Allow me to be devil's advocate for a second. The owner is investing millions, attempting to provide top flight football and maximise income for when he's no longer there to prop the club up. The council seem unwilling to allow anyone, bu them, to have the stadium. Surely the owner isn't doing as much wrong as previous people like David LLoyd etc.
That bit is far from as clear cut as that. There's a view that say even the individual Cllr that initially sparked this publicly seemingly offered an option on the stadium.
. Incapable of offering a soundbite summary, especially not one that would get universal agreement. That's different. As others have pointed out, you're starting at the end of one book in a whole series. If you want to fully understand it, it'll take more time than we've got on here, so you'll need to do the research elsewhere.
It's difficult to quantify how wrong/bad/misguided the current owner is. The key difference between him and previous ****house owners is that he has got us up into the Prem and used his wealth to facilitate that. Previous owners were also guilty of shocking PR (trying to move us to a ramshackle RL stadium without even visiting Boothferry Park - he immediately did a u-turn when he saw the quality pitch at BP), incompetent management and the rest- and they didn't put any meaningful money in, and took us down to the depths. So already he appears totally different. Just as deluded but much richer and luckier? But why dies the choice have to be 'Premier League with embarrassing name change' or nowt?
I was asking for your opinion, something you seem incapable of stating, not for a definitive solution that would please everyone. I believe you don't really understand it either because you're no more in possession of the true facts than I am. If you can't say what the problem is then you'll never get an answer. But it seems that you simply prefer to have something to pontificate about rather than truly wishing for any resolution .......... no offence meant. No bother, I'm sure someone who is capable of stating the main problems will be along soon.
smuginantibes: so you want a summary of the issues. Assem Allam bought Hull City for £1 together with about £30 million worth of debt. The £30 million was incurred getting Hull City into the Premier League and trying to keep it there by the previous owner, Russell Bartlett. The club was losing money hand over fist and faced liquidation. He saved it from liquidation and non-League football. He could have gone into administration but the costs (because of the football debts being less than the bank loans and tax due) would have been similar, plus a 10 point deduction. The quickest way to get back to Premier League football before the fair play rules kicked in was to take the hit. He had some discussions with the Council and the Liberals may have said they would sell the stadium to him. He could then have built some shops and a hotel and a sports village and increased Hull City's commercial income. Unfortunately for him the Liberals lost the election and Labour won. They organised a meeting and offered him a joint venture to develop the stadium. He said no and it got a bit nasty. Only the people in the room know what really happened. Assem Allam had £30 million to put into the development and once he'd taken his bat home he put it into the team. Hull City now owe him £66 million (although some of that may be company guarantees). His money has dried up. His main business has seen a reduction in turnover and he has said on a number of occasions he has no more money. Both Hull City Tigers and Hull Tigers sound like an American basket ball team rather than an English football club, so we are campaigning to keep our name. I think you get that bit. Some of us think that the change in name will not get us any extra revenue and we could be faced with a bill of over £100 million when he finally dies as his family may like their inheritance back and an awful name. For many of us Hull City is our inheritance, passed on from father to son and we'd like to keep it. Hope that helps.
Actually it doesn't. Allam has stated he isn't interested in the stadium now therefore no political intervention.
No you wasn't. You were asking for a summary. My opinion's on plenty of threads, as are some of the facts I know. I don't especially want an answer from you, why would I? You've made it clear you don't know what's going on.
Do you believe he isn't 'interested'? I reckon he wants to be perceived as 'angry and hurt' and hopes everyone will therefore be sympathetic and put pressure on the council to 'reach out to him'.......
Cheers Obadiah, I've no idea why your mod wants to make it a million times more complicated than that. Now I understand what the 2 problems are ....... if there are more, as he implies, then I'm sure someone will mention them. I can see that the stadium situation would piss him off if 'the council' said one thing and 'the council' are going back on that. The name change seems to be his way of provoking the council into allowing another income stream to happen, i.e. the stadium development. I'm guessing that he knows exactly how to pull the supporter's strings so that they turn on the council and put pressure on them. In other words, good old fashioned blackmail, "Unless the council stand by what I was lead to believe, I'll wind the supporters up by talking about the money drying up and changing the name." Clever bloke, if that's the case ......... seems to be working a treat.
I was asking for your opinion of the 'facts' as you see them. As you're not actually a spokesman for anyone but yourself, that's all you can offer isn't it ......... your opinion?
Unfortunately we have a council that is run by old labour shop stewards and wealth-enviers. Mutual hatred between them and the capitalist Allam.
When do you next get the chance to vote the Liberals back in and would they 'play ball'? That's supposing you do actually want a man, who's played you all along, getting his hands on the stadium.
We have had the new stadium for nigh on 11 years now. The only development of the surrounds has been a new tatters' horse grazing on the wasteground. No other new stadium has had such an abysmal record of commercial development associated with it. 100% the council's fault. Clueless at courting investment.Ministry of No. Both Labour and Libdems have been in during these years. We can't have outside companies coming in to Hull and making money!
I have to say that the council's explanation of 'keeping the land for an annual fair' is bullshit imo. How much money could that possibly bring in? Surely, only the people of Hull will attend as these fairs go around the country and don't bring in outsiders spending money in the city. Nottingham, Newcastle etc have them and it's 95% locals. It's more likely, again imo, that the council are suspicious of the intentions of the owner after the previous tribulations Hull City suffered at Boothferry. If they sell to Allam and the stadium is subsequently knocked down when he relocates the club miles away they'd be pilloried. The RL club would be a little irritated as well I'd imagine. Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, most of it's just guesswork tbh.
Itâs been an interesting conversation on this thread, but I do have some difficulty coming to terms with the generosity of some aspects of what has been said. The core discussion was/is centred on who said what regarding the future of the KC Stadium; without referring back, I would just like to add my take on the subject: Thinking back I donât recall AA saying that he would gift the KC Stadium to the people of Hull; my memory is that he referred to his gesture in making the purchase as the gift. I do not believe he has ever said he would pass on any material assets to the city. If someone can show me something where AA has made any such promises then I would be happy to revise my view of the matter. I believe folk have got a little lost in the words of AA who started his self-promotion from the word go. His original reason for stadium extension was that it would enable him to increase the level of attendance, which, in turn, would allow him to reduce the cost of tickets, making attendance more accessible (but not guaranteed). I may be wrong, but that appears to be a status quo as far as enhanced income is concerned as the club would only benefit by any increased commercial activity; certainly not something hugely significant. Again, someone please correct me if I have this wrong, but when TG gave his very detailed interview (post #25), did either AA, EA or any representative, take any of the umpteen opportunities they had to refute what TG stated? The absence of any strong defence is, for me, a serious concern as to the sincerity of the Allam family in this matter; it was also the start of this damned name-change retaliation. I am amazed that anonymous posters, on here, feel they cannot post the truth of the matter. My biggest issue is with the honesty of those who own our club; it is questionable to be generous. Our dirty linen is taking a regular tumble in national and international media; some say it is embarrassing and it is, to be sure, but it is the damage it is doing to the clubs worth as an investment that concerns me. That investment is not just the investment that seems to be the focus of those discussing building the club to self-sufficiency (pie-in-the-sky, if you ask me), but the day-to-day investment, through marketing channels, that is our very lifeblood. The credibility of AA has taken a huge hit in recent weeks and that means that Hull City AFC has also taken that hit. I have said from the outset that the campaign is necessary but futile, the name-change will happen and things will become very fraught if you are a supporter of the Tigers.
