Is a director’s premium paid on top of usual pay to compensate for additional hours? Top end overtime so to speak?
It's not a term I've heard or used before, but that may just be our business calling it something different.
Is a director’s premium paid on top of usual pay to compensate for additional hours? Top end overtime so to speak?
Why didn't they make a proper apology?
In their other lines of activity they manage to do alright as business men and people. Their charitable donations are generally well received and don't piss off the recipients. Not heard any big stories of Allam Marine falling out with their customers, competitors or workers.
It's only at Hull City where everything turns to **** and ends in a fight. There are so many things they have done which could have been sorted amicably but oh no can't be doing that.
Looks to me like it is a personal vendetta, petty, vindictive childish ****s they are.
Corporation tax is 19% and has been for a few years.Tax is 20% of profit over expenditure. You make profit you pay tax, you don't save it.
Some clubs are owned by parent companies in tax havens. There's nothing I've seen to suggest anything to do with City or the allams are registered offshore. And I'm sure if they were, it'd have been publicised by now given the scrutiny.
Pray tell what your point was as it seemed to be that non-league signings purchased for nominal sums are evidence the Allams aren't asset stripping.
Hull City's tax losses have been transferred within the group to reduce tax paid.I'll say it again, I was asking a question whether or not it was possible for one sub's losses to be transferred to offset other sub's profits. I am not speculating. I have no evidence, hence the original question. And the follow up.
Tell me, if you've been following the annual financial reports, if losses from one sub can be used to offset profits from another sub and I'll be happy.
What's the point in explaining, you won't take your blinkers of and move away from your one point that your holding onto, I'll give you a clue though...my point had nothing to do with asset stripping
Quite strange that both 'Gone for a walk' and 'Asterix' have liked this post that is essentially suggesting their argument has no basis beyond semantics over a definition.
Coherence not a particularly strong point.
Well spotted.
Having got sick and tired of reading (scanning) endless messages, I've come to the conclusion that yes, it's semantics. It does depend on your own personal interpretation of 'asset stripping'. I see 'asset stripping' as literally stripping out anything of value and not replacing it (I believe you or ano said they are not replacing which is evidently not true). Rather than literal asset stripping I see it as they are 'just' replacing at much lower cost and banking on unearthing the occasional gem a la Bowen, Maguire, Robertson, Cluclas).
Can we just agree that Ehab is an incompetent, arrogant, despicable, lying **** and then move on?
So you just rattled off player fees for the sake of it and not as evidence of anything? Fair enough then. There's no 'blinkers' there's just astonishment that there's still a section of supporters on here who think the Allams haven't systematically and substantially worsened the playing squad and pocketed a large percentage of the profits.
The Dec 27th 1965 match against Millwall (40,000 +) was the one I remember most (1-0 City). We lost 3-0 at their place the following day:24,399 was the highest home attendance around Christmas.
Last home match of the season was 11,301 which was three days after losing at home with an attendance of 14,363. The home match before that was 19,320.
You quoting from Chris Eltons book Pete ? I posted from memory.24,399 was the highest home attendance around Christmas.
Last home match of the season was 11,301 which was three days after losing at home with an attendance of 14,363. The home match before that was 19,320.
The Dec 27th 1965 match against Millwall (40,000 +) was the one I remember most (1-0 City). We lost 3-0 at their place the following day:
Waggy's goal @ B.P. :
You must log in or register to see images
Not directly but there has been "management charges" charged by Allamhouse:I'm not sure there's been any directors fees, has there?
Yes. I don't have much memory.You quoting from Chris Eltons book Pete ? I posted from memory.
I gave the goal to WaggyIt was a Harry Cripps own goal. The following day we travelled down to The Den and lost 3-0 on a frozen pitch. City were told the pitch was perfect when they set off and apparently only took their normal boots, studs etc. When they got there it was frozen solid and we were slipping all over the place.
Allams dont seem to have done anything illegal. I don't think Bartlett did anything illegal either. Most claims of illegality seem to have been against the Sheffield Mafia and Duffen.So not counting that the value of the club has devalued as we drop down the leagues, have the Allams done anything wrong ( meaning illegal or dodgy) with the way they have financed the club ?
We might not agree with their methods but where do they stand against previous owners like Chapman/Blakey, Harold Needler, Christopher Needler and the Fish regime, David Lloyd, The Sheffield Mafia and the Bartlett/Duffen days ?
Instead of "asset stripping" why not call it "value stripping"?Well spotted.
Having got sick and tired of reading (scanning) endless messages, I've come to the conclusion that yes, it's semantics. It does depend on your own personal interpretation of 'asset stripping'. I see 'asset stripping' as literally stripping out anything of value and not replacing it (I believe you or ano said they are not replacing which is evidently not true). Rather than literal asset stripping I see it as they are 'just' replacing at much lower cost and banking on unearthing the occasional gem a la Bowen, Maguire, Robertson, Cluclas).
Can we just agree that Ehab is an incompetent, arrogant, despicable, lying **** and then move on?
I was sat on the running track very near the goal. Cripps just stuck out his leg and directed it into the goal.It was a Harry Cripps own goal. The following day we travelled down to The Den and lost 3-0 on a frozen pitch. City were told the pitch was perfect when they set off and apparently only took their normal boots, studs etc. When they got there it was frozen solid and we were slipping all over the place.
Allams dont seem to have done anything illegal. I don't think Bartlett did anything illegal either. Most claims of illegality seem to have been against the Sheffield Mafia and Duffen.