Hull City have formally lodged their appeal with the English Football League against the punishment of a three-window transfer fee restriction. Having compiled their evidence, lawyers have officially submitted the appeal to the EFL, with sources indicating the club's belief their appeal will be successful has grown even stronger in recent days having seen the evidence laid out. While City have now been placed in and come out of two transfer embargos in the last week, the club remain under a restriction which prevents them from paying a transfer fee for any player. That rule applies whether making a permanent signing or for a loan signing needing a fee as many now do, with the punishment handed out because of a failure to pay outstanding money for the Louie Barry loan agreement. The remaining money, thought to be around £600,000 of the £1m agreement, was paid to Aston Villa last week in order to lift a first transfer embargo. A debt has also been settled with Manchester City for Finn Burns' loan move last season, with monies owed for that seeing a second transfer embargo very briefly being placed against the club - so brief it had no time to be officially announced. Now, sources have told Hull Live that there are no further outstanding payments that have been missed or are owed that won't be paid this month, with the club adamant there is no reason why they should have another embargo placed against them. City owner Acun Ilicali has come out and made public in a letter to supporters that he will personally underwrite money owed to a number of suppliers who have not been paid. He said: "With regards to payments to suppliers, unfortunately, the club experienced a cash flow issue when it didn’t receive a £1.5m payment for a player which was intended to clear invoices from suppliers. I will cover this shortfall until we receive the funds we are owed and our team are in communication with all suppliers to rectify any outstanding issues as soon as possible." With a promise to suppliers to settle debts, the club are confident they can stay out of the press in the coming weeks regarding missed payments, however despite talk of matters being addressed to solve outstanding issues, concern will remain about the level of debt, despite the owner's protestations that he will cover it all and there are no issues.
Have scammers taken City for loads of dosh over the transfer of a Nigerian star player? Nothing would surprise me.
The supplier issue bothers me more than the transfer machinations. If local companies are steering clear of us it’s embarrassing. I live in hope it’s not as bad as being made out.
That keeps getting brought up as an example of bad ownership and a lot of people are saying that now, but back at the time those same people were saying it’s fine, we’ve got loads of money, it’s not that expensive, it won’t cost Rosey his job etc. along with the vast majority of supporters. From memory there was only one or two of us questioning that January’s business and we became the OG bed wetters. In my opinion, the former group are the bed wetters.
In all fairness Villa being supposedly friends with Acun should be jumping up and down to help him after the club has paid £1 million for 4 appearances from Barry and the rest injured, they should at least say have Barry on loan free for what would have been the remainder of the loan if he had played.
Maybe Acun's took it literally and 'genuinely' believed that the free away travel meant he didn't have to pay either?
Slightly aside of the main point , it’s strange how Mcburnie etc have not rushed to sign for anyone else have they ? So no matter how fast the fans want a club to sign players or how slow the club is it all comes down to the players available and their plans .
In a nutshell, Hull City have now paid for players they had on loan last season and have made a promise to settle debts to local suppliers which should have been paid weeks if not months ago, and we still cannot pay a fee to sign a player. What a ****ing ****show.
As I understand it there were late payments for things relating to the MKM’s grass midway through the season which caused the pitch to deteriorate when the product needed to keep it going were not ordered. When it became a major topic of conversation (think Ruben even mentioned it?) Acun then had to cough up even more to get it sorted.
Seems to be a lot about running a football club that gets misunderstood. Perhaps they should employ someone who does understand how a 'professional' football club is ran in England? Might help. Since Kesler left who actually has been acting as CEO at the club? I suggest no-one. Because it seems that everything has been left to drift, invoices shoved to the back of the 'things to do' pile. And the club has been drifting like a ship without a rudder into a great big pile of jagged rocks, at low tide..
Not sure if 'sources' (hello, Acun) thought that HDM article would reassure, but ... "sources have told Hull Live that there are no further outstanding payments that have been missed or are owed that won't be paid this month" In other words, there are more outstanding payments, but we'll pay them this month. Sounds possible we might have breached the rules in other cases. "With regards to payments to suppliers, unfortunately, the club experienced a cash flow issue when it didn’t receive a £1.5m payment for a player which was intended to clear invoices from suppliers. I will cover this shortfall until we receive the funds we are owed and our team are in communication with all suppliers to rectify any outstanding issues as soon as possible." Confirming we do owe money to suppliers, and we haven't done anything about from make some vague promises which I doubt will satisfy small companies owed money.
Ironically posted right after I'd ended my post with "We are going round in circles so let's leave it there and see what comes."!! You ask nicely to be fair, but just to clarify, I'll keep posting my opinions as much as I want to thanks. Maybe if the other main protagonists didn't keep repeating their same stuff then I wouldn't need to keep responding. Good posts by JohnFA #1542 & 1544, and Pork (!) 1532 btw. Summarises it well. I do though agree with Phinius #1557 and that's what I was already going to do. Let's see if others do.
Fair question. Think it's been asked before, but can't remember it being answered. Who actually has the role of day to day 'running' of the club?