[Archived] Premier League Happenings

[M-K]

Btw, there was an article in Swedish media the other day that tried to put some blame on the chaos on Alex Ferguson. The article claimed that he should have addressed the urgent long-time issues with the manure squad instead of just focusing on a last title for himself. Any opinions like that in British media?

Plenty, but I think they're off the mark. Whatever issues existed within the squad, they didn't just fluke a final title win for Ferguson on goal difference with the last kick of the season. They won it with about five games to spare, and could have had a record points total if they hadn't started cruising after that. What happened to them after Ferguson retired is entirely down to Moyes.

[thenodrog]

As expected all is not rosy for Moyes; http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1754791/manchester-united-boardroom-considering-replacing-david-moyes-manager?cc=5901

Commercial interests are seen as a factor. Companies don't want to be associated with a losing team. I'd wager especially after they have forked out millions whilst being told that the Man U "brand" is ironclad.

Their debt of half a billion give or take a hundred million could sink them. Not unlike our situation is it? Dodgy foreign owners running up a huge debt, significantly weakening the squad whilst changing the entire management team from the CEO, through the team manager to his coaching staff. Effectively too many changes and all with no experienced hand on the tiller.

[DE.]

Their debt of half a billion give or take a hundred million could sink them. Not unlike our situation is it? Dodgy foreign owners running up a huge debt, significantly weakening the squad whilst changing the entire management team from the CEO, through the team manager to his coaching staff. Effectively too many changes and all with no experienced hand on the tiller.

As hilarious as that would be I can't see it happening soon. Their corporate infrastructure will take a long time to unravel, they've secured their mid-term future at least through aggressive marketing of the United "brand" over the last couple of decades. It won't last forever though, sponsors and their chinese/african supporters will desert them in droves if they drop out of the Champions League for too long and continue losing to rivals.

[Guest Norbert]

Man Utd are still worth buying at the right price too because all the commercial deals probably have a few years left, and the new owners can charge what they like and the stadium will be full if the football is OK.

[Stuart]

The debt a new owner would have to take on would be unbelievable.

Although it's funny, and maybe just desserts for him personally, I can't decide if Moyes ruining United is a good thing or bad thing.

Ignoring the obvious, it's one less powerhouse in the North West and the spoils heading to the capital each season isn't a happy thought. Guess City will have to do the business, plus if Liverpool can bring back their glory years they might be able to compete with Chelsea and Arsenal for a time.

Now if Chelsea were to struggle post Abramovich...

I wonder also how long it will be before Moyes is off learning how to shpeak Dutsch...

[Guest Norbert]

You mean he'll be Steve McClaren's assistant?

I think if Liverpool can get a few players in this summer, they might become a top 3 regular. Arsenal will fade away slowly as Wenger refuses to sign players for positions they desperately need, and Moyes will hopefully be able to work his magic.

[Stuart]

You mean he'll be Steve McClaren's assistant?

No I mean he'll be the next over-promoted failure trying to rescue his reputation.

Maybe his old pal, the other Steve, might take him on...

[Guest Norbert]

I doubt he'll fall as far as going to Singapore to meet up with his old pal. Not yet anyway.

The next D of F at Newcastle in a few years time?

Kevin Sheedy has had a go, and punctures a myth about Moyes. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2582489/Everton-coach-Kevin-Sheedy-blasts-Moyes-showing-no-clubs-youth-team.html?ico=sport%5Eheadlines

[M-K]

Hull City owner's son says he wants to change the name to distinguish the club from all the other mid-table Cities in the premier league.

He's got a point, hasn't he? The club's nickname is the Tigers anyway, so why can't they change it? Many clubs have changed names at various points in their history (Man Utd, West Ham - Wimbledon even changed their town) so I don't see why a name as dull as Hull City is suddenly sacred.

Clubs are allowed to name their stadiums after sponsors, or even after the owner himself, if he's vain enough (Reading, Wigan). They can change their colours. Is there anything wrong with changing one particularly unimaginative word in the name?

[Amo]

Man. Utd would be insane to sack Moyes now. They need stability.

[Guest Norbert]

I don't know. With all these foreign owners, who knows what crazy names they'll come up with. It'll be more like American sport with their franchises. Manchester City will be the Manchester Gladiators, Arsenal will be the North London Gunners etc. It just won't sound 'right' somehow. And once you adopt a franchise name, then you can move the club (in theory). So the Hull Tigers may become the Essex Tigers one day.

