Assem Allam's decision to change Hull City's name to Hull City Tigers has been met with predictable dismay within football.
Here's a flavour of the reaction.
Hull City Tigers? #hcafc owners done many good things but name change shows a lack of respect for fans. It's English, not American football
— Henry Winter (@henrywinter) August 9, 2013
Hull City Tigers = absolute b*llocks.
— Paddy Power (@paddypower) August 9, 2013
If he rebrands the club Hull City Tigers, I'm going to rebrand him Assem Allam A**ehole. — Dave Lee (@davelee1968) August 9, 2013
Kiss goodbye to 109 yrs of history & tradition. Owners Assem & Ehab Allam today confirm Hull City AFC will be rebranded as Hull City Tigers.
— Philip Buckingham (@PJBuckingham) August 9, 2013
It's not at all surprising, but it's thoroughly misguided.
What's rather sad is that anyone believes a pretty minor tweak could wipe out "109 years of history and tradition".
Football clubs are about more than just a name - and the irony is that many fans who are dead against superficial change remain blithely indifferent as commercialism transforms the fabric of the game beyond recognition.
What's more, opponents of teams changing their name or location more often than not cite the past, implying that football must stay rooted in some sepia-tinted bubble.
But look back in time, and you'll see this sort of thing used to happen a great deal.
Looking forward to the next match between Dial Square and Newton Heath?
Well, maybe you should be. Because if you don't want Hull to change their name, then presumably you want Woolwich Arsenal and Manchester United to return to their original monikers.
And how dare Arsenal move north of the river? No better than MK Dons.
The point is not that we should meekly accept every change administrators try to make, but that we should not just reject it unthinkingly based on a false premise.
And it's actually hard to dismiss Allam's logic that the name City is far from exclusive: "City is also associated with Leicester, Bristol, Manchester and many other clubs."
Nottingham Forest and Sheffield Wednesday take considerable pride and profile from the uniqueness of their names. They might have had them for longer, but those names didn't rise from the sea, fully-formed, like Venus. Somebody had to come up with them.
In fact, my only problem with Hull City Tigers is that it's cumbersome halfway house. Why not just Hull Tigers?
And given Allam saved Hull from administration, surely we can forgive his Tiger fetish? Had they gone out of business they would have had to re-form under a different name anyway.
Plus, as Twitter was quick to suggest, it could lead to some frankly mouthwatering new badge and retro kit opportunities.
Football is almost uniquely squeamish in its opposition to change.
Take cricket - supposedly the most traditional of English sports. That has embraced coloured kits, cheerleaders, music every time someone hits a boundary and team names like Nottinghamshire Outlaws and Gloucestershire Gladiators. It has even, in Twenty20, adopted an entirely new game format.
And guess what? It has been wildly successful, and not even the most reactionary bacon and egg tie-wearing MCC member would suggest it has threatened the very soul of cricket.
Of course there have been missteps and misjudgements (the Stanford debacle remains a particular low point for the English game).
But even if you don't like T20 (and most people do), you have the confidence that cricket, as a sport and a culture, is strong enough to withstand the grossest commercial tackiness.
Why doesn't football have the same confidence, given its seemingly limitless popularity?
If you're against modern football - like the self-explanatorily named Against Modern Football - be against it in all its forms.
But don't sigh, tut and grumble when a football team does something that's been happening for over a century, then shrug and splash out on a £50 replica shirt.
There are plenty of things wrong with the modern game. Hull adding the word 'Tigers' to their name isn't one of them.