- Sep 21, 2005
- 9,023
- 13,524
And that's why there will only be one.
Piece by Patrick Collins in the Mail (hence no link) in support of Hull chairman trying to change the club's name. Excerpt:
"Arsenal and Aston Villa, Leyton Orient and Accrington Stanley, West Bromwich Albion and Crewe Alexandra: the names flutter past like a flock of old friends. Distinctive names, evoking Saturday tea-time, BBC Radio, and the classified football results recited with the reverence of a well-loved poem.
Many of these names seem hopelessly archaic; if you were creating a football club today, you would not dream of calling it ‘Tottenham Hotspur’ or ‘Preston North End’, far less ‘Brighton and Hove Albion’. But the titles have been hallowed by custom, and football resists any attempt to modernise such ancient usage...
Now ask yourself this question: If your football club was forced to choose between adopting one of these comic-strip titles or risking the prospect of ruin, then which option should it select?"
Made me wonder, in light of takeover talks, what you'd do given the option. If, say, a name was the difference between Champions league and Europa league rather than PL survival and relegation, and we could get a big wad from a new owner if we were happy being Tottenham United?
For me, the name is above all, it is the club's identity, even more so than the stadium, and as a club who enjoys comparatively enviable success with our name already, I think we could resist. For me, the history and uniqueness of Hotspur is one of the club's strongest selling points. But would others see it that way?
Do you?
Piece by Patrick Collins in the Mail (hence no link) in support of Hull chairman trying to change the club's name. Excerpt:
"Arsenal and Aston Villa, Leyton Orient and Accrington Stanley, West Bromwich Albion and Crewe Alexandra: the names flutter past like a flock of old friends. Distinctive names, evoking Saturday tea-time, BBC Radio, and the classified football results recited with the reverence of a well-loved poem.
Many of these names seem hopelessly archaic; if you were creating a football club today, you would not dream of calling it ‘Tottenham Hotspur’ or ‘Preston North End’, far less ‘Brighton and Hove Albion’. But the titles have been hallowed by custom, and football resists any attempt to modernise such ancient usage...
Now ask yourself this question: If your football club was forced to choose between adopting one of these comic-strip titles or risking the prospect of ruin, then which option should it select?"
Made me wonder, in light of takeover talks, what you'd do given the option. If, say, a name was the difference between Champions league and Europa league rather than PL survival and relegation, and we could get a big wad from a new owner if we were happy being Tottenham United?
For me, the name is above all, it is the club's identity, even more so than the stadium, and as a club who enjoys comparatively enviable success with our name already, I think we could resist. For me, the history and uniqueness of Hotspur is one of the club's strongest selling points. But would others see it that way?
Do you?