I recently heard about us in for 2 players from Man Utd, this was when Phelan was here, again I heard this the other day with an interesting twist. 1 was a loan & 1 was a permanent signing, 2 players were mentioned regarding the permanent signing, Young & Carrick, however since this, Young has been linked to China & now with the whole change in rules in Chinese football, that might be back on. The twist is not the players but where the money is coming from. Allegedly any money spent in this window is not coming directly from the Allams pocket, it is from a potential new owner who should be buying in the summer, dependant on whether we stay up. Apparently this is the real reason Phelan was replaced, Silva was not the Allams move. Also due diligence has either been done or in progress, but the potential new owners won't officially declare until we are safe. However there are rumours going round as it is & this isn't even from anyone within Hull City, so I assume the money is showing up somewhere. If we go down the Allams won't have to pay back the money & if we stay up, that'll come off the buying price. I assume there are people "in the know", who know more than this How much of this is reality & how much is just hearsay is hard to say, but it's coming from the same person who told me about SB going, also told me about MP going before it broke, so there might be more to this than just rumours.
You cynic you! When players get within 18 months of the end of their contracts a club has to decide whether they want to renew their contract or not. If they don't think their contract will be renewed it is best to sell while they can still get a good price.
Quite possibly, but it could also explain this mortgage malarkey. Just seems too much suddenly happening not to be something more IMO.
For the outlay and the risk he took on. I also still don't get how it became more likely for us to go down after we beat Bournemouth but really not something worth going on about.
He basically bet against us staying up, by giving odds rather than taking odds, so when we beat Bournemouth we became less likely to go down. Something along those lines. I'm sure there are people who can put it better than that, but I've just woke up!
If he bet that we would go down, then the chances of us going down would have decreased with us winning, which means the agency would offer him lower cash out. I know how these things work. The reason I questioned it was because I understand it quite well.
Didn't mean to post that, It's a case of offering odds, rather than betting against us. Like on craps when laying the odds that a 7 will come, costs more on the 4&10 than on the 6&8 but you still get the same money back.
Again, I understand how it works haha, what I'm saying is if he bet on us to go down, us winning a game makes it less likely not more likely to go down. Meaning that the cash out would decrease (meaning if he cashed he'd make a loss) rather than increase.
