walton&H060216

HOW would you react if your club announced that it was intending to change its name? Not particularly
well, I guess.
But how would you respond as chairman of said club if your local Football League side told you that
you’re not to use the name of the city you both play in, because it’s theirs?
That’s been the dilemma on the south coast in the past few weeks. Nobody is happy, and nobody is getting
anywhere fast.
Whitehawk aren’t exactly popular on the circuit, and they know it. First off, they’re bankrolled. Their fans,
although colourful, loyal and spread important messages, aren’t as great in number as they are in voice.
The money brought in on matchdays just about covers the cost of turning on the floodlights and paying
the officials, not funding a strong National League South squad.
Then there’s the ground. Infamously, the Wealdstone Raider hardly gave it a ringing endorsement. His
“what a s***hole!” bellowing was taking it a bit far, but the Enclosed Ground is somewhat rough around
the edges.
So the owners want to do something about the club’s image, and not just because of ‘that’ video which
went viral all over the world.
A few weeks ago, a name-change order was filed to the FA and Whitehawk were soon to be no more,
born from the start of 2016-17 was New Brighton City FC.
That supporters were not happy, and neither were
Brighton & Hove Albion. So much so that the Championship
club moved to block it with the FA. It could still go
legal.
Within a few days, chairman John Summers relented. A
heart-to-heart with fans on the terraces at Chelmsford
City brought a solid conclusion – the club still needed to
be rebranded to move forward, but the supporters can
pick their new name and it will, if they want it to, include
Whitehawk.
But bad news for the Seagulls…. It’s going to include the
name Brighton as well.
The majority view is that clubs shouldn’t change their
names. History is too important, and it’s tough to argue
against that, even if you aren’t a total traditionalist.
But the Whitehawk story, however it ends, does raise
another interesting subject aside from the obvious question
about if it’s ever right to antagonise your supporters.
Are Brighton right to tell Whitehawk the name of the city
they share cannot – under any circumstances – be
used?
Summers doesn’t think so. “Brighton & Hove Albion, it
seems, believe they own the brand which is frustrating,
but we’re not going away,” he told us.
“They don’t own the city, and they can’t tell us what we
can and cannot do. It’s our city too, and we’re not going
to let them tell us any different. This is our city as well as
theirs.”
Brighton may be biting off more than they can chew. What’s good enough for Manchester, Bristol, and
Sheffield should be good enough for them.
EQUALITY -
“The Ryman Football League strongly support recent FA statement that there should be a
zero tolerance approach against racism and all forms of discrimination. Accordingly any
form of discriminatory abuse whether it be based on race or ethnicity, sexual orientation,
gender, faith, age, ability or any other form of abuse will be reported to The Football Association
for action by that Association.” (Useful numbers:-The FA 0800 085 0508 / Kick it
Out 020 7253 0162)