I think you should celebrate your tradition, but not be bound to it if that prevents your progress.

If I thought rebranding Rovers as the Robins or City as the Tigers would help them advance I could get behind it, or at worst ignore it. I don't think either would though. The current names are established and popular with the core support and there are big reasons why generating revenue from outside those core supports is very difficult.
I half suspect the traditional Victorian and Edwardian names appeal to overseas fans of the PL - the fashion for americanising everything maybe belongs to the past.
If City were Champions League regulars, and there was a genuine opportunity to establish a global brand... but that is a very distant prospect!

This is were his whole argument falls down. He is unwilling to accept there is very little evidence to support his case or to present the evidence that would back up his stance.

If the local press weren't so subservient to him I think they would have pushed him much further and we would have seen his true colours much sooner.

I' don't think I'd be overly bothered by the hull robins as a name, if it was guaranteed to give us massive investment and the success that went with it. if it was a complete rebranding as hull lions for example then I'd be anti. It's where my mind was with hull tigers, it does hold an element of tradition and the badge already says that. I'd be more worried if I was a Cardiff fan and had the colours, nickname changed.
Would City fans rather be called hull city in the lower leagues or worse or the tigers in the prem league
If Hull had been rebranded as the hull airlie birds it would have probably stuck.

You might not be bothered with it but yours is a nebulous argument because your Board are too street wise to ever consider changing the name, you know that so its easy for you to say it wouldn't bother you. It would bother thousands though!!

There is little doubt that when you talk to Aussies as I did during the world Cup and during last season they talk about Leeds but not the Rhino's and about Wigan but not the Warriors and they all agree that the top two international brands in the game are St Helens and Hull KR if anything the inclusion of Warriors, Rams, Bears, Crusaders, Wildcats etc has diluted the international brand image of those Clubs that have adopted them. Rovers will never change to Robins nor should they in my opinion. However despite not seeming to recognise the newer names the visitors I spoke to always refer to Hull as Hull FC and several I spoke to even referred to Wakefield as Wakefield Trinity.

I know Tigers has always been associated with City and so despite being pretty loopy there is some credence in what Allam says his problem is that he can't prove changing the name will make a significant difference, their fans by staying sensible and lobbying in the right way (well most of them) have painted him into a corner. I think he's got a buyer who wants it called Tigers myself but that's just my views of course..

I see Steve Bruce has just confirmed he is a puppet, a mouth piece, a yes man, on Calendar and soon to be Look north

Utter joke

what did he say (don't get Calendar/Look North down here)

I think that he's just not got anybody who he'll listen to when they say he's chatting .

When you're wealthy and successful and you've had years and years of 'yes, sir', it must be difficult in a way and there's a chance you won't react well to being challenged. That single-mindedness (or stubbornness) and egotism is part of the reason these dudes get on in the world. Which is great, while they're sharp and making good choices - when they're not, then suddenly the absence of brakes is an issue.

A new owner could earn some easy popularity by leaving it as City, at least.

"men" like the "Dr" very rarely make the right decisions, I often wonder why so many old people with money start throwing it away on football clubs!

Basically Allam is the gaffer, without him there would be no club, hes the reason i'm here, he wants to change the name, but thats ok, he's the owner. He wants success etc.

This is after "i'll have a word so he understands the passion"

I think the meeting went:

Bruce: "Allam can i have a wor...."

Allam: "no, or you are sacked"

Agree with you and Susie. Almost unanimously the support nationally both in the media and amongst other clubs' fans and players is anti-name change and eminently disapproving of Allam's ridiculous - and distasteful - recent public displays. This just makes the fawning sycophancy displayed from the local media appear even more contrived than it is.

Why do they do it? Amanda White, clearly scorned by Allam on air for having the temerity to interview him as a woman, comes out the next day to say she 'liked him'. Burns comes out with the glaringly obvious claptrap that he's a 'nice man', and takes the trouble to spread the word on Allam's behalf that the council have 'offered him the stadium freehold'. This has today been dismissed as absolute rubbish by a councillor, yet our local 'free' press and certainly not 'he's a nice man' Burns still raise no criticism against 'Dr' Allam (as they prefer to, vulgarly, refer to him).

It's sick-making. But I honestly don't know what they're scared of. What can he do to them? Instead they continue to embarrassingly prostrate themselves in front of him to lick his toes despite the popular opinion of the people they independently broadcast to currently being almost universally cynical of the man and his attitudes.

You'd have thought they'd have learned after Duffen. Burns is no fool, but he's making himself look one. Again. Grow a pair, do, Humberside and the Mail.

Which councillor, and what was said, Wormy?

I didn't hear it Mrs B, but read this tonight on City Independent messageboard

It's amazing how all of a sudden the City fans can see straight through him .