Tyger! Tyger!

Discussion of footy that ISN'T centred around Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

Post Reply
User avatar
grytters
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:45 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Sheffield

Tyger! Tyger!

Post by grytters » Tue Apr 08, 2014 12:40 pm

http://www.hullcitytigers.com/news/arti ... 74110.aspx

Following the recent ballot of season card holders, the club can confirm the majority of votes cast are in favour of Hull Tigers with the Allam Family continuing to lead the club.




2,565: Yes to Hull Tigers with the Allam Family continuing to lead the club;
792: I am not too concerned and will continue to support the club either way
9,159: Number of season card holders who did not vote
2,517: No to Hull Tigers
Er, no. With 5,874 votes cast, 2,565 isn't a "majority" of them. It's 43%. To get a majority of votes cast you need over 50%. In this case - over 2,937.
Bring Back the Quarters

lo36789
Posts: 10931
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tyger! Tyger!

Post by lo36789 » Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:49 pm

grytters wrote:http://www.hullcitytigers.com/news/arti ... 74110.aspx
Following the recent ballot of season card holders, the club can confirm the majority of votes cast are in favour of Hull Tigers with the Allam Family continuing to lead the club.




2,565: Yes to Hull Tigers with the Allam Family continuing to lead the club;
792: I am not too concerned and will continue to support the club either way
9,159: Number of season card holders who did not vote
2,517: No to Hull Tigers
Er, no. With 5,874 votes cast, 2,565 isn't a "majority" of them. It's 43%. To get a majority of votes cast you need over 50%. In this case - over 2,937.
Think you are getting caught up a technicality.

The "I am not too concerned" is basically a non-vote. Have you ever seen a "I'm not bothered" box on a voting card?

It is 2,565 plays 2,517. Shame on the 9,159 and the 792 for that matter.

User avatar
TSQuaker
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tyger! Tyger!

Post by TSQuaker » Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:12 pm

I was under the impression that the point of the ballot was to find out the fans view of a name change?

The options that the Hull fans were given certainly don't reflect this.
Northern League Champions 2013

lo36789
Posts: 10931
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tyger! Tyger!

Post by lo36789 » Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:17 pm

TSQuaker wrote:I was under the impression that the point of the ballot was to find out the fans view of a name change?

The options that the Hull fans were given certainly don't reflect this.
It doesn't remind me of some of the earlier expectations of the scottish referendum vote.

They did stick in the 'Allam family continue to lead the club'.

User avatar
TSQuaker
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tyger! Tyger!

Post by TSQuaker » Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:35 pm

I don't really think the FA will reverse their decision anyway.
Northern League Champions 2013

User avatar
grytters
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:45 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Sheffield

Re: Tyger! Tyger!

Post by grytters » Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:59 pm

TSQuaker wrote:I don't really think the FA will reverse their decision anyway.

Indeed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26960502
Hull City's proposed name change to Hull Tigers has been rejected by the Football Association Council.

The Council's decision - carried by a 63.5% vote of its members - followed the recommendation of the governing body's membership committee.
Bring Back the Quarters

User avatar
TSQuaker
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tyger! Tyger!

Post by TSQuaker » Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:10 pm

I wonder where this leaves them now? I know Allam threatened to walk away if his plan was rejected, but I'd be very surprised if he followed through with his threat.
Northern League Champions 2013

User avatar
grytters
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:45 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Sheffield

Re: Tyger! Tyger!

Post by grytters » Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:26 am

Back next year to try again?

(He should have suggested Hull Tigers 1904. They'd've waived that one straight through.)
Bring Back the Quarters

al_quaker
Posts: 5942
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Tyger! Tyger!

Post by al_quaker » Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:24 am

grytters wrote:Back next year to try again?

(He should have suggested Hull Tigers 1904. They'd've waived that one straight through.)
Indeed. I'm glad the FA rejected Hull's name change, and I understand the circumstances are different, but the FA reject Hull's name change, yet enforce one on us :roll:

joejaques
Posts: 3057
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:36 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Milford Haven

Re: Tyger! Tyger!

Post by joejaques » Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:04 am

al_quaker wrote:
grytters wrote:Back next year to try again?

(He should have suggested Hull Tigers 1904. They'd've waived that one straight through.)
Indeed. I'm glad the FA rejected Hull's name change, and I understand the circumstances are different, but the FA reject Hull's name change, yet enforce one on us :roll:
Did you really expect logic and/or consistency from the FA? :roll:
Image

Post Reply