October 28, 2013

Things We Think We Think #120


1. Blaming a referee for defeat is often the recourse of rubes and knaves who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge deserved defeat by a superior opponent. However… The decision by Michael Oliver to award a penalty for handball with 10 minutes remaining was utterly abhorrent. The ball did strike Elmohamady’s hand as he sought to block Vertonghen’s cross, deflecting off his thigh, but to believe he intentionally used his hand is simply absurd.

2. We’ve not had the rub of the green in successive games now. There’s every chance that City would have brought something back from Everton had Gareth Barry received a deserved red card, while Tottenham really didn’t look like scoring until Mr Oliver’s crass intervention. That’s seriously bad luck. But it’s not so long ago we were the beneficiaries, against West Ham – we acknowledged that at the time, now we have to man up and accept that the breaks can go against us as well.

3. That realisation won’t make Ahmed Elmohamady feel any better however. The Egyptian has been criticised at times this season for shirking defensive responsibilities, but that cannot be said of Sunday’s game, Elmo did exactly what you’d want him to do and fell foul of what Steve Bruce described as a “brutally unfair” decision.

4. There’s little fun in picking over the bones of defeat for morsels of positives, but there were many to be had. All but five of our starters at White Hart Lane were with us in the Championship last year, Curtis Davies was playing at that level with Birmingham and Steve Harper was a rarely used back up. Yet City matched their much fêted opponents throughout the game and were thoroughly deserving of a point.

5. Losing Allan McGregor for six weeks is undoubtedly a blow, but the Spurs game showed we have a very competent back up in Steve Harper.

6. We really could do to get some absentees back soon though. We have – according to the League table – two of the most winnable fixtures of the whole season in November, Sunderland and Crystal Palace at home. Losing manfully in trying circumstances at home is all well and good, but those are games from which points are essential.

7. Back to Tottenham on Wednesday. Steve Bruce will probably want to save weary limbs and the half-fit for the Sunderland match, and that’s understandable enough. However, the League Cup is not without importance, providing as it does our best hope of silverware and that priceless route into Europe. Please, City, don’t just chuck it away.

8. Amber Nectar has been invited to meet Dr. Allam along with representatives of other supporter groups this Friday. No agenda has been set so far, but we’re presuming it relates to the planned renaming of the club. We see this as an immensely positive step towards a conclusion of a matter that (understandably) divides support at a time when unity is needed.

9. We’ve accepted this invitation, and will of course report the outcome. We’d be interested to know what supporters would consider an acceptable compromise if both parties are willing to give ground.

10. Meanwhile, the No To Hull Tigers campaign will continue. City Till We Die  is selling scarves (they’re ace, go get one here) and took receipt of another 3,000 badges, which will once more be handed out for free at forthcoming games.

Filed under: Opinion — Amber Nectar @ 15:39

Discuss this and more in the Tiger Nation Forums


  1. Point 9. The compromise is how we have it at the moment. Faff about with the club branding but not the team name. It might not be Hull City AFC anymore but must remain Hull City.

    Comment by Bartontiger — October 28, 2013 @ 16:04

  2. Compromise: my opinion is that I don’t mind us being ‘Hull Tigers’ in Asia. I don’t mind our business name being Hull City Tigers, as long as clear lines are drawn between the business and football side of things. I would rather we retained the AFC, but it’s not something I’d get drawn into a fight over. If Dr Allam wants to lose this tag, then let him. I don’t mind the Allams redesigning the crest. As long as it isn’t designed by Stephen Hinchliffe’s nephew, I’m sure it will be fine. We are not defined by our crest, and it has been altered over the years anyway.

    What defines us is our name – Hull City – and that must remain our official name, with or without an AFC. And we must always play within Hull, or at the very least within the Hull conurbation. Any veering from these two factors will by vehemently opposed by me.

    Comment by Officer Crabtree — October 28, 2013 @ 16:05

  3. Re. compromise. IMO The team on the pitch is and always should be Hull City AFC. ‘The Tigers’ can be used for marketing as they see fit.

    Comment by Cyberiantiger — October 28, 2013 @ 17:10

  4. The compomise is…there is no compromise. Changing our name is utterly pointless from a business point of view. Pulling together and staying in the Premier league should be our single aim right now.

    Comment by Rich — October 28, 2013 @ 18:39

  5. Back to football! Really proud of the somewhat scratch team’s efforts!! No one let the side down…well done! Also the supporters were easily heard on MotD2…well done there also! MotD2 clearly showed that the ref couldn’t see where the ball hit Elmo, so as Lawro said…he guessed! To compare the WHU penalty, which WAS a foul on a player with this poor excuse for a decision is chalk and cheese!! To top off the loss of two games I see Barry has now been awarded his off side goal! Two hard won points lost by poor officials…hope it doesn’t cost long term… Somewhat concerned that we now face another night’s hard graft at Spurs with a depleted squad, and Sunderland have just been boosted by a Derby win. Feel not getting 3 pts Sat looming…hope not. It’s turning into a tough week, and really can’t imagine what Cup team SB will put out! Still…COYH!

