He didn't say that, as always you need to fully understand every word they say. They are not daft, petty vindictive and childish ****s they are but not daft.
The Third Meeting.
- Thread starter Chazz Rheinhold
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
He didn't say that, as always you need to fully understand every word they say. They are not daft, petty vindictive and childish ****s they are but not daft.
I suggest many of their actions show that they are in fact daft (as well as being vindictive, childish, stubborn, dictatorial, selfish, money & ego driven, .........). They've managed to kill the golden goose, destroy the legacy they could have had created, and instead of being revered in these parts they will now die detested by many thousands. That takes some doing.
They've already said that, assuming there's no buyer, they'll hand it over to a 3rd party to run.
Of course, they never go back on their word, never, ........ err ...... do they.
Sometimes you just need to sit back, do little but allow your adversary to hang himself. Geoff has achieved this.
What rope has he given them that they haven’t had before? Talking of achievements might be a tad premature.
I don’t know enough about Geoff to judge him, but, on what I read, he comes across okay. I certainly believe he is taking the Trust forward with a renewed credibility; not sure, though, if that is reflected in membership numbers.
I’m still far from convinced over the stated benefits of the dialogue created through these meetings. Time will tell.
I thought it was always common knowledge (for the ITK) that those excluded from attending the meetings were either those suspected of organising the protests, or one very outspoken and critical individual.
Who really believes the Allams are leaving the club? If they put in place a management company, it is still within their realm of influence. The next step, administration, is a different matter altogether.
I hope that Geoff, and the other good folk who want the best for the club, can change the path of the previous two meetings, but I won’t hold my breath.
I agree because of their petty vindictiveness they have killed a golden goose (Hull City) but i suppose they have had a good time of it while it lasted and will get all their money back, probably more. Most people won't know or care what has gone on at City but they will remember all the Allams charitable donations to local hospitals and the like.
It's a business that pays 100 million even if you come last out of 20 and then goes on to pay another 50 or 60 million over the next two years, plus the sponsorship deals that can be done if your in the top flight.
And yet a relegation and you're ****ed.
Those millions go to players and agents.
Swansea have been in it 8 years yet still haven't increased the capacity from 20000 and they were well run.
Most clubs survive on the largesse of the owners.
I don't think anyone has been specifically excluded. Not in this round of meetings at least.
However what Geoff is talking about is the bodies who aren't represented at the meetings because they didn't receive an invite. He means Amber Nectar, City Independent, Tigerlink, the Action for Change group and the protestors. The rules prevent the club from excluding any individual or group without good reason, but there's nothing to say which groups have to be invited, apart from the Supporters' Trust where one exists.
That how it used to be, I think now with all the extra TV money there will be a group of about 25 clubs with money and then a huge gap to the rest. In the old days when a championship club tried to buy promotion they could easily spend 50 million to win 40 (the numbers are there for example no idea on the real ones) then get relegated and broke. We were there in a very small time frame when the riches made it possible to stay in that rich group of 25. Now we have almost no chance of promotion to the premier league, the gap is to big unless a very rich sugar daddy come along.
The extra tv money is just going to go to the players.
Unless a rich businessman or oligarch is there to guarantee it you're struggling with a couple of. Exceptions.
Even Chelsea would be in **** street if the owner walked away.
I think they've taken out more in interest than Bartlett did in remuneration. £3 or £4 million a year is a pretty good return. Establishing City as a Premier League team, which was possible as shown by the examples of Bournemouth and Burnley, would have increased the sale price considerably. By the end of this season they will could spent £600 million to take us to League 1. I would say they killed the golden goose. With a bit of commonsense they could have walked away with the interest payments, the repayment of the loans and a capital gain of £100 million . Instead they have shown us how useless they are.
Bournemouth isn't a good example. Financially doped.
Burnley are a shining example. But they were debt free. We weren't when the Allams came in. That's the difference. These no way of getting that back without getting yourself further in. Something the Allams didn't want to do.
The income of £600 million doesn't include the money the Allams lent Hull City. There was no need for them to put another penny in. All they had to do was spend it wisely like Burnley have.
Roughly 11 teams in the championship didn't spend it wiseLy.
Three teams get relegated every year.
It will be interesting to see how Huddersfield fare after relegation. They were well in debt before pl with a falling attendance.
You usually quote wba, obi. Not so much now? Let's see how they do if they get relegated.