentimental Canadians decided to use the name Winnipeg Jets. History also doesn''t matter which is why the people in Winnipeg believe that Teemu Selanne''s outstanding Rookie season record of 76 belongs in Winnipeg and not Phoenix. Likewise alot of these fans believe that Brett Hull''s shirt should be retired in Winnipeg and not Phoenix.

What you don''t seem to get is that these things do matter, if not then why is there so much resistance to advertising on baseball shirts? How would people feel if the Dallas Cowboys changed their name to the Dallas Rednecks or moved to Seattle? What would happen if the Red Sox decided to play in blue?

Davo

P.S. The Stanley Cup is not something that''s classed as a World Championship by hockey fans. Even the yearly world championships aren''t classified as that. The one true world title in Ice Hockey is the Olympics where you do get all the worlds best players coming up against each other.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Davo"]Houston and Yankee I think there is a big cultural difference here. In North America you are used to changes to your Franchises you have a history of Franchises moving or being re-branded. In the UK we don''t, history and tradition do matter to us English fans. 

They do also matter to US fans too. Look at the Winnipeg Jets in 1996 they could no longer afford to support their NHL Franchise due to the difference between the Canadian and the US dollar and rising salary costs so it moved to Phoenix. Fast forward to 2011 and the Atlanta Thrashers are struggling on and off the ice until a new group of business men come together and buy up the Franchise and move it from Atlanta to Winnipeg. Names are of course completely irrelevant but those silly sentimental Canadians decided to use the name Winnipeg Jets. History also doesn''t matter which is why the people in Winnipeg believe that Teemu Selanne''s outstanding Rookie season record of 76 belongs in Winnipeg and not Phoenix. Likewise alot of these fans believe that Brett Hull''s shirt should be retired in Winnipeg and not Phoenix.

What you don''t seem to get is that these things do matter, if not then why is there so much resistance to advertising on baseball shirts? How would people feel if the Dallas Cowboys changed their name to the Dallas Rednecks or moved to Seattle? What would happen if the Red Sox decided to play in blue?

Davo

P.S. The Stanley Cup is not something that''s classed as a World Championship by hockey fans. Even the yearly world championships aren''t classified as that. The one true world title in Ice Hockey is the Olympics where you do get all the worlds best players coming up against each other.

[/quote]

 

Davo, if history matters then you need to understand that it was not Brett Hull that was associated with the Winnipeg Jets but rather, his father, Bobby Hull. I have a very thorough grasp of history ass it relates to England, Canada and the United States. With respect to your p.s., your input is rather simplistic and does not give readers a thorough understanding of the history of when the best players performed against each other.

[Houston Canary 0]

Davo, you say history does and dorsnt matter to us in the same post.

If a team''s or sport''s history is torn asunder by tweaking a name by combination ng the official with the nickname, then I''d say there isn''t much history to it.

It would make as much sense to argue that changing division members annually prevents any real history from being established, especially for the teams that bounce around.

Fussing over this relatively minor name change is overly dramatic histrionics, pardon the pun. It''s not like the name Tigers was pulled from a hat, which I actually thought was the case at the start of the thread, and why I guessed the owner was going after the Asian market. Nowi find they''ve been The Tigers for ages, the fuss seems much ado about nothing other than xenophobic resentment.

Trust me, sports history is vrry importsnt to fans here. Franchises moving creates massi e resentment towards the owners and receiving cities. And as dull as it is, fans love to compare stats of all sorts, especially for baseball.

i