The bigger plan

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Gone For A Walk said:
Sorry if I'm butting in. Here's what will happen ...

They will simply carry on.
The cost cutting will continue.
They'll continue to draw interest on their 'gift'.
The asking price will continue to be around the same.
They will believe that with their magic formula, be it the current one or a new latest one, they can be successful in L1, bringing us exciting football and play offs minimum.
They might sack McCann, but on the other hand I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if they stick with him. If they do, we can only hope that he (McCann) and Enob have learnt some harsh lessons from this season, and bring in the missing experience, steel, leadership, etc, then we might even have half a chance in L1. If they haven't learnt the lessons and don't bring in what's missing then we'll really struggle again, quite possibly even ending in anothe relegation. However, I do think it will be the former and we'll do ok (as even they can't be that stupid ... errm, or can they?).
Support will be further decimated due to the fall to L1 and the Allams still being here. The club will remain toxic.
There will be some staged media interviews where Enob will pretend to extend olive branches etc etc. but it will be mainly just more bullshit and lies as the owners just can't help themselves; that's just the way they are, arrogant twats especially Enob who actually isn't that bright - but some will fall for it.
The vast majority of fans will, rightly, continue to want the Allams out of the club so that a more positive new era can begin. It won't happen.
Click to expand...
They've had half a season to learn any lessons. They're almost as slow learning as our squad has been.
 
Tigerned said:
For gods sake. If you buy a car for 4k but you then find out it needs 2k of work after you buy it, you still only paid 4k for it not 6.
Click to expand...
Which is like buying a car for £4k then finding out there is £2k outstanding credit still to pay on it and you are responsible for settling it, so it's cost you £6k not £4k.
 
TIGERSCAVE said:
Small change to the £100 + million they could have had for the club but for deciding they wanted more at the last minute... A £50 million plus profit looks like turning into a £10's of million loss.... all handled expertly by 4 GCSE's boy...
Click to expand...
'4 GCE's' Obviously overqualified.
Asterix said:
The assets have been replaced. Albeit sold the odd Rembrandt for a charcoal sketch, but the assets have been sold and replaced.
Click to expand...
Going for a Song.... Robertson?
 
DMD said:
Here's a scenario with absolutely no basis in fact at all, but what if a person was running a business on behalf of someone else, and got it to look like it was in dire straits, so that a takeover was needed and the sale price very low?

The owner gets wind of it, and gets his mate to whisper in the ear of the wealthy, that there's an opportunity to buy the business dirt cheap, generate an add on by getting an extension approved and grant funded, with a ready made buyer in the wings that can't be involved just yet, but it's got to be done quickly to avoid other penalties.

The original person running the business is left in the cold, the owner gets his cash, and the new owner is left wondering when the buyer is going to turn up like the ginger kid in the orphanage.

All totally made up, but it's as credible as some ITK versions.
Click to expand...

And to chuck a few more logs onto your fire, it's a bit odd that the bloke you bought it off and hid the millions of extra costs that you had to cover is still your bessy friend and seen with you in directors boxes up and down the country.
 
Kempton said:
I've supported the Tigers all my life. My Dad started taking me when I was seven. Between us went to City for 125 years, but lve never seen owners who spitefully and deliberately oversaw our downfall.

Of course nobody has a magic wand. If only Adam Pearson had the money or the backing to lead us where we could go, but unfortunately he didn't. He definitely had the want to.

Anyway, no hard feelings, people should do what they think is right.
Click to expand...
I think mate probably ignorance is bliss for most to past shenanigans at the club for you and me and most of us. Ulrika has the real score on past owners And gets pissed off when it’s made out the allams are the only ones to do ****. As tho they’re the only ones ever. When it’s through our history of the last fifty years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ric Glasgow, THE EXCLUSIVE 10% and Trumpton Tiger.
  • Like
Reactions: Evington
GLP said:
Nope.
Click to expand...
Yep
Conservative group leader Councillor John Fareham spoke out after criticism of the council over its role in a mortgage deal arranged on the lease by former Hull City owner Russell Bartlett.

The latest annual accounts published by the Stadium Management Company (SMC) have detailed how Mr Bartlett set up a holding company to own the SMC, which then provided guarantees on the stadium lease to secure two loans from the Royal Bank of Scotland used to help fund his takeover of the Tigers in 2007.

Current City owner Assem Allam and his son Ehab, who are also the only directors of the SMC, claim the mortgage deal should not have been sanctioned by the city council, which owns the KC Stadium.

They face having to spend £4.5m to clear outstanding loan repayments from the deal inherited after taking over Hull City and the SMC in late 2010.

In the accounts, the Allams also claim that by failing to intervene, the council "lost control" over any future transfer of the SMC's ownership as any buyer could purchase the holding company.

Now Cllr Fareham has called for a review intothe issue.

He said: "I have been advised by our officersthere was no obligation within the lease for us to sign off anything because the loans were being secured through a responsible financial institution, namely RBS.

"While some might argue that subsequent events elsewhere showed RBS were anything but responsible, at the time it was seen to be a responsible institution as defined in the lease.

"However, I do think it is time we had afull and frank review into the SMC and the terms of the deal when it was originally set up to operate the stadium lease.

"In the past, this has been pushed into the long grass but with national newspapers now taking an interest it can no longer be viewed as a little local difficulty."

He said he would be urging a panel ofcouncillors currently examining the council's relationship with the private sector to pay special attention to the SMC deal. The 50-year lease agreement with the SMC was struck shortly before the council-funded stadium opened in 2002.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trumpton Tiger.
Chazz Rheinhold said:
Yep
Conservative group leader Councillor John Fareham spoke out after criticism of the council over its role in a mortgage deal arranged on the lease by former Hull City owner Russell Bartlett.

The latest annual accounts published by the Stadium Management Company (SMC) have detailed how Mr Bartlett set up a holding company to own the SMC, which then provided guarantees on the stadium lease to secure two loans from the Royal Bank of Scotland used to help fund his takeover of the Tigers in 2007.

Current City owner Assem Allam and his son Ehab, who are also the only directors of the SMC, claim the mortgage deal should not have been sanctioned by the city council, which owns the KC Stadium.

They face having to spend £4.5m to clear outstanding loan repayments from the deal inherited after taking over Hull City and the SMC in late 2010.

In the accounts, the Allams also claim that by failing to intervene, the council "lost control" over any future transfer of the SMC's ownership as any buyer could purchase the holding company.

Now Cllr Fareham has called for a review intothe issue.

He said: "I have been advised by our officersthere was no obligation within the lease for us to sign off anything because the loans were being secured through a responsible financial institution, namely RBS.

"While some might argue that subsequent events elsewhere showed RBS were anything but responsible, at the time it was seen to be a responsible institution as defined in the lease.

"However, I do think it is time we had afull and frank review into the SMC and the terms of the deal when it was originally set up to operate the stadium lease.

"In the past, this has been pushed into the long grass but with national newspapers now taking an interest it can no longer be viewed as a little local difficulty."

He said he would be urging a panel ofcouncillors currently examining the council's relationship with the private sector to pay special attention to the SMC deal. The 50-year lease agreement with the SMC was struck shortly before the council-funded stadium opened in 2002.
Click to expand...

Well, I don’t understand how you secure a loan against something you don’t own and will never own. Mental. It can’t be a mortgage as we know it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chazz Rheinhold
GLP said:
Well, I don’t understand how you secure a loan against something you don’t own and will never own. Mental. It can’t be a mortgage as we know it.
Click to expand...
I suppose they owned the smc which runs the stadium?!? but as I say very dodgy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back