I agree, as the history of trust would weigh heavily against it; but never say never, as it may lock doors that might be better just being shut for now.
Why does it include this in the document then ? I admit I don't understand this as well as I am sure you do but this reads like a bit of a red flag to me ...
The owners will be removing their personal liability, the club will then owe money to a bank, rather than to the Allams.
That basically says the bank have a charge on the Premier League money. The money will be paid to Hull City Tigers Limited until such time as the club defaults on the loan. If the club defaults then the monies will be paid to the bank providing all the other Premier league rules are followed. Basically the football creditors get paid out of the Premier League monies before the bank.
Okay, thanks; I tend not to get involved in these financial wranglings. Aren't the Allams the club, so responsible for its debts, whether that be Allamhouse or a bank Is it possible that rather than this being a dastardly deed against the club, it just might be Allamhouse freeing up funds for some other business venture, or one that is struggling for investment? I'm not being difficult (I hope), just a bit ignorant of the detail and curious.
Fact is, we don't know the details, there's nothing in the paperwork that says what the loan amount is. The Allams are currently responsible for all the debt, it's all owed to them personally. If all that debt is transferred to a bank, they're not personally liable for anything, the club is, they could wash their hands of it if they wished, they'd already have all their money back. It might not be anything to do with that, we might be about to buy £40m worth of players instead, we'll have to wait and see.
Not sure about all this finance stuff. But is it if we stay up the Allams repay it and carry on owning us in the PL? If we go down they walk away with whatever they have made, with the bank taking the parachute payments for the next couple of years. We get a transfer embargo and points deduction and slip downwards. The Allams say **** you this is where we found you, The fans are happy as they're gone and we start again?
It depends on how much we've borrowed and why. All we know is a bank has lent us money and got a charge on the assets including the Premier League money. The Premier League can withhold payments or use them to pay any footballing debts, such as unpaid wages and transfer fees. Its possible the bank may end up with nothing.
Which suggests they expect to get paid by Hull City Tigers Limited as per the agreed terms of the loan. It would be dumb not to get personal guarantees as well, especially as the debenture shows they are fully aware of the Premier League rules.
Owing money to a bank obviously isn't a good thing, but honestly I'll personally be happy if they've transferred the debt away from themselves. This debt is obviously what has always made them reluctant to sell. It's **** being in financial difficulty, but back in 2010 when they came in and we had no money, the stadium was still full and it was nowhere near as depressing as it has been in the last few years. It was still just as fun going to games as ever, because balance sheets are not the be all and end all. No one talked about giving it up or not enjoying it any more. We still just talked about football and enjoyed it. We had concessions and an identity and everyone got on. The very basics of what supporting a football team should be. If them shifting the debt prevents us being forever tied to them then that's a good thing for me. Not as good as if they'd just sold it to Lee or Grieve when they had the chance, but still.
You'd have thought the banks would have learned their lessons from 2007/8. If the Allams can manage to find a lender to take on most of the club debt, enabling them to repay the loans back to Allamhouse, then I doff my cap at our owners business acumen. Because if they manage to do that this club is heading one way only and that would to the courts for an admin order at some point. But I can't see that. I can't see any lender wanting to expose themselves without insisting the owners having more 'skin' in the game as it were.
Doesn't that support my point? We were talking about chants and stuff, rather than who's a **** for not going any more and who's a **** for still going and who's being forced to sit where and pay more for the privilege etc. etc And if you trudging back however many years to try and find a post of mine where I was complaining about something (there must have been something better than that surely) doesn't prove that you make a deliberate point of being contrary I don't know what does.
It is highly unlikely that they will have put a personal guarantee to this, it just isn't standard for this level of financing. The Allams would be completely against it as well, as it makes no sense for them to transfer the debt from themselves to a bank but still be responsible for this debt. Secondly, it isn't hard at all to find a bank to do this. The bank I work for would do it in a second, I am not saying whether that is right or wrong, but having underwritten similar but different deals (Not the football industry), all the bank cares about is the security.
Then I refer you back to the first sentence in my post You'd have thought the banks would have learned their lessons from 2007/8.
I didn't look for one of yours, that was just coincidental, and it made me laugh. It took about three mouse clicks rather than any trudging, because I knew there's been a long trend of posts mentioning the poor atmosphere, and some others mentioning the issues you raise on privelige etc. It's not about being contrary, simply pointing out an alternative version to yours. Your reply is actually the contrary one.
