You’re a ****ing idiot who should review your own logic regarding what you write before you slate others for having an opinion. I am not for the change but you’re stupid language does not help the cause.
Out of curiosity (but perhaps relevant to today's arguments), I have three questions: 1/ How much did the Allams purchase Hull City AFC for - was it £1, or £10?; 2/ Was the £40m/£50m/£60m (whatever amount) put in as a loan?; 3/ Can that loan be written off, for tax purposes, against Allam Holdings' profits (and in what circumstances, if so?)? You might be able to clue me in, Peter.
I think it's quite clear. I am saying that the fans will dislike the Allam's for what they have done just like the fans disliked Hinchcliffe who was jailed. What makes you think I am comparing the Allam's to Hinchcliffe? I was comparing the fan's view of them. Surely you can understand that? It's very clear if you read all the words and don't pick and choose.
I didn't slate somebody for having an opinion. They are welcome to have an opinion. Unfortunately they didn't bother with justifying their opinion with logic. This would cause me to not have any basis to judge what they are saying. In a similar way, your abusive language without any logic doesn't impress me. By all means use the forum to rant and rave if it makes you feel better but don't expect anybody to take you seriously.
And you know this how? The three key words in most chants are Hull, City and Tiger, re arrange for a well known club name!
Yep, fair point and apologies. Like everyone this issue is hitting a nerve however this doesn’t detract from what I believe to be a very strong, poorly worded e-mail by yourself...oh and btw...I'm not trying to impress you !
I think they bought the club for £1. I think they have put in about £60m which are loans. They would have to write the loans off to take advantage of any tax. This would mean the club wouldn't owe them anything. Realistically they would only get a tax advantage for the loans if the club went bust because otherwise HMRC would be unlikely to accept that the loans were worthless. How the Allam's have had a tax advantage is by setting off losses in The Hull City Association Football Club (Tigers) Limited against profits in other group companies - most likely Allam Marine Limited.
So - am I correct - as well as saving the club, the Allams could lose virtually nothing in either event, as losses would be offset? Their losses would be 'temporary' and would reduce with time?
If the loans are worthless they will be capital losses and could only be set against capital gains. The tax would only be 21% from 1 April 2014 so they will still be losing 79% net of any losses.
I know this is like talking to a wall but come on Peter, why use the crooks analogy at all? Using that suggests you think of them as crooks too, if you didn't mean to imply that, why not just miss out the word crooks as it clearly serves no purpose. Oh and being abusive to people who think it was a badly worded email hardly does you any favours either. Just because we think you're lumping them in with crooks doesn't make us idiots.
I teach English for a living to French businesses so I feel I can comment on the wording in the letter, especially the line you're all discussing: "The fans will look on your ownership in the same way as the crooks we had earlier" In defence of Peter, this sentence does NOT infer that the Allams are crooks. It is a future prediction of opinion based on comparision of ownership style/performance and not grounds for defamation of character. I also agree that the merchandise sales will suffer if they went ahead with this re-branding. They risk alienating local support in favour of potential far-east revenue. I don't believe they are well-consulted, it sometimes comes over as detached and out of touch with real supporters. The comments by Mr Allam about "common" are out of place, football is a working class sport & it's the way it is whether people like the Allams like it or not. With news of the PL refusing to use the name change, the Allams will not benefit from their strategy as football on TV - scores & pundits will say "Hull City". They may have to back down. They would certainly be well-advised to consult the supporters.
As someone who writes reports and documents that are scrutinised by lawyers, I also felt able to make a comment, and I stand by my interpretation of his letter. The fact there's even a debate about it means it was badly worded. Although I disagree 100% with the suggestion, he would have been better off referring to "...same way as previous self serving and despised owners we've had" I find it interesting that you choose to defend Peter's poorly written English, but then go on to focus on Dr Allam's use of the word "common" when clearly he meant common in the context of "too many", and not referring to anything working class at all. I still have a feeling that the HDM has had a hand in the way their interview was reported, and it wouldn't surprise me to discover they've worded certain parts in a way not wholly representative of the meaning, or intention. That aside, football used to be a working class sport, but it's hardly that now. Christ, working class isn't what it used to be either.
I don't think there was anything wrong with my English. If you can explain what was poorly written about it I would like to know. It's more to do with lack of comprehension in some people. I think it's quite clear that what I said was that many fans will be critical of them in ways similar to how they were critical of a previous owner who was jailed. That's sad given what the Allam's did to save the club.