    Comment by gjhdurham — October 28, 2013 @ 18:57

  6. Compromise??? I agree with Rich. Either changing the name of the club makes sense or it doesn’t…..in terms of throwing away what is potentially a very marketable history as an underachieving underdog made good in the biggest and most historic football league in the world I would argue that it doesn’t make sense: the majority of existing fans clearly don’t want a name change nor have I seen any compelling positive case made by the Allams or anyone else to change it.

    Comment by hovetiger — October 28, 2013 @ 19:05

  7. Re no 9. If he wants to keep the Hull Tigers name can we have safe standing next season in the East stand lower and he can put his hand in his pocket and build us an East stand upper, for the people who want to sit down. He can use the extra money he raises from the improved marketing of the club in the Far East to finance it.

    Comment by Black n Amber — October 28, 2013 @ 23:23

  8. My idea of a compromise would be you can change the company name and if you want to market ‘The Tigers’ in the Far East then be our guest, but don’t change Hull City AFC – The Tigers. I don’t see Dr. Allam caving in completely, he’ll want some concession if he’s prepared to retain Hull City. He needs to be able to save face and not look like a fool, so consulting with fans groups and then saying he’ll retain the playing name if he can market the business side in foreign markets is acceptable. I don’t want to lose AFC, I do think it is important.

    Comment by Les — October 29, 2013 @ 07:39

  9. “I don’t want to lose AFC, I do think it is important.”

    I agree that it’s important. Just given the choice, I’d take an agreement on Hull City over a continuation of the disagreements with Assem Allam continuing with Hull Tigers and the fans insisting on Hull City AFC. The hopefully temporary loss of a little-used acronym at the end of our name I could just about live with. If the Allams had just done that from the off (lopped off the AFC), with none of this other stuff, would there have been the campaign groups, badges, high level of outrage, etc…? I wouldn’t pretend to know the answer to that, but my guess is the miff level wouldn’t have gone much above ‘disgruntled’.

    Comment by Officer Crabtree — October 29, 2013 @ 10:09

  10. Whatever happens, the result needs to be clearly broadcast by the club to all media outlets around the world. The current misinformation and confusion is leading to us being named all sorts of shit names and it’s really annoying.

    Personally, I’m for no compromise. Hull City AFC is our name, there’s nowt to be gained by changing it (and it helps avoid confusion with the eggchasers), so leave it alone.

    Comment by Chunder Monkey — October 29, 2013 @ 11:05

  11. There should be no compromise on the name, you don’t surrender over 100 years of history to the current custodian. As a proud Egyptian, I doubt he would want to change his family name, he should understand that.

    He needs to improve his marketing in the UK and wordlwide, you can’t even buy City shirts in London, nevermind wordwide. We have a great name, nickname and colours and with a loyal 20k fan base in Hull, he needs that support and should build on what we have.

    Seeing what Spurs and Chelsea do re their marketing, website and products, he should concentrate on building on the brand we have, rather than messing with it.

    Comment by Bosco — October 29, 2013 @ 13:23

  12. Come back waving a piece of paper saying “peace in our time” (or for the pedants, peace of our time) and then wait until he invades Poland

    Comment by bill — October 30, 2013 @ 09:48

  13. Largely agree with Bartontiger and Officer Crabtree. The name is Hull City. Dropping the AFC, if necessary, would represent a compromise on our part and hopefully the Allams will acknowledge this.

    Interested in Rich and Hovetigers comments though. Arguing that a name change would be ‘pointless from a business point of view’ suggests that you would be in favour of a name change if benefits to the business were provable. Is this the case? Personally, I would be against a name change regardless and couldn’t really give a shit if we sell shirts in Asia.

    My fear is that the Allams would be able to ‘prove’ the financial rewards of a rebrand. What then? I suppose I’m interested to know if anybody would be in favour of a name change if it guaranteed growth of the business and the club.

    Comment by Thaiger — October 30, 2013 @ 14:03

  14. No, to be clear I am against a name change whatever the perceived business benefits. The history of the club is far more important to be thrown away at the merest hint of some “marketing opportunity”…but it just makes a mockery of the whole thing when anyone with half a football marketing brain knows we will only sell shirts in Asia in we win the Premier League or something. Or sign David Beckham. Hmmm…

    Comment by Rich — October 30, 2013 @ 16:53

  15. Snip,snip,snip…..Take off the AFC…..Next take off the City…..Now add Tigers…..What have I got?
    Answer: My own way by a stealth attack on HULL CITY AFC’s long history.

    Comment by munkeybunk — November 1, 2013 @ 14:39

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


The Hull City Supporters' Trust

Bruce Alrighty?

Tomb Rater

Kick in the Cock

March 2015:
Gus Poyet
Mark Fewings

Watch Amber Nectar on YouTube

Hull City Kits

Last Result
Palace 0-2 City
Next Match
v Liverpool (April 28)
Who's Hot
HotPaul McShane
HotDame N'Doye
HotAlex Bruce
Who's Not
CerldTom Huddlestone
CerldAllan McGregor

We Love Justin
We Love Justin

AN on Facebook
Visit us on Facebook

Powered by WordPress

As Featured on News Now

Buy shit you don't need or buy us bandwidth