The whole thing has been a PR disaster for them, if they had released that letter when the idea first raised it head they still wouldn't have got every fan on board, but there would have been a lot more fans willing to give it a go.

If I was a City fan i'd be praying that they stay up, as if they go down I can see the whole club collapsing like a pack of cards...he has massively increased the wage bill, and you can't see Tiger Beer, Tiger Airlines or whoever it is he thinks he can attract being interested in Championship football.

I don't believe he seriously expects to find the sponsorship necessary to compensate for the revenue the freehold of the stadium would had given him from companies purely interested in the Tiger brand. What sort of business targets sponsorship solely from one tiny percentage of what's available? It's like me deciding to buy a new car. I am open to all makes, models, colours etc, and just want the best deal. So instead of perusing the whole market, I just choose a Seat catalogue and pick from there.

This whole 'Tigers is essential to attract sponsors' stuff is a massive red herring.

I understand the need to generate more income, after he has ploughed so much money into the club. But I think the fans would have been more easily persuaded, if he had done this name change thing correctly and asked the fans first or done research before storming in and demanding everyone to agree with him. PR disaster!

Will the name change really make that much of a dent in the bills? What are you looking to gain on top of your current sponsorship deals?

More worrying are the figures that they have released, outside of the Prem the club could be back to pre Allam days it will only take a bad run of results

I agree.
To what end? The K.C. can't hold a bigger crowd, an extension to the stadium wouldn't really make sense. So flogging the Tiger brand far and wide may generate some passing interest, but what financial gain could be made?

The letter is just another sorry chapter in the Allam saga. They've mortgaged City to the hilt while trying to gain the freehold of the KC. They've fallen out with the council so want City removed from the club name. The sponsorship side show is just another 'move to Melton' episode. Shambolic all round.

As the actual name change of the soccer club has NO RELEVANCE to the dealings of the SMC, and therefore NO RELEVANCE to Hull FC then whay is this being discussed on here ? I agree the OP did say "slightly O/T" but this is totally O/T.

personally I think the Allams are sulky, petulant and arrogant, but again that's not an opinion of relevance to this board. I can't stand Hull Sh1tty and don't want to read about or talk about them on here

reading between the lines I think the allams are wanting a way out and in todays climate that can't be good for city, the problem lies in the stadium capacity this been the reason he wanted to buy it. I can see city playing Shorpe and co in a couple of seasons with 4000 supporters watching them, Hull is a rugby city always has and always will be. I know city fans will be slagging me off for this but I watched city vs Newcastle at weekend and wasn't bothered who won, just wanted to watch a prem team at the kc. That doesn't make me a glory supporter just curious and will continue to renew my anfield season pass, its sad when there are more Liverpool and man utd fans in this city than actual city fans. At least allam wont be trying to screw fc out of more money in a couple of years.

If someone already has registered a change to Hull Tigers I suppose Dr Allam could try something else .

Hull Sharks maybe

That's the way i see it.

Fell out with the council so to annoy them they want to remove the word CITY from the teams name.

The sort of petulent thing they do.

Still no real proof that changing to Tigers will increase revenue.

Hull will be the CITY of culture in 2017. Surely they can use that to increase sponsorship etc??

After reading this 'open letter' nothing seems to have changed and underlying in the letter is the fact that the Allams still are of the mind set 'its our way or the highway'.

They have still yet to put any evidence/projections of extra revenue streams changing the name would make compared to leaving the name as is.

Yet again this is appauling timing for PR with the fact they have one of the most important games in the clubs history at the weekend for decades that being the FA cup tie at home. Instead of pushing and using this to market Hull City to potential sponsorship for next season they bring up the arguement and bad feeling again.

