I forgot to add in my summary. Its the reason for the name change. He wants loads of money to be able to compete in Europe in 2 to 3 years time and changing the name will bring it rolling in. Have a listen to his interviews again, its all there.
No. I don't think we'll be in the Champions League or the Europa League in two or three years time unless we find a new investor with loads more money than Assem Allam. Even then 2 or 3 years may be cutting it a bit fine. Completely misjudged you, sorry.
I've listened to them. Whatever the reason, surely you can't blame an owner for wishing that the club can generate it's own money rather than going into deeper and deeper debt or relying on him.
He is a very poor communicator. He is confused and does not order his thoughts in a logical comprehensible way. Not everything he says is garbled nonsense, but some of it is off the cuff wishful thinking to be taken with a container load of salt. He seems to be serious about the name change, and baffled by the fuss. That's led him to get defensive/aggressive and compound the PR mess with his wild 'it's my toy' assertiveness. You have to read between the lines with this chap. A strange cocktail of characteristics. Didn't Paul Duffen mention Europe in 2008? He was slated by some fans for being overly ambitious.
Sticking my nose in I'd have to say you need to be careful with this fella. Attracting another owner to buy out a club with few assets wouldn't be easy. West Ham struggled to find a buyer despite their history and London base ........... it was only when the current owners were tipped off that they could get the new ground and sell off Upton Park that they were sold. Hull has a relatively inferior history, position and fan base than West Ham and, worse, don't have a ground to call their own. Businessmen are interested in hard cash first and football a distant second.
But that's the point, unless he actually owns the stadium he can't possibly do as much wrong as the likes of that twat Lloyd, as he can't padlock the gates and lock the team out.
I've forgotten how it works, but I think it's Karl Berg who offers an argument that Lloyd's actions there ultimately did us a big favour.
If you think that you've misunderstood me. I think the club should be dependant on nobody. I think Hull City Tigers or Hull Tigers is an awful name and won't bring in the money he thinks it will. Success on the pitch brings in the money from Asia and elsewhere. Its why Manchester United has paid for the Glazers to become its owners. Hull City isn't Manchester United.
Lloyd managed to separate the club from the ground. Lloyd kept the ground and those dodgy ****s from Sheffield had to pay him the rent. Lloyd was pants but he wasn't criminal pants.
No, I'm saying that the truth would/could damage all parties concerned and would be bitterly denied by all involved. The trouble is I didn't know if I should have laughed or cried when I heard what it was all about. It really is something of nothing that turned into a farce.
Remember seeing Tom Belton in Stakis playing with 25p chips when he was Chair. Though, from the brief brief I know, (uncle) Tom wasn't one of the bad eggs.
Sick of all this ****... Why doesn't someone post what happened and then all those involved can bitterly deny it afterwards.
Does appropriating monies from fans for purposes other than those advertised constitute criminality?? If not then everything poor old Francey, may he rest in peace, did to thwart Appleton was in vain!
If AA was allowed to be in a position whereby he could duplicate Lloyd's actions, would it still be seen to be doing us a favour in the present situation?