It happened with Wimbledon.

[Mike E]

Luckily for us, we've ALWAYS had a 'franchise' sounding name. I actually suspect it's a big reason the quite a few Yanks like us.

Initially, anyway. Then they discover our gorgeous kit and fantastic history in the game.

[M-K]

I don't know. With all these foreign owners, who knows what crazy names they'll come up with. It'll be more like American sport with their franchises. Manchester City will be the Manchester Gladiators, Arsenal will be the North London Gunners etc. It just won't sound 'right' somehow. And once you adopt a franchise name, then you can move the club (in theory). So the Hull Tigers may become the Essex Tigers one day.

It happened with Wimbledon.

Wimbledon moved despite not having a franchise name. Arsenal is already a very good name, so no need to change that, plus they're already internationally famous.

Anyway, franchise names aren't bad. They did it in rugby league. Imagine if American teams didn't have them - New York City, Denver City, Seattle City, San Francisco City... How rubbish does that sound?

Luckily for us, we've ALWAYS had a 'franchise' sounding name. I actually suspect it's a big reason the quite a few Yanks like us.

Rovers is another great name that not many other clubs have used. There just aren't many unique ones. Tottenham Hotspur, QPR, Orient ... I'm struggling to think of others. Celtic - that's an excellent one.

All the Cities and Towns, though - very boring. It's just a plain old description. Hull is particularly boring, because nobody knows where it is or what it's for.

I used to watch them a lot when I was a student there in the early 90s - the away end was just a few steps attached to the back wall of a supermarket, and one entire side of the ground was condemned due to asbestos contamination. It was a hole. Now that they're doing well they should be allowed to make the most of their nickname and unique kit.

[Guest Norbert]

Wimbledon moved first, yes, but how crap does the 'MK Dons' sound? Or all the one day cricket teams like Lancashire Lightening, Northamptonshire Liftshafts or whatever they're called? If you really go to town on the whole franchise naming thing, then the teams will have fewer roots and association with the fans and will move about more like the Rams in the NFL.

Football is already becoming a parody of a sport full of restless glory supporters, don't promote ideas that accelerate the process otherwise we may as well close down our club and make Gordon's dreams come true.

[rhodie]

Hull City owner's son says he wants to change the name to distinguish the club from all the other mid-table Cities in the premier league.

He's got a point, hasn't he? The club's nickname is the Tigers anyway, so why can't they change it? Many clubs have changed names at various points in their history (Man Utd, West Ham - Wimbledon even changed their town) so I don't see why a name as dull as Hull City is suddenly sacred.

Clubs are allowed to name their stadiums after sponsors, or even after the owner himself, if he's vain enough (Reading, Wigan). They can change their colours. Is there anything wrong with changing one particularly unimaginative word in the name?

Try telling that to our lot, if suddenly the word Venky`s was added to our name.

[M-K]

Try telling that to our lot, if suddenly the word Venky`s was added to our name.

Well they wouldn't do that, as Rovers is already a distinctive and marketable name. But they could change Ewood Park to Venky's Tasty Poultrydome tomorrow, if they wanted to, and the FA would not lift a finger to stop them.

I was just curious about why the FA considers 'City' to be such a significant part of the club's identity. They play in a corporate branded stadium and their fans already refer to them as the Tigers (or at least they did when I used to watch them).

[Guest Norbert]

Maybe, but it is a nickname. That change would be a bit like someone changing their name James Smith to Pingu, because that is what everyone at work calls him.

[Mike E]

Wimbledon moved despite not having a franchise name. Arsenal is already a very good name, so no need to change that, plus they're already internationally famous.

Anyway, franchise names aren't bad. They did it in rugby league. Imagine if American teams didn't have them - New York City, Denver City, Seattle City, San Francisco City... How rubbish does that sound?

Rovers is another great name that not many other clubs have used. There just aren't many unique ones. Tottenham Hotspur, QPR, Orient ... I'm struggling to think of others. Celtic - that's an excellent one.

All the Cities and Towns, though - very boring. It's just a plain old description. Hull is particularly boring, because nobody knows where it is or what it's for.

I used to watch them a lot when I was a student there in the early 90s - the away end was just a few steps attached to the back wall of a supermarket, and one entire side of the ground was condemned due to asbestos contamination. It was a hole. Now that they're doing well they should be allowed to make the most of their nickname and unique kit.

