What's new

"No one today would dream of calling their club Hotspur"

guiltyparty

Well-Known Member
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?
 

Gbspurs

Gatekeeper for debates, King of the plonkers
Jan 27, 2011
26,945
61,824
London Hotspur FC..... No ta.

However if we were in the 3rd tier and no signs of going anywhere apart from liquidation then I may think differently.
 

NP4_Yid

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2008
722
575
In 1989 if someone had said I'll pay off Newport county's debts and ensure they stay in the league, which will mean NP4_Yid won't have to spend time on the terraces of Dover, Salisbury, Worcester and Clevedon watching utter fecking dross, but, they have to change their name to Vale of Usk United.....
 

eddiebailey

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2004
7,452
6,672
Hull FC and Kingston Rovers are the only super league teams in recent times not to have adopted such unutterably naff monickers such as Wildcats, Broncos, Devils, Vikings, Rhinos, Warriors, Bulls, and yes, Tigers. It would be ironic if the city's soccer team where the first association football club to succumb to the trend.

As for Hotspur, naming the club after a Shakepearean hero strikes me as having a touch of class. If the Hull chairman wants to jazz up the imagine perhaps they could become the Hull Othellos. Or possibly more aptly the Hull Touchstones.
 

CosmicHotspur

Better a wag than a WAG
Aug 14, 2006
51,069
22,383
I'm sure most of you know where the name came from - the fiery "Harry" Hotspur and the Northumberland Dukedom estates in the Tottenham area where they had hunting grounds. The original cricket team who eventually formed our glorious football team named themselves after it.

PS: Not a Shakespearean reference, the Dukes of Northumberland and their lands around what are now the Tottenham Marshes were very real.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
Tottenham Riots? Every few years our website would get a billion hits and make us a fortune from advertising.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Can't Re Member
May 28, 2013
7,333
20,178
I'm sure most of you know where the name came from - the fiery "Harry" Hotspur and the Northumberland Dukedom estates in the Tottenham area where they had hunting grounds. The original cricket team who eventually formed our glorious football team named themselves after it.

PS: Not a Shakespearean reference, the Dukes of Northumberland and their lands around what are now the Tottenham Marshes were very real.

Yes, but it is very much a Shakespearean reference too, which would have been much better and more widely understood in 1882 than it is now.

By the way, when the club was formed there was already a London Hotspur already in existence, which also demonstrates the romantic power of the "Hotspur" reference.
 

Dennism

Well-Known Member
Dec 23, 2006
1,225
2,712
I'm sure most of you know where the name came from - the fiery "Harry" Hotspur and the Northumberland Dukedom estates in the Tottenham area where they had hunting grounds. The original cricket team who eventually formed our glorious football team named themselves after it.

PS: Not a Shakespearean reference, the Dukes of Northumberland and their lands around what are now the Tottenham Marshes were very real.
Absolutely right. Again it comes back to history and identity. If you lose that it is all futile and you might as well jack it all in and become a Cockney Red and support moneybags United. We are a football club from Tottenham and not a brand or franchise that should be altered to meet the current trend.
 
Jan 28, 2011
5,645
78,672
I'm sure most of you know where the name came from - the fiery "Harry" Hotspur and the Northumberland Dukedom estates in the Tottenham area where they had hunting grounds. The original cricket team who eventually formed our glorious football team named themselves after it.

PS: Not a Shakespearean reference, the Dukes of Northumberland and their lands around what are now the Tottenham Marshes were very real.

Harry was called 'Hotspur' by the Scots 'as a tribute to his speed in advance and readiness to attack'.

In that way, the name 'Hotspur' tells you far more about the ethos of the club than any other suffix does about any other club. We are 'Hotspur'. End of.
 

SpursManChris

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2007
5,347
2,458
Piece by Patrick Collins in the Mail (hence no link) in support of Hull chairman trying to change the club's name. Excerpt:
Why can't you post links to the mail articles?

AVB should have been forced to read Henry IV Part One.
What's the connection?

In the capital city it makes me wonder how no recognisable team ever ended up with the city in their name. Not even any amalgamations took place to form a big city team. I'm just thinking the likes of Manchester (x2), Newcastle and Liverpool. Would seem a very marketable team. It's interesting.

There is quote, "In a world full of United's, City's and Rovers, there is only One Hotspur." Who said that? And before you say it, NO, it was not you.

In a world full of United's, City's and Rovers, there is only One Hotspur.

As much as I like our unique title suffix, I don't so much like the over-use of the nickname which derives from it, especially in formal environments. I do like the formality of our title in its entirety, 'Tottenham Hotspur.' Even the PremierLeague.com homepage league table lists us as "Spurs" and we're the only team who's
nickname is used. I don't see "Red Devils" or "Saints" or "Reds" (That's Liverpool right?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

topper

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2008
3,806
16,254
Hull FC and Kingston Rovers are the only super league teams in recent times not to have adopted such unutterably naff monickers such as Wildcats, Broncos, Devils, Vikings, Rhinos, Warriors, Bulls, and yes, Tigers. It would be ironic if the city's soccer team where the first association football club to succumb to the trend.

As for Hotspur, naming the club after a Shakepearean hero strikes me as having a touch of class. If the Hull chairman wants to jazz up the imagine perhaps they could become the Hull Othellos. Or possibly more aptly the Hull Touchstones.
St Helens ?
 
Top