You don't get it. The reason the price would be revealed as higher than it actually was is because it benefits both clubs. Their fans think fair enough for selling him, we got a good price. Whilst our fans think, oh the Allams are showing ambition, maybe I'll go buy a season ticket. Understand?
That bit killed me too OK, I will. [NSFW] please log in to view this image [/NSFW] PS. The 'Z' doesn't actually stand for anything. It's just something that cool cats like me add to our 'OMG' posts, to show that we're cool cats.
[SUP][/SUP] You just quoted what he said to justify your claim, I'm telling you he talks bollocks all the time, he's mad as a bag of frogs. We love him because he bunged in £50m, but he's completely bonkers, so if you're going to quote him, you've got to accept all his quotes, or non of them.
Why? Are you lot unable to change your view when new evidence shows your existing one to be wrong due to being based on misleading information?
What evidence Ricardo? The only source that I've seen that says he wasn't £2.6 is hearsay from Hull fans. Do you have a link? Otherwise we're only going to believe what your club has said and what the media has widely reported.
Does it matter? Ricardo does have evidence, he's quoted it to several of your posters already, but it really doesn't matter. We're second in the league, if we had paid £2.6m for him, we wouldn't care, we got Aluko and Quinn for **** all, so overall, we're still laughing. We think Bruce has spent less than £5m, you think he's spent more than £6m, but it really makes no difference, it is what it is. If either of us get promoted the money we've spent will mean nothing, if we don't get promoted, it will mean nothing either, as both our owners can afford it.
It obviously does matter, otherwise you (the Hull fans in general) wouldn't keep claiming otherwise! I saw something from Ricardo about your accounts. Again written by a Hull fan on an unofficial forum. Not evidence. I agree that if either/both of us go up, ALL our signings will have been worth it. Fail to go up and the bad signings look even worse.
http://www.thisishullandeastriding....tory-17838867-detail/story.html#axzz2KjjTOl00 The bit in bold is a statement of fact. The bit not in bold is an assumption made by somebody who doesn't know how transfer fees are accounted for, the reality is that all installments of any guaranteed transfer fee for Prossy would be included in the £2.3M that covered all our signings for that season. Clauses wouldn't be. The fact the reporter doesn't understand how the accounts work though isn't a good enough reason to also believe that he doesn't know how to copy a number from a page. If you take his knowledge of the emergency loan system for example he's bright enough to be able to copy the 93 day limit from the FA rulebook, but he isn't savvy enough to know that you can split the 93 days up into more than one spell. That's why he's claiming in another article there's a few weeks before clubs can sign players and have them available for the playoff final, even though if you end the first loan on 16th March (start of an international break), and start the second one on 28th March (loan deadline day) you can already accomplish it. As with all businesses though, the accounts are obtainable if you want to go and check them.
Can I make a suggestion - given that the 'price paid' for Prozzy debate has now become more tedious and boring than 'horse burgers' whether Kate Middleton is fair game for photos and absolutely anything with the name 'John Barrowman' (God I can't stand that ****) in it.. can we ALL agree that the next person AFTER THIS POST to mention, in any way, shape or form, Prozzie's price tag, has to turn their forum name to 'Teeny Weeny Peeny' until 31 December 2013?
1m so far. It does eventually get up to 2.6, depending on appearances and goals, but so far, we've only payed 1m. 2,000 posts by the way, Not by me though, by Proud, I posted the 2001th.