Nottingham Forest. Crystal Palace. Plymouth Argyle.

[Baz]

Well they wouldn't do that, as Rovers is already a distinctive and marketable name. But they could change Ewood Park to Venky's Tasty Poultrydome tomorrow, if they wanted to, and the FA would not lift a finger to stop them.

I was just curious about why the FA considers 'City' to be such a significant part of the club's identity. They play in a corporate branded stadium and their fans already refer to them as the Tigers (or at least they did when I used to watch them).

Im guessing the fans are wary of a slippery slope, the FA has seen the rumpus at Cardiff and maybe (hopefully) they are beginning to make a stand. Personally i think the club have handled it badly, they should have consulted the fans first with a pro/con argument for the change. These tradition should be coverable by the FA (like a asset of community value order can protect the ground), with change allowed only on the agreement of a majority of fans.

Nottingham Forest. Crystal Palace. Plymouth Argyle.

Accy Stanley, Preston North End, Burnley Dingles

[M-K]

Im guessing the fans are wary of a slippery slope, the FA has seen the rumpus at Cardiff and maybe (hopefully) they are beginning to make a stand. Personally i think the club have handled it badly, they should have consulted the fans first with a pro/con argument for the change. These tradition should be coverable by the FA (like a asset of community value order can protect the ground), with change allowed only on the agreement of a majority of fans.

Accy Stanley, Preston North End, Burnley Dingles

Burnley Dingles is a great one - they could play at the Poundland Dingledome.

Remember when Hull actually changed their strip to a kind of tiger print? They've always been the Tigers. I think if the owner wasn't an arrogant, abrasive foreigner, the fans might have gone along with it. It's a really good name.

[somersetrover]

If Mr Allam wants to buy us and change our name to be honest I would be quite happy (although that may just be an effective of The Venkys). The man bought Hull when they were in financial trouble in the bottom half of the Championship, he spent money to get them up as well as that he brought in an experienced manager, which led to promotion and now he has spent money that look as though it will keep them up and should get them to a cup final. You compare that to The Venkys who have took us from premiership mid table to Championship mid table, with various poor managerial appointments. It strikes me that Hull fans don't know how lucky they are to have Mr Allam as their owner. I do also find it rather funny when the Hull fans go on about the name being their history, but lets be honest Hull are hardly a historic club with a great history very few people outside of Britain would know who they were, they have never won a major competition and this is only the third year they have spent in the top flight. I do however think that the best solution would be for both parties to come to a compromise and for the club to be known as Hull City Tigers.

[yoda]

If Mr Allam wants to buy us and change our name to be honest I would be quite happy (although that may just be an effective of The Venkys). The man bought Hull when they were in financial trouble in the bottom half of the Championship, he spent money to get them up as well as that he brought in an experienced manager, which led to promotion and now he has spent money that look as though it will keep them up and should get them to a cup final. You compare that to The Venkys who have took us from premiership mid table to Championship mid table, with various poor managerial appointments. It strikes me that Hull fans don't know how lucky they are to have Mr Allam as their owner. I do also find it rather funny when the Hull fans go on about the name being their history, but lets be honest Hull are hardly a historic club with a great history very few people outside of Britain would know who they were, they have never won a major competition and this is only the third year they have spent in the top flight. I do however think that the best solution would be for both parties to come to a compromise and for the club to be known as Hull City Tigers.

Wash your mouth out

[thenodrog]

The debt a new owner would have to take on would be unbelievable.

Although it's funny, and maybe just desserts for him personally, I can't decide if Moyes ruining United is a good thing or bad thing.

Ignoring the obvious, it's one less powerhouse in the North West and the spoils heading to the capital each season isn't a happy thought.

Not rem the old 70's chant "what are we living for?.... to see United in division four".

Sorry but I cant rem the song that it came from...... Leonard? You there?

[Stuart]

Not rem the old 70's chant "what are we living for?.... to see United in division four".

I'm not as old as you remember.

[Mike E]

Im guessing the fans are wary of a slippery slope, the FA has seen the rumpus at Cardiff and maybe (hopefully) they are beginning to make a stand. Personally i think the club have handled it badly, they should have consulted the fans first with a pro/con argument for the change. These tradition should be coverable by the FA (like a asset of community value order can protect the ground), with change allowed only on the agreement of a majority of fans.

Accy Stanley, Preston North End, Burnley Dingles

Who are they?