"We're not doing it to get the money back or to make a killing out of it. The idea is to get Hull City back in the Premier League and to stay there." Assam Allam "And these days in football, when most investments are being done through debt, to actually have a local benefactor putting that size of money into football is quite a unique situation. "It makes no business sense, it's purely a gift to the city of Hull and the community, and we are extremely grateful." - Adam Pearson The day of the takeover, the only words spoken about the money put in were "it's a gift" not a loan. If you gift somebody something, you don't take it back. If he said at the time that he's taking the debt on himself and will get the money back in time, fine.. that's being honest. No one would have a problem with that.
A lot what AA did and didn't say gets twisted to suit who's ever making the argument for or against. The 'gift' was that he saved the club from going into administration at the time. Anyone who thinks he would write out a cheque for £30m then write it off is bonkers. There is no doubt in my mind that in the beginning, he wanted to give the impression that he was gifting the club £40M.because it was a thank you for the East Riding area who had taken him in and given him the chance to make his fortune. That was certainly the impression I got. As you say he has now twisted that to say it was a loan to get the club out of the mess it was in and has spent the last few years hanging in there in order to get his money back, and at the same time earning an interest rate way above what he would get at the bank. As OLM said, many owners loan the money interest-free, but they certainly have made the most of their venture into Football.
That would be the hope, what I was saying was that they should be prepared to lose it, as money-wise, football clubs at their level are not the most lucrative investment.
He could have chosen his words better perhaps but that's not the real issue is it ? Everything went pear shaped when he met the council. That's where the real issue is. Fault on both sides, no denying that and a golden opportunity lost. Davies, Gibson, Coates have all written millions off have they ? Millions of equity ? Millions they made on the back of the club and the infrastructure ? We may have had a similar situation here if AA had of been allowed to...……...you know the answer, and no-one wants to believe it, so why are we wasting time even debating it ?
When did you last borrow £30m off the Bank ? So how would you know the terms, conditions and interest rate they would charge ? You are guessing to suit your own argument.
What do think would have happened to Allams £30m if the club had of been relegated into League 1 instead of getting promoted to the PL ? he'd have lost it. That's the gamble they take.
Don’t know about Davies, but Gibson and Coates didn’t make any money on the infrastructure. Coates paid off a load of debt the clu had run up. Of course he had more money than Allam.
Er no, bank interest rates are easily known, I just went on a bank website and for a deposit of £30m I was quoted 1.4%. Without going back to Hull City accounts, I seem to remember Allamhouse was charging 5%. I don't pluck numbers from the air to suit my point.
And that's a good point well made. The Allams are not the richest people in the area by a country mile but at least they stepped up and had a go at City. When others didn't. Similar the Needler family, who we all lambasted towards the end of their reign because they too got sick and tired of picking up all the tabs and getting all the abuse. I don't know how wealthy the three blokes are you quote but I believe they were/are life long supporters of the clubs they own. Local lads done good etc. I don't for one second believe they write as much off as is made out in the press and the fans claim. Losses in business can be off set. Cleverer people then us earn fortunes to juggle the figures to suit.
The point we are debating is whether AA gifted this £30 or £40 million in the beginning or not. Obviously he didn't, all I was saying was he gave the impression that is what he was doing, but in reality, like most things he says, he either backtracks on them or twists them round to suit the situation. I have no problem with him loaning and getting paid some interest, that's what any normal person would do, but I certainly feel gave the impression it was a gift. Per annum
The mantra of a profitable business has been there since day one. This included the statement of the gift of football, which fell away. As for your When he first looked at the club the figure was £16m and then Bartlett wanted paying off. At £32m the situation started to change and at £60m without the development opportunity there was a total change. The gift as far as I recall in October 2010 was that if enough money could have been made and the outlay recovered the football club would be gifted to the supporters.
At the time the Allams were among the 20 or so richest families/people in Yorkshire. They were - and remain to be, albeit on a reduced level - among the richest people in the area. And the Needler family didn't get abuse for the reasons you claim - it's because they were no longer interested in the club but refused to invest or sell. Christopher held on to the club for sentimental reasons but let it rot/others take the crap. Martin Fish got much worse abuse, and over a longer period, than anyone in the Needler family ever got. But with the Allams, it's not really about money. After we'd experienced the highs of 2004-2009, but then seen the price tag that came with that, I don't think there was a groundswell of opinion among City fans in 2010 for us to spend beyond our means. If Assem and Ehab had said from the off: "We've put £30m in, we're going to want that back and the club can't live beyond its means", I don't think many would have had issues with that. But from an early stage we got wildly contradictory messages from them: Pearson given an initial splurge in the January then denied the funds to but who he wanted in the summer while Rovers and Hull Ionians were given generous donations; Barmby operating on a shoestring after the Allams claiming that 'millions' would be available. Then there were the threats to move from the KC because of 'disrespect' or whatever. Then there was name change stuff. Then there was the issue with concessions. I could go on. I don't oppose the Allams because of a few silly quotes; I oppose them because of what they've done or attempted to do. There are many clubs worse off than City when it comes to financial matters, but I don't support a spreadsheet. I support a football club with a heritage, with a soul, with a fanbase I've grown to love over the years, warts an all. The Allams have sh*t all over all of that in a manner I never thought I'd see at City, and in a manner few clubs have had to endure.
Personally I don't believe that, he would have drained us dry over the next 4-5 years and got his money back
The Church of Brazilian Pastors is on the horizon! He'd certainly get a few followers in Bury if it ever came to pass...excuse the pun!
