They can and will call him on it. The guy trying to buy Leeds is having to show that he's not only got the money now, but will have in the future, and that both are from legitimate sources. The Allams presentation will be subject to the same rules or be wide open to challenges.
I think AA knows now that the FA will vote against the name change. The FA Council is made up from many levels of football and I think most of the 'grass roots' members will base their vote on what their colleagues at East Riding County FA have said on the matter - an emphatic NO. It's one last offensive by AA but I get the impression he knows he's losing the vote, which also explains his change of stance about leaving the club when interviewed by Clark Carlisle earlier this week.
I only glanced at the picture quickly at first, and the shiny back of Allams chair made it look as if he was wearing a leather jacket Imagine Allam in biker clobber.
And why would the FA be influenced by any of that? You're right, it's bollocks, but it is not that the FA can't call him on it, but that they don't need to - it's a total red-herring.
Come on Dutch this isn't difficult. Say tiger beer are going to sponsor us, say they agree 6 million, Ehab says i will make it 5 million if you back me up and say its dependent on name change!! Great. That's over simplified but that's business, you scratch my back etc The FA are waving their knickers at potential sponsors for the FA cup as Budweiser has ****ed them off. They aren't saying let's keep the FA cup pure and sponsor free, they are desperate for cash as we are. That's the free market
If passes/ tickets go up by 50% but gates drop by a third the income will be unchanged. It could easily happen. He will have alienated himself from the fans still further and less vocal support in the stadium must be worth the loss of some points in the league table over the course of a season.
1. If their plan is find a sponsor that will only sign if the name is changed (which apparently it is) then their ****ing idiots, we're a premier league club and there's plenty of sponsors that would pay similar amounts regardless of any name change. 2. Its not up to CTWD to do their job for them, although they have made some good suggestions which would improve the match day experience and boost revenue at the same time. 3. No it doesn't, the clubs revenue from season tickets is currently around £5.5 million, assuming they can keep the same number of season ticket holders after the price increase (which they almost certainly won't) then they'd make an extra £2.75 million, that wouldn't even make a dent in the massive debts they've got us into. 4. Unfortunately most fans don't share your blind optimism and are worried that we currently have two clueless cretins running the club.
All that does is leave the huge threat of a 50% increase on the table, whilst making future ones more questionable, but possible. It should all be read in context and that context is a threat.
What sponsor i their right mind would link with Mr Allam on this now? It'd be PR suicide for them, especially when other clubs would be queuing for them. If it's just the Tiger name, they could just add it to another club. It'd be interesting to see the video of the interview to see what was actually said as opposed to how the HDM present it.
It's gotta be said, if there really is a sponsor waiting for the change, this is a PR master stroke for them. Once they're announced they'll be talked about so much they probably couldn't get more exposure with their logo plastered across Man U's shirt.
Don't worry about it. The 50% increase would only have to be absorbed for a year (or two...or three). Then he'll have enough money to expand the KC to 40,000, reduce ticket prices to £10 and then reduce season ticket prices by 50%. Alternatively, someone's stirring it to flex at the FA or sell extra fish wrapping.
Point number 3 shows what a load of bollocks this is. That isn't going to replace any lost sponsorship deals, unless they weren't very big ones.
The FA are voting on whether owners should be able to change club names against the wishes of the fans, they don't give a **** about what's written on our shirts and how much we're paid for it. Our last sponsorship deal was £1m for three years and even that was dependant on us reaching the Premier League, the next one will be better, but it's still only going to be enough per year to pay half Huddlestone's wages each year. In the grand scheme of things, shirt sponsorship will only account for about 2% of our income.
Not sure the complaint about this. He's saying if they can't get the revenue from other sources they'll have to get the revenue from tickets. Would have thought that was obvious?