It all comes back to wanting rid of the word City due to Assem Allams fall out with the council and his petulant outburst and now they are just trying to cover it up with bad PR as something else.
As a business owner myself I wouldnt be to bothered about the name of a club if I wanted to sponsor as it would be more about what coverage I can get for MY company and the financial return for my outlay. The only hope City have got to significantly increase revenue from sponsorship is to earn it by becoming a successful club on the field and being contenders for trophies and staying at the top level. Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea etc have been the most successful clubs in England because of their history and success which has earnt them the returns from their names. Man Utd in the late 70's early 80's wouldnt suddenly have found untold riches by changing the name to Manchester Reds they got it from the success they have achieved over the years and most recently under Alex Ferguson, because of that companies were prepaid to pay top dollar to be associated with the club.

This I believe all smacks of the Allams wanting out as they can not get their hands on the prime asset (The KC) to build their retail development etc as their sole reason for buying City in the first place. This wouldnt suprise me as the first stage of an exit strategy to enable them to save face by putting the blame for their selling up on the Council and the supporters (CTWD) or both.

Lets face it they should be renamed the Melton Tigers by now and playing out their own Super Stadium next season

I think your sums are ok, but I think the 7% of total income coming via the gates is to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Everton announced their financials this week for their last accounting period in which they has a RECORD turnover of £87m. Thats a club who will average 10k fans more than City will

The letter in the HDM doesn't change anything, its a polite way of saying what the old man has come out with in the past in an abrupt way.

There is no proof what so ever that changing their name will attract bigger sponsors.

Getting more OT I know, but last years premiership club finances are [url=http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-clubhere[/url

They do vary massively, and clearly city's income is not £125m.

I can't understand why Allam has seen fit to make his statement now. He's said it all before.

If he knew already that his bid had been successful, then what's the point?

Couldn't give a toss.

They can go to the wall again for me.

Snap !!! I know he runs the smc but what's this got to do with hull fc or rugby league in general ?

=#800080This, unfortunately, has a rather large bearing on =#008000this. And this latest battle has nothing to do with the name Hull Tigers and everything to do with the word 'City', the City Council, and his designs on our stadium. At the moment he seems to be losing the stadium battle, but he won't rest until he gets it or leaves Hull City. In the meantime, he will use his ownership of the SMC to put pressure on the council by eternally repeating it's a money drain and putting some of the blame on our agreement. He can make life as difficult as possible for us as he believes we are one of the council's major sticking points when it comes to the freehold.

Have you forgotten Whiteleygate? Everything he does is tactical and for a reason. I think his reasoning has backfired on this one, but that doesn't mean his motives have changed. While he remains owner of the SMC and also stadium-less, he remains a threat to us, I'm afraid, and his actions - all of them - are therefore very relevant to our club.

EXACTLY

And all his actions should be watched very closely.

It [iis[/i becoming a bit of a pain in the bum after 3 years or so. He's really not a pleasant sight to behold. But I agree, a necessary evil - watch him we must.

who?

I've believed for a good while that this guy will, in the long run, be one of the worst things that happens for sport in Hull.
I hope City do stay up, but as a Newcastle fan I must say it was an amazing experience watching that game live on Saturday, part of me thought "F**k 'em", and that's all because of their owners.
Horrible, manipulative guy who obviously believes threats, blackmail and dictatorship is how you run a sports club.

This may be a naiave question but...

Can the Council as owners of the stadium relieve SMC of the management duties and install a new management company? If yes is this an easy thing to do or does it go out to tender?
I personally don't care about him or Hull City that much. I do care about the stadium that we play in and the control he has over it. Now if he and the council do dislike each other that much why don't the council simply relieve him and the SMC of their duties.

Also have North Ferriby had the word United dropped yet? Such a common name.

For my mind his running and effect on Hull City AFC has been as effective as Gerald Ratner and his jewellery empire.

Also have North Ferriby had the word United dropped yet? Such a common name.

'"

Maybe he would be better off running ,say, North Korea?

Current [url=http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/fa_expected_to_block_hull_city_name_changereports[/url suggest the name change won't happen.

Does this mean he'll sell up? I doubt it.