FA rejects Hull City application to change club’s name to Hull Tigers
• Decision was recommended by FA’s Membership Committee
• FA said 69.9 per cent of council members voted against
Assem Allam, the club’s owner, is convinced that rebranding the club is the only way to bring in new investment from overseas.
The Hull City owner, Assem Allam, has failed in his latest attempt to rebrand the club Hull Tigers after the Football Association council rejected the controversial name change application for a second time.
FA council members met at St George’s Park on Saturday to consider a proposal that has caused widespread anger among Hull supporters since Allam floated the idea two years ago. As was the case in April 2014, and following on from the recommendation of a three-man panel from the FA’s membership committee, the council again voted against changing the 111-year-old name of Hull City AFC.
The decision was supported by 69.9% of the council, an increase on the 63.5% who rejected Hull’s application 15 months ago. The FA chairman, Greg Dyke, supported the name change, according to the Football Supporters Federation (FSF) whose chair, Malcolm Clarke, attended the meeting.
A statement released by the FA made no mention of Dyke’s preference but said: “The FA council has rejected Hull City’s application to change their playing name to Hull Tigers. The council’s decision – carried by a 69.9% vote of its members – came after a recommendation from the FA’s Membership Committee. The council, which is made up of representatives from across football, fully considered the recommendation in reaching its decision.”
While the vote will delight many Hull supporters there could be long-term ramifications for a club that was relegated from the Premier League last season. Allam proposed the Hull Tigers rebrand on the basis that it was in the best commercial interests of the club and the surest way of attracting overseas investment.
The businessman, who led a buy-out of the financially troubled club in 2010, has threatened to sell Hull if the name change idea was thwarted. Having challenged the FA council’s initial rejection via an independent arbitration tribunal last year, Hull cannot appeal against Saturday’s decision although the possibility of a third application has not been discounted.
“We will be taking some time away from the club to consider our options and we will make no further comment until we have come to a conclusion,” read a statement released by Hull. Dyke said: “I don’t think Hull can appeal. They could put in a new application to try to change it with better research etcetera and that might change the view, but as of now the Hull application has been rejected.”
Opposition to Hull Tigers was led by the Hull City Supporters’ Trust, who said in a statement they were delighted with the decision and wished “to record our gratitude to the FA for securing the heritage of Hull City and for listening to the supporters of the club.” It added: “This decision will also be welcomed by fans of other clubs who may be concerned that their clubs might, at some point in the future, face a similar threat.”
The trust is to table two motions at the FSF’s annual general meeting next weekend aimed at avoiding similar controversies at other clubs. If passed, the FSF will encourage the FA to tighten its rules on heritage issues “so that a football club’s playing name, badge, colours and so forth cannot be changed without proper consultation with that club’s supporters, and that a club’s media should use only those approved elements in communications and publicity”.
Guardian