I'll stop pointing out he's dripping on about the same pointless ****e that's been answered again and again, when he stops dripping on about the same old ****e that's been answered again and again. They're not relevant at all, they're bollocks.
The answers stack up, just not in a way you like. It needs no more sorting, it's bollocks and boring. Maybe we should just give Fez his own sticky so he can keep asking the same question without ****ing up the other discussions.
The problem is that it's not only fez that's interested in seeing the minutes, and until they're publicised the issue won't go away, neither will the thought that it's not only AA that has an agenda.
As I've already stated on here, half the minutes relate to the financial situation at the club and the involvement of specific members of the Allam family. We always agreed with AA that it was inappropriate for this sort of personal information to be made public and when this has been mentioned in the past, most people seem to understand that. That being the case, are those who are complaining about the minutes not being released really going to be any happier with only half of them being released?
If people want to know what's in the minutes why not direct a question to the committee via the CTWD website or even the club? The guys on here have repeatedly explained why they've not been released. If you're not happy move on & ask others. As it appears the minutes are the be all & end all to some I'm surprised they didn't attend the public meeting & ask the committee directly.
Tbh yes. I'm a CTWD supporter/member, but we were promised the minutes before and after the meeting, and really I just want as much information as possible.
We looked at that, but with the requested redactions made, the minutes made little sense and were not an accurate representation of the meeting.
Just getting back to the original topic for a moment, the joint statement that the OSC didn't feel they could sign up to, stated the following... Assem Allam is perhaps the finest owner City has had - and should be a Hull hero if it wasn't for this current proposal. Supporters would listen to a name change proposal backed by evidence - but that is not yet the case. There are plenty of ways City could raise more income while keeping the name. Given the choice, fans would rather retain the current name.
So Stuart you say Pearson wouldn't have left (isn't that what Leicester fans would have said before he left them), and secondly that isn't answering the question as you don't know he would have stayed. Unless you happen to know Nigel. And secondly, you haven't stated where this additional money Pearson would have had would come from - and unless you know of a different business model (which no other club owner knows about) how are the board made up of fans going to run a club debt free - which you are having a go at Allam about because we owe him X amount
OLM - sorry for 2 posts almost one after the other. But where would this money come from - if you can show us and the FA where the revenue will come from then they are surely likely to listen to you on two fronts, "the majority of fans support keeping the name" and "if we keep the name, we can get money from here, here and here". But to say a statement without any supporting evidence is as bad as the campaign group members saying Allam hasn't got a business plan to show the extra money if we change names (as a business man - he will have a plan)
He has no plan, we sat in a room with him for three hours and the only thing he claimed in support of this change was that short names are more successful. That was literally the only thing he could come up with, he even said that Man United were so successful because they dropped FC from their name and that's why the Glaziers bought them. We pointed out that Man United had reinstated the FC now and he said that was because they had now got the revenue they needed. The fact that it was the people who bought the company that reinstated the FC and the fact that he Glaziers had cost the club way more than they'd put in, went completely over his head. It is obviously far easier to increase revenue from the local community, than it is from Asia or the US, yet instead of attempting to do this, AA seems intent on upsetting his existing customer base. The easiest way to increase revenue, is to develop the ground, both by increasing it's capacity and by having other activities on the site, but this involves talking to the council, which AA has said he will never do. We also need to get in a proper marketing company to handle our sponsorship deals, which are currently at League One level. The same applies with the club shop, which though only a smaller revenue driver, is barely League One standard at the moment. All of these are proven to increase revenue, unlike changing your name to attract some mythical beings in Asia, which nobody with any sense believes is going to work.
I accept that we have never done well on shirt sponsorship - but doesn't the big names wanting to sponsor us or any promoted team come after several seasons in the PL, does anyone have the figures for say Crystal Palace's deal for this season (as a comparable club in terms of just having got promoted). Also how long would it take to expand the ground and are there the supporters to fill these extra seats week in, week out.
Palace got £750k for this season, we got £1m for the past three seasons(and even that was dependant on one of them being in the Premier League), other deals for similar clubs are Southampton £1m, Norwich City £1m, West Brom £1.5m, Swansea £2m, West Ham £3m and Stoke City £3m. With this seasons increased revenues and expose, no Premier League club should be getting less than £1m a year from their shirt sponsor.
Yes but they all live in China, India & Thailand. He's planning on setting up Ryan Air specials & flying them into Kirmington every other week Obviously to expand the the ground he'd have to speak to the owners but his excellent business acumen will not stretch to this. Meanwhile our debts continue to rise.
isn't increasing attendences a long-term thing, we need to be in the PL for x number of seasons to get youngster supporting us rather than the big 6 - who would then take a parent (as how many parents will allow a 6 year old to go to the ground alone), and other methods (which off the top of my head I can't think of) which should have been started years ago. Notice OLM's figures have Norwich on the same figure as us - which considering they have been in the PL longer is shocking, or is it the unfashionable teams who find it harder to get large sponsors deal, Swansea must be due to European football proving to some extent it is success on the field which we need to increase it more than maybe a better marketing team
All the figures are for this seasons sponsorship deals, apart from ours(which is three years sponsorship), Norwich's is way higher than ours.
Sir Cheshire Ben - aren't there things called overseas students, and I am led to believe Hull is home to quite a lot from the Far East - so technically we already have them over here
